1899
Cathy, do the math.
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1899 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
11471 readers
7 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Use the drop-down bar ya bafoon.
This is what I mean by your expectations that someone else provide you a one on one personal education. I gave you links to the most informative websites on unionization and you can't be bothered to look past the first page you're provided.
Dumb.
https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Res20.pdf
You claimed it was on the page you linked. You lied. Or more likely, you didn't know because you didn't read it either, because you just grabbed a random link so that you could claim to have "provided sources" for the purpose of trolling.
Please provide any source, from them, or anywhere else, supporting your absurd claim that college education discourages union membership.
It's on the aflcio website as well as the NLRB, I'm sorry if I provided you more information than you wanted at the expense of having to actually read something. Sorry, next time I'll see if there's a "for dummies" version or perhaps a sing along.
I didn't say anything discouraged anything, I said higher education jobs tend to not be union jobs. You know, read or something every once in awhile.
That's not the claim that's in dispute. The claim was that higher education people are more likely to be in unions.
No, people with higher education tend to end up in career paths that aren't commonly unionized, regulated yes. Unionized no.
You should read what you say or say less crazy shit.
Compared to people without higher educations, yes, they are more likely to end up in a union. Most career paths, whether they require a degree or not, are not unionized.
Why don't you call Nina Turner, she'll tell you I'm right and you're full of shit. Might be more polite about it.
What's not what you asked.
Aren't people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don't want to hire "overqualified" people is because they're afraid of unionization.
The answer is no. You're now adding context and nuance that did not appear in your original question.
I have no reason to be tolerant of the intolerant or willfully ignorant like yourself, cry somewhere else or at least be quieter about it.
Then provide literally any single source that actually says that.
I'm not your teacher, you have three immense resources, use them. Show us that you can inform yourself instead of taking positions based on ignorance only to obstinately defend them with more ignorance.
I'll take your inability to provide the information (which you claim is trivially easy to find) as further confirmation of my position.
It's hilarious for you to accuse me of "obstinate" or "ignorance." You've provided zero evidence of anything you've claimed and randomly choose to start fighting and insulting me for literally no reason except that I have an .ml in my username.
I've provided it several times at this point which you've actually admitted multiple times at this point, stop with the crybaby affectation.
No you haven't. What you've done is provide random links that don't provide the relevant information and lied claiming that they do, repeatedly.
No, I definitely haven't. I've been abundantly clear, extremely consistently, that you're lying and that the links don't contain the relevant evidence.
At no point have I exhibited a "crybaby affectation." What I've done is correctly called you out for being a liar and a troll, while you lob a bunch of random, baseless accusations out of completely unnecessary hostility provoked entirely by the fact that you have a grudge against my instance.
They are random because they don't contain any of the relevant information you've claimed they do. They are tangentially related to what we're discussing.
Here's the IWW website: https://www.iww.org/
See how linking that had fuck all to do with anything we were discussing and was just randomly dropped - even though it's the website of a large union?
I don't know why I keep responding in good faith when you've demonstrated you're a shameless liar and troll countless times. Also, I believe you're the only person I've called a troll here, and that's with extremely good reason.
Literally none of them have even a single relevant number for me to use. The only number you've provided is the one you pulled straight out of your ass, the 8% one. I can't do math without numbers, no, and unlike you I don't just make numbers up.
Does not contain the relevant information. This is the fifth source you've blatantly lied about, if we're keeping score.
I've replied in good faith many times, both to you and to others. You are an obvious, bad faith troll.