|
zoux posted:Why are there three postal workers unions? Haven't they considered organizing together into a group to enhance their influence through collective bargaining There's actually four unions. The fourth union is the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. They work in the big sorting and distribution centers. APWU are people like mail processing clerks at area offices, window clerks, and maintenance. Lots of industries with organized labor have different unions for different roles. I think it helps decentralize some of the organization to force employers to have several groups to work with and put pressure on them. But it's also because they just hate each other.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Sanguinia posted:So when the Postal Worker's Union no longer exists because DeJoy has completely privatized and destroyed the Postal Service, will they just shrug and say what an oopsie they've done? gently caress them, ignore them, dump the board, dump Dejoy, they can cry their worker-betraying tears into their beer over it later. Why in the hell would any union back the dude who wants to destroy all of their livelihoods? Of course I'm constantly reminded of this in Michigan where most of our union members vote Republican so... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:Why are there three postal workers unions? Haven't they considered organizing together into a group to enhance their influence through collective bargaining We had this at my old employer (which was a Municipality). There used to be one union that represented all the employees, but then the inside workers (Planning and Development, Finance, etc) split off from the larger union and formed their own because the perception was that they were outweighed on the union by the much larger number of labor focused jobs and they felt that the priorities of the union in negotiations were more focused on the concerns of the outdoor workers (stuff like overtime distribution, on call status) than stuff that had any relevance to them. Then the indoor workers union split into 2 unions for basically the same reason. The people who worked in the downtown office didn't like being in the same union as the people who worked in engineering / planning and development.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Why in the hell would any union back the dude who wants to destroy all of their livelihoods? because they get money now instead of waiting or some poo poo. idk people don't like change even if its back to a better thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1384522357742710784 What's fascinating about this is there exists someone who can make these people do their bidding in an instant. Who is that person or people and why is this the bridge too far?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How firm is your commitment if you don't actually want to do the hot war though? What happens if the other side calls your bluff? Do you back down and let everyone know that your "firm commitments" aren't actually that firm? Or does your belief in Domino Theory and face-saving railroad you into the hot war that your firm comment was supposed to prevent? Is it really a good idea to commit to doing something that would be disastrous for you in the hopes that the other side always chickens out first? While WWI is cool, who's with China? North Korea? OTOH Czechoslovakia got sold out because it was more convenient and was that outcome really better than stepping in in '38? It's not really domino theory because China has many additional territorial claims in the area. I guess I'm just struggling to see the framework you're proposing here. Does whoever threaten violence first always gets what they want? Or where would you draw the line? For example while I think China should be stopped from genociding their people, I wouldn't suggest invading them because a) it would be extremely costly b) probably fail and c) cause more damage and deaths. I don't think this is true for protecting an island which already wants to protect itself and might be capable of doing so. Gumball Gumption posted:This really sleeps on one of the arguments citing hit anime fate/zero for a thought experiment that depends on the idea that the invasion and slaughter of Americans by China is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Why in the hell would any union back the dude who wants to destroy all of their livelihoods? because thanks to the union my lazy coworkers are getting paid as much as me even though I deserve more than them, if it weren't for the union, I'd be making the big bucks and they'd all be at minimum wage where they should be -every anti-union union worker
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:
Hitler's birthday?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This kinda makes it sound like the problem isn't using artistic media to form an analogy, but that the problem was not picking an example from a media old and obscure enough that most people wouldn't have read it much less heard of it. Prestige does count for something among eggheads when you're citing artistic works to make a political point
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This kinda makes it sound like the problem isn't using artistic media to form an analogy, but that the problem was not picking an example from a media old and obscure enough that most people wouldn't have read it much less heard of it. Maybe we should compare it to Gondor being absent when the Westfold fell? Their forces were occupied at Minas Tirith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:because thanks to the union my lazy coworkers are getting paid as much as me even though I deserve more than them, if it weren't for the union, I'd be making the big bucks and they'd all be at minimum wage where they should be I'm sure there are a large amount of postal union workers who feel this way, but we don't actually know exactly how the membership feels. This is apparently about 30 people in various positions of leadership in the unions. They wouldn't be the ones with those kind of issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
pthighs posted:What's fascinating about this is there exists someone who can make these people do their bidding in an instant. Who is that person or people and why is this the bridge too far? It's interesting that they're happy with allowing Marjorie the Gathering to win office and use her platform to tell people not to wear masks or get vaccinated, but for some reason this crosses the line when it's in essence no different from the mainstream republican platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
pthighs posted:What's fascinating about this is there exists someone who can make these people do their bidding in an instant. Who is that person or people and why is this the bridge too far? One of the big Republican donors. Hell could be Mercer or Murdoch themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Thanks to Sanguinia I now have a slight idea wtf this is about. But I don't see this being dependent on whether China would invade US next at all (they won't obviously). It's more that, as you point out, China has many territorial disputes; the PRC has been to war with virtually all of its neighbours; it has claims on Vietnam, on India, it has a stake in Kashmir, on the Korean peninsula, on Japan, on the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia; it also has very 1931 style economic concessions in Central Asia. If stopping China from invading a country with 23.5 million shouldn't be done because of the utilitarian calculus that the resulting war would be more destructive than simply letting them Iraq Freedom Taiwan. Where does this argument finally admit that a line has to be drawn? When does the line get drawn? Does the line ever get drawn at all? Isn't surrendering better than letting 7 billion people have a bad time every time? Because what if China seizes with military force some of those lifeless rocks that Japan owns? They don't have anyone living there so clearly that means we should let China take it right, and not honour the defencive alliance with Japan? No one lives in the mountains China is claiming still off of India, if China decides to settle it by force (again, the Sino-Indian war was a thing!) should the US help India or should the US not get involved? What if China, on Pakistan's behalf, moves into Kashmir? If China was to hypothetically take Alaska, why does the line get drawn there? Because defending Alaska would still result according to the argument, 7 billion people having a hard time; why is the line being drawn there and not Taiwan, or South Korea, or Japan, or anyone else that China has territorial or historical claims on? It seems more like the argument was designed with the conclusion already decided, that China should be able to do what it wants and the argument followed that conclusion. Sanguinia posted:Prestige does count for something among eggheads when you're citing artistic works to make a political point The Supreme Court once cited 24, and I think both Kagan and Sotomoyor are fond of pop culture references in their rulings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Not wanting war doesn't mean bluffing, just that it's a last resort. So firm enough to be a credible deterrent. I don't think the domino theory and face-saving have anything to do in this case either. It's whether the wishes of the Taiwanese people (and yeah national interests in semiconductors and tires or whatever, otherwise the MIC wouldn't give a poo poo) are worth anything to us. Like the risk to a carrier group or something. OK so you'd prefer we didn't do world war 3 with another nuclear power over Taiwan, but you'd still be willing to anyway? Doesn't seem worth it to me. mobby_6kl posted:While WWI is cool, who's with China? North Korea? OTOH Czechoslovakia got sold out because it was more convenient and was that outcome really better than stepping in in '38? It's not really domino theory because China has many additional territorial claims in the area. But I don't think it's an appropriate analogy anyway. Xi Jinpeng isn't Hitler, he's not a delusional meth-addicted megalomaniac with fanciful dreams of world domination. He does hosed up stuff like any empire, but so does the US. We overthrow governments and blockade countries and invade client states who defy our ambitions, and while that doesn't excuse China's actions, it does show that just doing a bunch of hosed up imperial bully poo poo doesn't make a leader Literally Hitler or the country the inscrutable villain from whatever book series about sex and dragons that's popular right now. If you judged the US's intentions by the same standard you judge China's, you'd be calling for the world to threaten to nuke us every time we saber-rattle at Venezuela or Haiti or whoever. Are you sure you're not just letting cultural/national biases affect your assessment of China's intentions? mobby_6kl posted:I guess I'm just struggling to see the framework you're proposing here. Does whoever threaten violence first always gets what they want? Or where would you draw the line? For example while I think China should be stopped from genociding their people, I wouldn't suggest invading them because a) it would be extremely costly b) probably fail and c) cause more damage and deaths. I don't think this is true for protecting an island which already wants to protect itself and might be capable of doing so. I'd say you should draw the line at the point where a war would actually save lives, and when you're dealing with MAD that bar is pretty goddamn high. The US's actions in Greece, Korea, Iran, Vietnam, etc were threats much closer to home for China or the USSR than Taiwan is to us, but I don't think the USSR should have started WW3 over any of that. We should support Taiwan's self-determination (and everyone's self-determination, which means we should stop bullying and couping governments ourselves), but it's not worth a war. You think (I assume) that we should support Tibetan independence but we shouldn't be going to war over it, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The Supreme Court once cited 24 As much as I hate Scalia, this isn't entirely accurate. He used 24 and Jack Bauer as an example while giving a talk to some Law Students once about how we didn't need to restrict law enforcement and intelligence agencies while fighting the war on terror but he never actually cited either of them in any of his written opinions. Obviously still problematic, but not AS bad. In other news, https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1384516605334405121 I gotta wonder if they're coming out in full force because there's a strategy there or if it's because "gently caress it, it sounds nice to say out loud". Hoping for the former but expecting the later with Manchin and Sinema being the deciding votes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
UPS poaches the postal service for drivers all the time because they'll have been basically trained on how to do the job already. No one starts in the postal service full-time. Yiu get hired on as a 360-day employee with a mandatory five-day break in service. All ofnyour banked vacation time gets paid out and you're effectively not an employee for those five days. Unless you've done something to get fired over (and it's really loving hard to get fired from the postal service), you're probably getting rehired. You keep your seniority and insurance, but that's it. We don't get COLA raises or anything either, just union-mandated raises when they go into effect. Letter carriers start out as city carrier assistants and are pretty much just the relief for regulars on their days off, so they have to learn how to do several routes. Postal support employees (like me) do pretty much whatever we're hired on for and cover days off when it's necessary. I believe the rural carriers have a very similar system to the city carriers, but I have no idea what life is loke for mail handlers at sorting facilities because I've never worked in one nor know anyone at one, but I figure it's also a similar structure. We get to convert to regular positions when one opens up and seniority determines who gets it, but that's only if someone doesn't try to transfer to that office or anyone eligible to doesn't make a bid for it. You can convert pretty quickly if you live in a highly populated area because turnover at the poatal service is high. If you're at a smaller area office, you can convert quickly if you happen to come on when a bunch of people retire all at once or you'll be stuck as a CCA, RCA, PSE, or MHA forever until you get sick of it or when some lifer finally retires or dies. It's a fuckin gruelling job because it's essentially a retail service of the federal government and you deal with custimers who just need their thing and want to move on or some real annoying mother fuckers. The starting pay's pretty good for a job that requires you to just get a 70 on the postal exam, be old enough to vote, and have only a high school diploma or GED. But what enables someone like UPS to poach us for drivers is they go after CCAs because they don't have to wait to convert and start at a significantly higher wage when they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Alaska is a US state. You're comparing the annexation of Taiwan to an invasion of the US and I don't think those two are remotely the same. The slippery slope argument fires both ways. Should we invade and topple the Chinese government because of the Uyghur genocide? Should Canada drop sanctions on the US for police violence? There is a utilitarian calculus that enters into world affairs. We don't have to like it, but we have to recognize it's a part of human civilization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
The reboot as USnews is finally complete!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's more that, as you point out, China has many territorial disputes; the PRC has been to war with virtually all of its neighbours; it has claims on Vietnam, on India, it has a stake in Kashmir, on the Korean peninsula, on Japan, on the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia; it also has very 1931 style economic concessions in Central Asia. If we can never draw a line where a war is worth the cost, or even judge whether a war would make the world better off at all, then according to this reasoning we should be in like a hundred forever-wars right now. This was the reasoning behind Vietnam and Gulf War 2, "if we don't stop them here they'll invade California" "we can't allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" etc, just projecting catastrophism on the enemy du jour and insisting that anything short of war is "giving in" and once you "give in" anywhere you give in everywhere and the bad guy conquers the world, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:43
|
|