this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
646 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
58143 readers
5618 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's crazy is I hear unionization is usually more expensive to fight against, but these CEO's are essentially morally opposed to it. Every time I hear stories of these people their lives would have been so much easier and their businesses more profitable but they just cannot stand people unionizing.
Well basically it means they have to actually negotiate with their workers via unions. That's almost like work. They prefer not to have to do anything to "earn" their billions.
They also have the option of not treating them like shit. Happy workers don’t usually want to unionize.
Yeah it’s because it flies in the face of their hierarchy
That’s weirdest part, at this point the hoops Amazon has jumped through vs how profitable of a company they are - it must be cheaper for them to just let people unionise and pay them more + give better conditions?
Do you want to pay people more because they're better at their job or do you want to pay people more because they've been warming a chair longer than anyone else?
I really don't care to play "who deserves a minimum quality of life".
Reality doesn't care whether you care to play or not.
There's a limited amount of resources, you can't hire everyone on Earth, you can't give everyone an unlimited salary. Everything past that you're making decisions as to who gets what.
And by the way, if you make enough poor decisions eventually everyone loses their jobs.
There are PLENTY of resources to go around, but a teeny teeny tiny percentage of people are hogging over half of them all for themselves.
Life's not a video game or a book.
Or because people need more to make a living? The whole argument of "it's a shitty job and shouldn't be used to support you" doesn't really work anymore.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Its a very true dichotomy.
Hey let's hire Ashok for this position! He's really good!
Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He's just good enough not to fire but he has seniority so he gets first dibs on the job.
Hey, let's give Ashok a raise! He's really good!
Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He's just good enough not to fire. It he's been here the longest so he gets paid the most.
The false dichotomy is assuming your choices are a massive adversarial bureaucracy or not making a living wage.
"It's a very true dichotomy!"
Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.
Found the guy who never worked a union job.