Obviously the article is a bit inflammatory, but the overall message really isn’t wrong.
Unionize or die, basically. Obviously not literally, but one of the clearest lessons of the last year has been unions help preserve job security. It’s not a lesson that should have been needed, and frankly it’ll fall on far too many deaf ears, but hopefully more people realize it.
100% agree that unions are vital. That being said, I’m a current non-union employee that was promoted from union employees who I now supervise. They are in contract negotiations and I hope they get the best deal possible. I see it as mutually beneficial. Unions are absolutely necessary for workers rights. The “maybe they used to be” argument is total BS. Businesses exists to make money and if asking someone to do something unsafe makes a business more money, they will find people to do it every time. Bit of a digression on my part all to say I think I agree with you.
Yeah I was like WTF? It reads to me like “non-union workers lose their jobs while union ones don’t”, but then they had to somehow manufacture drama for the sake of more drama so they could add drama to their drama, when no drama needed to exist in the first place?
Yeah for sure. To me it sounds like “hey, non-union employees. You better be pushing union employees to accept less or we will just cut your jobs”. The headline alone feels very much like a threat.
This is Fortune though - please forgive my ignorance, but is that like a known subsidiary of Forbes or something? I searched for the word “Forbes” on the page and found nothing.
Anyway, perhaps we need a community that displays news articles while excluding such known shills. While we are at it, ditch click-bait articles too:-).
The problem there is that there likely would be next to nothing left!
Anecdotally there’s seemingly been a plague of unnecessary or incompetent middle management (i.e. administrative overhead) in lots of places for lots of years.
Reducing the number of layers a bit is probably a good thing even if some people lose their jobs in the process.
Hooray for people losing their jobs? Celebrating something like this is missing the point.
Creating division is why forbes wrote an article.
Obviously the article is a bit inflammatory, but the overall message really isn’t wrong.
Unionize or die, basically. Obviously not literally, but one of the clearest lessons of the last year has been unions help preserve job security. It’s not a lesson that should have been needed, and frankly it’ll fall on far too many deaf ears, but hopefully more people realize it.
100% agree that unions are vital. That being said, I’m a current non-union employee that was promoted from union employees who I now supervise. They are in contract negotiations and I hope they get the best deal possible. I see it as mutually beneficial. Unions are absolutely necessary for workers rights. The “maybe they used to be” argument is total BS. Businesses exists to make money and if asking someone to do something unsafe makes a business more money, they will find people to do it every time. Bit of a digression on my part all to say I think I agree with you.
Yeah I was like WTF? It reads to me like “non-union workers lose their jobs while union ones don’t”, but then they had to somehow manufacture drama for the sake of more drama so they could add drama to their drama, when no drama needed to exist in the first place?
Fuck the for-profit media:-(.
Yeah for sure. To me it sounds like “hey, non-union employees. You better be pushing union employees to accept less or we will just cut your jobs”. The headline alone feels very much like a threat.
Again you have to view the source. It’s Forbes.
The entire point of Forbes and most media these days - is to sow discontent in the class war. It is one of the many weapons of the billionaire class.
This is Fortune though - please forgive my ignorance, but is that like a known subsidiary of Forbes or something? I searched for the word “Forbes” on the page and found nothing.
Anyway, perhaps we need a community that displays news articles while excluding such known shills. While we are at it, ditch click-bait articles too:-).
The problem there is that there likely would be next to nothing left!
I still would wager this direction is good.
Anecdotally there’s seemingly been a plague of unnecessary or incompetent middle management (i.e. administrative overhead) in lots of places for lots of years.
Reducing the number of layers a bit is probably a good thing even if some people lose their jobs in the process.