Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 8:42 PM
355 online now:
halibut, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Rrhain (6 members, 349 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,364 Year: 23,970/21,208 Month: 1,935/2,468 Week: 28/416 Day: 28/24 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Author Topic:   The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 376 of 391 (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 yet responded

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

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9767
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 377 of 391 (818271)
08-25-2017 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2017 7:06 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
quote:
In states without Right-to-Work laws, the workers covered by a union contract can refuse to join the union and then pay the fees associated with the workplace bargaining. States with Right-to-Work laws require union contracts to cover all workers, not just the ones who are members of the union.
This problem can reduce the unions bargaining strength, which ultimately results in lower wages and benefits.

The unions no longer have the power of collective bargaining, they have to represent the non-union employees without funding, and the strength of the union is greatly diminished.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2017 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 378 of 391 (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 responded

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

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9767
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 379 of 391 (818273)
08-25-2017 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2017 7:27 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
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.

Right To Work laws are unfair because they destroy the power of collective bargaining. The whole point of a union involves the ability to collectively bargain.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2017 7:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2017 3:04 AM Phat has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 380 of 391 (818275)
08-25-2017 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
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.

I queried the database using the search engine that is part of the interface up at the top of the screen.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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 didn't go back over the last 12 years since the search function is limited and the point was made. The context I used it in:

quote:
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.

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.

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, I force them to accepting my request by suggesting I'm going to leave. A little under a year ago I deliberately used a recruitment service I know my employer actively monitors and utilizes to look for another job after my request for a pay rise went ignored. Somebody called me and asked me odd questions about what might make me change my mind about looking for alternate work - I gave them a number. Two days later I was offered that exact number. Perhaps a coincidence, but let's say it wasn't. 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.

The months of chasing that preceded it suggested they didn't want to give me the rise, if they could avoid it. So they did so against their will.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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. 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.

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?

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.

How would you persuade them? With a rousing speech? We are talking about persuading them to share the wealth, by practically demonstrating that the workers are worth the extra money.

So I wouldn't lump a strike in with force.

You might not, but other English speakers do. The onus is on you to understand this, yes?

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2017 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2017 3:03 AM Modulous has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 381 of 391 (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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 382 of 391 (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 responded

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

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9767
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 383 of 391 (818289)
08-26-2017 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by New Cat's Eye
08-26-2017 3:04 AM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
How do they go about doing that?
Since employees no longer have to belong to the union, they also no longer have to strike. If enough of them negotiate individually rather than collectively, the wage bottom no longer goes up.

Strikes become less effective as a negotiating tool.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2017 3:04 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 384 of 391 (818297)
08-26-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by New Cat's Eye
08-26-2017 3:03 AM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
Nice post, Mod, thanks.

Danke.

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.

There was a drastic overhaul in how the data is stored and retrieved - it made the board faster but also made the search engine work effectively. It was a few years back now.

I am, strike away, I just don't like advocting for or even just calling that "force".

That's fine. Phat was clearly not asking you to advocate for calling it "force", he merely used that word himself.

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?

The essential component of doxxing someone is the revealing of personally identifiable information - especially addresses and phone numbers. My powers in that regard would limit me to revealing your IP address and email address - which I certainly didn't do. I simply quoted you using force to mean 'limited your options down to some unpalatable ones'.

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.

So you are on board with Phat's meaning, his pragmatics; just not his word choices, his semantics.

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.

Short of science fiction like mind control, there is no way for Phat to remove their choices. Even a gun to the head leaves you with options. Hacking into their database and changing the salaries leaves them with choices but is as close to completely removing consent as I can realistically think of.

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).

You don't have to use the word force for that. Nobody is forcing you to I simply quoted you to show that it is normal English usage to refer to force to mean limiting someone's options to those which they don't like.

quote:
Virgin air hostess 'forced to quit' after girlfriend posts Facebook status about her serving Rita Ora on flight

Her girlfriend revealed the identity of a passenger and:

quote:
Two weeks later she was contacted by Virgin Atlantic bosses telling her she should resign or face being fired for breaching data protection.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/...-air-hostess-forced-quit-11057605

She could have stayed in her job, got fired and then fought the dismissal at an employment tribunal - for example. She had that choice available to her. Her preferred avenue - having her girlfriend remove the post and carry on as if nothing had happened was taken away. She consented to the rules of her employment, she consented to the laws of the land, she consented to resigning.

quote:
Pub forced to defend itself after selling pints for 13.40

https://inews.co.uk/...pub-forced-defend-selling-pints-13-40

Their alternative was to ignore the negative publicity. They had the choice.

quote:
Jemma Lucy nearly falls out of her dress again as she's forced to hold her boobs in place on Celebrity Big Brother's BOTS

http://www.mirror.co.uk/...ma-lucy-nearly-falls-out-11056837

She could have just let them fall out...

I prefer to use the word force to mean a lack of consent when talking about business.

You are free to use the word as you like. It's idiosyncratic, but that's fine. Other people use it differently.

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.

Yeah, but even when you do have something to offer - it doesn't always work. Teachers, nurses, bus drivers...can all find themselves unable to argue their skills are worth more - or rather find arguing this falls on deaf ears.

That's going to require providing value.

Not necessarily. Unless you feel that workers have suddenly en masse started to provide less value - even as somehow businesses are making more money - that's the very issue in discussion. Wages have stagnated behind inflation. By striking - the employers have to calculate the cost to not having workers for several weeks vs the cost of paying them closer to what they are actually worth. Businesses always aim to pay less than a worker is worth - to allow profits to exist. phat is arguing that the gap between value and pay has grown and all the individual negotiating has not improved this.

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".

Strikes almost always come AFTER the 'this is why we're worth' it discussion has failed. Strikes are the 'well if charts, numbers and words won't work - we will have to prove it empirically then' part of the discussion.

Yes, and I understand that - due to your help.

via GIPHY


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2017 3:03 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 385 of 391 (818302)
08-26-2017 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Phat
08-25-2017 2:19 PM


Re: Union 101
Phat writes:

If all of the cashiers were in the union, it would be the same as the working class uniting with the middle class, which is apparently what you hope to achieve.


But your way isn't working. We've had unions for a hundred years and the result is that the unionized workers have insulated themselves from the non-unionized workers. Union members tend to have an "I got mine" attitude (mirror, mirror). They're as much an enemy of the working class as the exploitive employers are.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Phat, posted 08-25-2017 2:19 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Phat, posted 08-26-2017 1:30 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9767
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 386 of 391 (818305)
08-26-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by ringo
08-26-2017 11:38 AM


Re: Union 101
We've had unions for a hundred years and the result is that the unionized workers have insulated themselves from the non-unionized workers.
I see no evidence of this. My union actively is involved with non-unionized workers who wish to become unionized. The local Dispensaries are a great example---they recently became unionized to a large degree.

Read this article: All Hollowed Out

quote:
When it comes to explaining American economic trends, it is important to remember how critical a role manufacturing and unions have played in the buildingand now dismantlingof a strong middle class. For generations, factories provided good jobs to people who never went to college, allowing familiesfirst white ethnic immigrants, and then othersto be upwardly mobile. Bringing together large numbers of people under a single roof, factory jobs were also relatively easy to organize. As the sociologists Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld have argued, unions at their prime helped create a moral economy in which wages rose both in firms with unions and those without them, and in which the average worker had a notable voicehowever, compromised back then by nativism and other exclusionary tendencieslobbying on their behalf in Washington.
I really don't see what more you expect unions to do. We are weaker than we once were, and that is a problem. Right-To-Work laws weaken us further since employees can no longer count on solidarity among the labor force.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by ringo, posted 08-26-2017 11:38 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by ringo, posted 08-27-2017 2:15 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9767
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 387 of 391 (818308)
08-26-2017 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by New Cat's Eye
08-26-2017 3:04 AM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
The laws make it so that an employee does not have to join the union. In case of a labor dispute, we cannot make the strike as effective with Right To Work in place. Evidence also shows overall wages dropping and lagging in RTW states.

More from this article:

quote:
As organized labor in this country has withered, an extreme individualism has stepped in as the alternativea go-it-alone perspective narrowly focused on getting an education and becoming successful on ones own merit. This works well for some, but for othersespecially the two-thirds of Americans over the age of 25 who dont have a bachelors degreeit often means getting mired in an economy of contract work, low pay, and few, if any, benefits. These prospects suggest that this is an age of diminished expectations for the working class.

I am basically done ranting now. Life could be a whole lot worse than it is. Quite frankly, I grew up spoiled by the era my parents lived in---it was easier for people to make it in 1960 than it is today.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2017 3:04 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2017 9:00 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9928
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 388 of 391 (818317)
08-26-2017 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Phat
08-26-2017 4:21 PM


Re: Hollowed Out Middle Class
The laws make it so that an employee does not have to join the union. In case of a labor dispute, we cannot make the strike as effective with Right To Work in place. Evidence also shows overall wages dropping and lagging in RTW states.

I've been a union member exactly twice in my life. I was in a union as an examiner in the Patent Office, and also much earlier in life as a bag boy in a grocery store (making 1.86 an hour). Quite frankly, I'm not very sympathetic with rules that force folks to join a union before they can work. I know that not having those rules makes things a little harder for unions, but the union can counter that issue by showing clear advantages for union workers. If the union cannot do that, why should I join?

I am more sympathetic when it comes to rules that put obstacles in the way of organizing, collecting dues, negotiating, filing grievances, voting etc. Even more heinous are laws that weaken protections aimed at preventing retaliatory actions against union officers and striking workers.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Phat, posted 08-26-2017 4:21 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 389 of 391 (818358)
08-27-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Phat
08-26-2017 1:30 PM


Re: Union 101
Phat writes:

My union actively is involved with non-unionized workers who wish to become unionized.


That's not what I'm talking about. The members of the Rolls-Royce Club may want more people to join but they know everybody isn't going to join. I'm talking about transportation for the rest of us.

The fact is that most low-paying jobs are not going to become unionized. The unions care nothing for the majority of non-unionized workers.

Phat writes:

I really don't see what more you expect unions to do.


That's just the point. I don't expect unions to do more because they've never done more before. It's not a problem that unions are going to solve.

Phat writes:

Right-To-Work laws weaken us further since employees can no longer count on solidarity among the labor force.


That ought to be a clue for you. There are people willing to do your job for less and there are employers willing to exchange you for them. But if the working class wages were higher, there would be less incentive for both of them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Phat, posted 08-26-2017 1:30 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Phat, posted 08-28-2017 8:03 AM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9767
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 390 of 391 (818402)
08-28-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by ringo
08-27-2017 2:15 PM


Re: Union 101
ringo writes:

There are people willing to do your job for less and there are employers willing to exchange you for them. But if the working class wages were higher, there would be less incentive for both of them.

I fully understand the dilemma. What I don't agree with is your solution. You seem to want to put the most pressure on the middle rather than where it belongs---on the top.
Say you had a town with 100 people. 70 of the people were poor. 25% were middle. 5% were at the top. The top 5% owned/controlled 80% of the towns wealth. The middle 25% controlled 15% and the bottom 70 split the remaining 5%.

In my mind, you would advocate pressure more on the 15% to share their wealth before even addressing the 5% with the lions share.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by ringo, posted 08-27-2017 2:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by ringo, posted 08-28-2017 11:43 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017