Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 423 (818075)
08-23-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Phat
08-22-2017 4:27 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
It depends on who is defining the value.
Some employers believe that minimum wage is too high.
From my unions point of view, it is employees...not customers...who provide every nickel of profit that a corporation is going to make. The workers define the value.
So again---who gets to define the value?
It's a mutual consensual agreement.
The employer defines how much value the work has to them.
The worker decides if it is worth accepting or not.
Negotiation could be an option.
But nobody is forced by an employer to accept a wage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Phat, posted 08-22-2017 4:27 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 08-23-2017 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 345 of 423 (818094)
08-23-2017 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Phat
08-23-2017 11:47 AM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
You lost me at force...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 08-23-2017 11:47 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2017 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 347 of 423 (818102)
08-23-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Modulous
08-23-2017 1:45 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
No, corporate workers are not chattel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2017 1:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2017 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 351 of 423 (818112)
08-23-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Modulous
08-23-2017 2:55 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
I didn't say they were. I was pointing out that the word 'force' does not mean 'violence' it can mean 'given little to no alternative'.
Okay - I wouldn't call that force, it's just doing business, but your point is not lost.
They *could* withhold their labour - as they are not chattel. This could be by striking, working for smaller companies or starting their own. But that would force the corporations to offer more money for the labour. Or they might force the smaller companies out of business if they can.
Yeah, that's better - I just wouldn't call it force. Are all negotiations forced?
If I haggle with someone, am I forcing them to lower their price? I would say no.
The corporations do what they can to make striking untenable and to pay as little in wages as they can - so they are forcing low wages on the workers.
I just don't see it that way - that the workers are forced. It's an agreement, nobody is making them take the job. If they were forced into a job that'd be chattel.
Right now, the corporations are using their power to force the suppressed salaries, even as profits climb. Balking at using your leverage to raise salaries but not balking at corporations using their leverage to lower salaries seems a little hypocritical, right?
Both sides want to maximize their own gain - that's doing business. As long as it's mutually consensual, I don't consider it forced, and in that case do what you got to do to get that money.
I call that negotiating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2017 2:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2017 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 423 (818114)
08-23-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by ringo
08-23-2017 3:09 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
How do you decide that it's "fair"?
Everyone has the same opportunity to make their own way. Nobody is being made to do something against their will. It's a mutually consensual agreement.
What's unfair about that?
From what I've seen, employers tend to pay the least they can get away with. That has nothing to do with fairness.
What makes it unfair?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 423 (818117)
08-23-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by ringo
08-23-2017 3:30 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Some people have parents to put them through college; others have to take care of their sick parents while taking whatever work they can get.
Uh, that's them making their own way...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 364 of 423 (818152)
08-24-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by ringo
08-23-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Life isn't fair, but offering minimum wage for a menial job is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by ringo, posted 08-23-2017 3:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ringo, posted 08-24-2017 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 373 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2017 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 423 (818153)
08-24-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Modulous
08-23-2017 3:48 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
But in English that is what force can mean.
Sure, but it can mean more than that too.
The need to pay for food, rent/mortgage, healthcare etc is pretty strong. A person might not be forced to work a particular job, but in general they are forced to work. And if all the salaries are basically the same for that job then they are forced, by this circumstance, to accept that salary or thereabouts. That circumstance is influenced heavily (but not exclusively) by large companies with their large influence on the job market.
That's business - if you're in a position where you cannot negotiate then that is your fault not your potential employer's.
But now you understand Phat was not talking about physical coercion.
I understand that you think he wasn't talking about physical coercion...
I haven't heard from him about it, he just acknowledge my reply.
We need to work together to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie using the leverage of negotiating in a bloc rather than independently. This is just as much 'just doing business' as anything the corporate world gets up to. So you are no longer 'lost' at the word 'force'?
I agree with you, but I don't know what Phat meant - so I'm still lost on him.
Also, I wouldn't use the word force in that context, so no, I'm not really on board with the semantics. With the principle, sure, do what you gotta do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2017 3:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 08-24-2017 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 423 (818257)
08-25-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Modulous
08-24-2017 4:55 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Holy shit, you dug up posts of mine from over three years ago?
Wait a minute... Did you query the database directly or something? Select all messages submitted by me that contain the word force?
Or did you find that through Google?
'Cause if you're using database administrator privileges to try to score debate points against me then I'm going to stop replying to you.
Well that's English for you. Fortunately the context of a word is helpful in understanding its usage.
Sure, this context is workers forcing their employers to share wealth.
I haven't heard Phat incite violence before, and given he was talking about unionising, it seems pretty clear what it meant in its context.
I never thought that Phat meant inciting violence, but his meaning isn't that clear to me.
It's the fault of neither,
Cool, fault is a strong word - I meant that it is "more your fault than there's"; not in the sense that you alone are solely culpable, but in the sense that the onus is on you to establish your position in a negotiation and not your employer's.
it's just the nature of the system.
Okay.
Well he 'Cheered' my post, seems like endorsement that I had the correct interpretation of his words to me.
Oh, I hadn't seen that. I can accept that you've accurately reflected Phat's meaning.
I think I have a good case that he was using the word 'force' just like most other English speakers do all the time.
Mostly? It totally depends on the context...
When communicating with English speakers you still need to anticipate that they may use words differently than you.
I get that we need to be speaking the same language, but I don't have to use a word in a way that I don't want to.
In that sense, if you want to talk about forcing the employers, then no I'm not on board.
Besides which:
So first off, that was weird - digging up old shit like that.
Secondly, I do try to be consistent within a thread, but not so much across threads.
And I am capable of changing my mind, so I wouldn't expect consistency over time on the order of years.
Now, context is important, and I'm gonna address this, but before I do:
When I talk about force, I look at it in the sense of consent. If it is consensual, then I prolly won't have a problem with it. If it isn't, then I prolly will. It's about people having to go against their will, not having a choice in the matter, it being involuntary, when it starts becoming more like coercion than convincing - that's when I don't like it.
Sure, the word can be used to describe consensual and voluntary actions - I just prefer not to use it that way.
So:
quote:
And being forced to face shutting your business down or else having to do something as benign as baking a cake (that you're going to get paid for), isn't as bad as telling someone that you won't sell them that cake because they belong to a protected class.
Message 569
The broader context is this:
quote:
You mentioned opposing "forcing businesses to serve gay people" as being a vileness, but honestly I think that point is more moot than mine.
Obviously, nobody is going to force people to bake cakes. And being forced to face shutting your business down or else having to do something as benign as baking a cake (that you're going to get paid for), isn't as bad as telling someone that you won't sell them that cake because they belong to a protected class.
Forced, as in "against their will", to choose between X and Y. This is consistent with my current usage.
Further context:
quote:
And even if they do have to stop participating and not have their doors open to everyone, because they can't serve the gays, then they're still not actually forced into shutting down their business, because they can still go the members-only route.
Opening up your doors to everyone doesn't mean that the people can't try to make your business unsuccessful. If you're being a dick then I get to cuss you out loudly on my way out the door.
I agree that going the legal route to shut the business down is pussy way to go about it, though. But I see where they're coming from.
Going the legal route of making these business serve people against their will, that is, forcing them to do it is worse than talking to them about it in person and persuading them that they should serve the people willingly, that is, convincing them to do it.
Now, you could say that convincing them forced them to do it - but that is just not how I want to use that word because I think the distinction is important.
quote:
By maybe-believing? Nah, you're just trying to force your usage again.
Message 447
The broader context of that, including from previous messages is:
As I've said, belief in god is binary.
I don't agree with that. You can maybe-believe or kinda-believe...
Then you'd be a theist.
By maybe-believing? Nah, you're just trying to force your usage again.
In that context, the other person was trying to prevent me, against my will, from use the phrase "belief in god" as something other than being binary. So yeah, force.
quote:
It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way.
Message 346
That broader context:
Well, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think that it's completely inapt. And its the approach, or the mentality, that I am calling totalitarian - not the laws.
It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way.
It's that approach of running to and using an authority to force your dissenters into compliance rather than working with them and coming to an agreement that I find distasteful.
Again, I'm against making somebody do something against their will instead of persuading them to want to do it.
quote:
I'm not saying that the public options shouldn't exist, I just don't like being demonized for having the opinion of not wanting to be forced into them.
Message 37
From that same message:
quote:
I suspect you folks on the left realize that you can't really win the hearts and minds of those with different opinions than yours', so you're so big on public enterprises because know that the only way to get them on board is by force through government. I consider that immoral.
Again, I'm arguing against making poeple do something against their will instead of convincing them to do it willingly.
quote:
The women who say they want to perpetuate it have been coerced by the patriarchal societies that they are forced to live with.
Message 757
Okay, that one I did use the word more loosely - not typical of me tho.
quote:
You can be forced to overcome your addiction without changing your mind.
No link to context, not sure - I was prolly thinking something along the lines of loosing access to the substance, which would force you against your will to quit.
quote:
if I'm forced to make a decision and the best means available aren't enough for me to consider my thoughts critically, then I don't call that critical thinking even if the best I can do at the time.
Message 218
Context:
The example we are given is the fork in the road where we have to decide whether to take the one with the bridge or otherwise. We are forced to think critically.
The difference between us seems to me to be that:
For you, if you're forced to make a decision and you're using the best means available, then you're considering that critical thinking.
For me, if I'm forced to make a decision and the best means available aren't enough for me to consider my thoughts critically, then I don't call that critical thinking even if the best I can do at the time.
In the hypothetical situation, you are literally forced against your will to make a decision - that is consistent with my usage not yours.
But either way - I think the most natural and obvious reading of Phat is one of talking about making someone do something against their will using peaceful means such as cooperating with one another and selective witholding of labour.
That's fine - as I said: If you're "forcing" people by negotiating, then to me that's just doing business. It's when you start getting into coercion that I start having a problem with it.
So regarding "We need to force these corporations to share more of the wealth!", no, I'm still not on board. I think it would be better to persuade them to willingly share the wealth over forcing them to do it.
Phat's 'cheer' seems to concur.
That's the most convincing evidence.
English seems to be on my side. As do some of your own previous posts.
I disagree that my previous posts are on your side. Regarding English, a wise man told me:
quote:
When communicating with English speakers you still need to anticipate that they may use words differently than you.
Next time you dig up old shit from over 3 years ago I'm not gonna reply to it so if that's what you're looking for then don't waste your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 08-24-2017 4:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Phat, posted 08-25-2017 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 380 by Modulous, posted 08-25-2017 9:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 376 of 423 (818270)
08-25-2017 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by NoNukes
08-25-2017 2:44 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
But the combination of minimum wages, and "right to work" laws that deny the ability for workers to negotiate is an unfair combination.
I live in Illinois and I don't know much about right to work laws, how do they go about denying workers the ability to negotiate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2017 2:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Phat, posted 08-25-2017 7:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 378 of 423 (818272)
08-25-2017 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Phat
08-25-2017 4:54 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
I totally and fully agree!
Can you answer my previous post?
Negotiations involve both sides. There is no onus on any one side.
How about: Your position in a negotiation is your own responsibility and not that of the other side?
If I haggle with someone, am I forcing them to lower their price? I would say no.
Are you anti union, then?
I'm not sure. Kind of, but not really. I don't like them, but I'm not against them.
Because we will call a strike if necessary to protect our position. The alternative is to accept less than what we collectively determine our value to be. We prefer negotiations and voluntary compliance but will use some force(non-violent) if necessary.
So I wouldn't lump a strike in with force. In my mind it's still technically a negotiation tactic, albeit a particularly strong one, but still, you're bargaining. I don't consider it you forcing them because they still have the choice to just say bye and try to find other employees.
If their position in the negotiation has left them with no other choice, then that is their fault and there's no onus on you about it. And that's fair. Just like visa versa - where they're trying to save costs on wages and you're stuck 'cause you can't find a better job.
It's doing business. Just because it gets ugly doesn't mean its unfair. And if you're a shitty negotiator then that's on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Phat, posted 08-25-2017 4:54 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Phat, posted 08-25-2017 7:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 381 of 423 (818283)
08-26-2017 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Modulous
08-25-2017 9:05 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Nice post, Mod, thanks.
I queried the database using the search engine that is part of the interface up at the top of the screen.
No shit... I haven't use that thing in years - I never had any luck with it. I checked it out again: it seems to be working well now.
I didn't put you for a cheater, but I still think it's weird to bring up old shit like that - and I didn't see you parsing through pages of google results to find gotchas, so I wondered.
I get that you were responding to me saying that I didn't use the word that way, but "usage" is more complicated than just what I'm willing to submit to an internet debate board. Especially in a debate. Especially across threads. Especially across years. I mean, I even like debates where I'm assigned a position to support - so it's nothing for me to choose to be inconsistant or contradictory.
Rather than playing gotcha and holding me to ancient posts, I'd personally rather you just ask me what the hell I'm talking about. I am willing to explain.
Sure - and part of that negotiation is to threaten to withold your labour if you don't come to an agreement. This would be forcing your employer to accept your demands, lose you, call your bluff, or find some compromise. Striking in unison is just doing this cooperatively as part of negotiations.
I get it. I just don't consider that force, and I think there is a good distinction to maintain. It's not about violence, it's about you allowing your opposition to make their own choice.
A strike, despite being really strong, still allows the employer a choice.
Nobody is asking you to use the word, just understand it when someone else uses it. Are you for using the tools of negotiation to get a better deal, as Phat proposes, or no?
I am, strike away, I just don't like advocting for or even just calling that "force".
I don't think we should be forcing others, as a general principle.
You said 'I wouldn't use the word force in that context' - I showed that you have, over the course of the last few years.
I think you showed different contexts, but whatever, I don't really care.
So fine, how about: today I wouldn't. Or: In this thread I wouldn't. Is that the caveat I'd use if I didn't want you essentially doxing me?
Striking occurs and the employer, against their will, has to lose the labour or pay more. If they pay more, it is against their will - but they consent because they calculate the alternative is worse. This is forcing someone, putting them in a position where they HAVE to make a choice even if they didn't want to make that choice. It's part of negotiating, as you have said, you have just got hung up on a common metaphor for this.
Well I don't yet consider striking force - and one of the reasons you said yourself: they still have a choice. Sure, you're forcing them to make a choice. But you're not forcing their decision - that is still theirs to own. It's when you remove their choice that I start calling it force - and then am not on board. Give them the choice, and press as hard as you want, but don't eliminate thier choice.
When I talk about force, I look at it in the sense of consent. If it is consensual, then I prolly won't have a problem with it. If it isn't, then I prolly will. It's about people having to go against their will, not having a choice in the matter, it being involuntary, when it starts becoming more like coercion than convincing - that's when I don't like it.
Then we agree on what 'force' means. Here is how I described it:
quote:
If you end up doing something you didn't want to do by circumstances or the actions of others...it is perfectly normal to say you were forced to do it.
My employer forces me to take several hours of my time to justify a pay rise,
Wait, did you consent to that or not?
I force them to accepting my request by suggesting I'm going to leave.
But they still have the choice to let you leave, no?
If both are yes, then we disagree on the usage - it isn't about the definition. I agree that the word is defined in the way you propose - I'm saying I don't like that usage... in this given context (also on this day - it is subject to change).
By making what appeared to be (and was) an earnest hunt for a job, I forced the issue - I forced my employer to make a decision about my pay.
I get it, but to me that's business not force. And that's today - I may not feel that way four years from now.
If you say 'that's business, that's not coercive, that's not force as I understand it' then I point out that neither is striking and you should just read Phat as saying 'actively negotiate' or something rather than 'force' and accept you are just using words differently.
Roger, thank you for taking the time to explain. If that is, actually, all that Phat was saying, then I think I've already been explicit enough in saying that I'm cool with striking.
Still, though, I don't want to use the word force for that. I like to use that for when choice is actually eliminated. And that's today, maybe not 4 years from now though (have I told you I prefer not to hafta use caveats? - and don't dox me bro).
So yes, now we agree that force can mean 'against their will' but also be perfectly normal and acceptable - I just now look to if we can agree its the heart of much negotiation - and Phat was only suggesting we look for means of using negotiation tactics to pressure employers into re-negotiating the agreement sooner rather than later.
I don't agree that force is at the heart of negotiation - especially if you mean 'against their will'. You're better off convincing them to accept your offer through their own choice as opposed to making them decide to accept it against their will. And that's forcing acceptance not forcing a decision.
Is pressuring someone OK? It's used in business negotiations all the time - 'pressure' is another metaphor, 'push' is another - they are all about applying a force to move things in a direction you'd prefer.
I'm okay with pressuring, and I understand that in physics that's force - so to reiterate, I prefer to use the word force to mean a lack of consent when talking about business. Using "non-consensual" force in business is a bad idea.
If you don't apply pressures back, then what's the negotiation? It sounds like you'd just accept whatever your employer says. You want to pay me "$10,000 to work 12 hour shifts being a body guard, escorting VIPs around Syria and Iraq? Sure - I wouldn't want to apply any forcing or pressure on you to come up with a more equitable salary for such dangerous work by withholding my labour"
Alright, with that particular phrasing, in the context of negotiating a deal, the way I'm using the word 'force' (today in this thread) isn't something you apply - it is something you do. And to me it means eliminating the other sides consent - and that's basically why I'm against it.
When people strike and a new deal is arranged - it is consensual, of course. The employer isn't going to pay you $5,000,000 an hour if you withhold you labour - they are still only going to pay what they can. But their will is that they pay as little as they can.
Ah, maybe that's where our disagreement stems from... To me, their will is what they're willing to do. They want to pay as little as possible, but they're willing to pay more. As long as they have that choice, you're not actually forcing them in my opinion. You've just got a good position in a business negotiation - and I don't have a problem with that.
It's up to you and your will to change their mind and pay you more. Haggling as it were, but where one party has avoided haggling for bread knowing you need to eat and can't afford to haggle. If everybody refuses to buy bread at the same time, they don't have to go hungry for as long to apply the pressure to charge more reasonable prices. The customers have forced the baker to lower his prices even as he didn't want to at the start. He would still RATHER charge more, but he'd prefer to charge less if the alternative is that the baker doesn't get paid.
This only works if there are no other bakers. But that's the power of large corporations - they reduce the number of 'bakers' which creates the situation where a person has less and less alternative choices - leaving more 'active' and cooperative pressuring as the only viable tool left.
I get how it works, but I think there is a distinction to be made between that and actually removeing their choice - and that's where I like to use the word force.
Use the word however you want, but if you're asking me if I'm on board I'm still saying no. Strike away, just don't force people to do things against their will. That is not "against their wants" - but against their ability to choose between what they want and to decide what they're willing to do.
If you're "forcing" people by negotiating, then to me that's just doing business.
And if they refuse to negotiate? Or their offer is unsatisfactory? You could quit your job of course! That is a pressure on them, possibly - but its a more immediate problem for you - if you are living pay cheque to pay cheque - especially if the number of alternate employers is reduced due to the existence of large corporations. But if all the workers stopped working for a month - it could cost the business more than if they'd have just accepted the terms. So they are 'forced' back to the negotiating table. Against their will, to get a deal both parties can agree on.
So are you on board with negotiating like this? Or is it negatively coercive?
I'm on board if the employer got themselves into that situation where they could face literally all work stopping.
If they were negitively coerced into that situation, by choices that weren't thiers', then I'd prolly dislike it.
How would you persuade them?
By convincing them that I'd be worth the money that I demand, and explaining how it is in their best interest to accept my offer. That is: bargaining (or haggling I've said).
If I have to actually force them, then I don't want to work for 'em. I'd rather they realize that I am, actually, worth what they'd be giving me. If they can't do that then I'll go work for someone who can.
But if I find myself in a situation where I have no power in the negotiation, then that is something I would start immediatly correcting by improving myself. In a negotiation, you have to have something to offer, you cannot expect them to give it to you.
We are talking about persuading them to share the wealth, by practically demonstrating that the workers are worth the extra money.
That's going to require providing value.
To me, a more persuasive negotiation is one where you explain to me why the thing you're offering is worth the value you're demanding rather than showing me the penalty of not accepting your offer. And that's part of why I'm not immediately on board with striking: it looks like saying "pay us or else" rather than "this is why we're worth it".
Like, if your point is all the things I'm going to loose by not accepting our offer, as oppsed to being all the things I would gain by accepting it, then I'm not going to be very interested in negotiating with you. So, I think it'd be better for the union folks to not look to force, but to look to persuasion.
What do I have to gain by providing you with higher wages? (that's rhetorical - I understand the value of well-paid work over cheap mass-labor - I also understand wanting that option for menial shit)
But coercing through threat is not something that I'm on board with - not in the sense that I care if you do it, but in the sense of whether or not I want to do it. I suppose I start caring when you start forcing people to do things against their will - and by that I don't mean simply their desires, but what they're actually willing to do by their own choice.
You might not, but other English speakers do. The onus is on you to understand this, yes?
Yes, and I understand that - due to your help.
"The strikers forced the company to reconsider their compensation package"
"The strike forced the corporation back to the negotiating table"
"Nobody was taking the job we offered, so we were forced to offer a higher salary for it"
All perfectly sensible things to say. That's what Phat was saying.
I agree those statements are sensible, and I can accept that's what Phat meant - but I do think there's more to it, and I have more to say. I'm not done with this one yet, but I am tired.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Modulous, posted 08-25-2017 9:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Modulous, posted 08-26-2017 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 382 of 423 (818284)
08-26-2017 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Phat
08-25-2017 7:33 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Right To Work laws are unfair because they destroy the power of collective bargaining.
How do they go about doing that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Phat, posted 08-25-2017 7:33 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Phat, posted 08-26-2017 4:03 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 387 by Phat, posted 08-26-2017 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024