EvC Forum: The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications

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

A pub in London has been forced to defend itself after it was criticised for charging 13.40 for a pint []

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

0 online now:
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 0/0