884
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

…. You understand that those are two different people, right? The person hand-waving how easy starting a union is and how easily beneficial it can be is not the same person as the worker who has to do the thing lol

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ah, gotcha. Well, my point stands. Unless your hypothetical hand-waver is unemployed or already in an union, I suppose.

I'm not American, so I don't know how hard it is to unionize in the US. Over here there are massive unions with country-wide presence that typically can set up where needed, as well as segment-specific unions. I'm pretty sure you can either start a new one with a handful of people or just... you know, call a preexisting one and sign up. I've heard about companies in the US having way more restrictive steps, having to agree company-wide to unionize and stuff like that. That's... not how we do it.

[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

It’s very hard here, especially depending on your circumstances - and even when a union is formed they’re often unable to really… get any meaningful progress. Depending on your particular employment, it’s effectively impossible - and it gets harder the poorer you are.

It’s why it’s sometimes frustrating to hear Americans tell other Americans (often less well off than they are) to “just form a Union!”. The leftist version of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 5 points 7 months ago

Yeeeeah, see, there you lose me.

You can organize, unionized or not, and it seems like organization is a gateway to unionization, regardless of how hard that may be. And it is a fact that organization and collective bargaining will help and is a key path to improvements, so even if it's hard, it's still the way to go.

And hey, ultimately the goal is to keep electing pro-unionization leaders so it becomes easier to it's more feasible. But you don't stop doing it or recommending it just because it's harder there.

[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Okay, so a bunch of people organize and then the boss fires all of them for doing so. That’s not exactly a perfect system leading towards better working conditions

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 7 months ago

Who said "perfect"?

A bunch of people organize and then the boss fires them. Then the boss has no employees to do the work. Ideally this outrages enough other employees to go on strike and in a semi-functional country it would also prompt some oversight on their practices.

The more people organize, then harder it is to just fire them. The more publicly they organize, the harder it is to just fire them.

If they don't organize, the boss just gets to say what they do and for how much money, so that's definitely not a better alternative to organizing long term in terms of "leading to better working conditions".

So yeah, organizing is better. Every time.

[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah man, but these are real people and not hypothetical worker drones in an internet comment. If they all get fired and don’t have money for food and rent, that’s really fucking bad. You can’t say “it’s always good to organize! Just take the risk of getting evicted from your apartment! Don’t let them boss you around!” And not expect the working class Joe in the factory to look at you like you’re the dumbest guy around

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 7 months ago

Organizing isn't "taking the risk". Not organizing is taking the risk.

Organizing is your only defense against arbitrary dismissals and lacking the right to push back against abusive practices (along with voting for leaders who will enforce robust labor laws). If you want to get randomly fired in retaliation for exercising your rights the safest way to get there is to have nobody who can leverage the ability of workers to grind production to a halt.

But hey, here's the fun part about collective bargaining and worker action: "working class Joe" doesn't need to take that risk, you just need enough people to set up and fight for Joe's rights regardless. If Joe feels he has to scab because he can't take the risk that's what picket lines are for.

Gotta say, looking at the context of your feed it's quite baffling to see someone go "Biden is too far to the right to vote for him, can't compromise my leftist ideology that much, so I'll go third party" and "unions are fine on paper, but you gotta be realist and let your boss step all over you, because losing your job isn't an ideological hypothetical".

After a while one may think that one of those strong stances is disingenuous when both are held at once.

this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
884 points (100.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

4398 readers
336 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS