Antiwork

8254 readers

4 users here now

We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

Matrix/Element chatroom
Discord (channel: #antiwork)
IRC: #antiwork on IRCNow.org (i.e., connect to ircs://irc.ircnow.org and /join #antiwork)
Your facebook group link here
Your x link here
lemmy.ca/c/antiwork

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Tech workers react to UPS drivers landing a $170,000 a year package with a mixture of anger and admiration (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by soyagi@yiffit.net to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://yiffit.net/post/1029567

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2936916

Tech workers react to UPS drivers landing a $170,000 a year package with a mixture of anger and admiration::Some tech workers questioned whether UPS drivers deserved high pay — others jumped in to note the importance of the jobs and harsh working conditions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Again

The sad part is that this job will eventually lead to a 6 figure salary.

Why. Is. It. Sad. That. Delivery. Drivers. Get. A. Six. Figure. Salary.

Nothing else you're saying takes away from the fact that you literally said this.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've edited my comment for clarity.

Seriously, stop focusing on your misinterpretation of a single statement...

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's all I wanted! When you make a communication error, correct it. Don't just argue about it lol

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I repeatedly clarified my position. I wasn't arguing about it, I was correcting your misinterpretation.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s really not, as evident by the statement immediately after that you left out.

No, you accused me of misinterpreting what you said by leaving things out, but that's not what happened. The quote I was drilling down on clearly said one thing, even though you meant another, but instead of just saying "oops, what I meant was" you came at me!

I was just telling you what you sounded like. "Evident". It wasn't evident, it was poorly phased.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right. You couldn't get past your misinterpretation of a single statement, and ignored everything afterwards that clarified that statement. If you feel that I "came at you", that again is a misinterpretation. You're being confrontational. And I'm ending this now.