Sorta feels like system is irrelevant. Especially in the labor thread.
If labor can organize and use its power to get what it deserves, if leftists and progressives and the left-leaning center can all decide and establish a better societal baseline of what's acceptable in terms of safety net and protections and wealth disparity, then the specifics of how we allocate resources and choose what to produce and distribute the value generated seem like things that can be worked out at our leisure without much suffering after the fact.
With weak labor and no such baseline, even a nominally socialist state will find ways to extract value from those it deems marginal for the benefit of those with power, even if the details of hierarchy and its enforcement change.
My grandmother's brother went to the gulag for years for complaining about working conditions in the iron foundry he worked at (to his best friend at the time, who reported him to the UDBA).
Connecticut National Guard will also be unionizing, BTW. The National Guards of the other 48 states (Texas has already started as I'd mentioned some months before) can and likely will follow, since the ruling is by the Department of Justice and all National Guard members on state duty are allowed to.
I'm of two minds about this. Obviously... yay union. Also... union of members of state violence apparatus... and that's worked so well with police unions. Obviously not 1:1 here so probably overconcerned.
I would not be terribly worried about that. National guard membership is more transitory and so less likely to have cultural issues as a result of a Union. A 20 year old cop in 1980 is retiring today and has been spreading their culture throughout the system for 40 years. There are far fewer 40 year national guard vets, far less time to infect the system. **
Also the union only applies when they’re controlled by a state so there is an immediate union busting tool available to the National govt*
*not to say that this is good just to say that it’s a curb on the unions power and so if there are issues this does make them weaker.
**not to say it doesn’t happen (see Air Force evangelicals) but I am simply less worried about it than in the police.
Connecticut National Guard will also be unionizing, BTW. The National Guards of the other 48 states (Texas has already started as I'd mentioned some months before) can and likely will follow, since the ruling is by the Department of Justice and all National Guard members on state duty are allowed to.
I'm of two minds about this. Obviously... yay union. Also... union of members of state violence apparatus... and that's worked so well with police unions. Obviously not 1:1 here so probably overconcerned.
Eh, it's worth a tiny bit of sideeye for the reasons noted. But on the flip side, National Guard doesn't have the same carve outs and culture that cops do, so there's less of that occupation mentality among their ranks I would expect, which make a union less prone to be used as a cudgel the same way Cop Unions are.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
I hope not because all this socialist theory discussion has entirely crowded out any news about unions organizing that I come to this thread for.
Isn't there a specific thread for socialist theory somewhere already?
+12
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited May 2022
I think it'd be best to make a socialist theory thread (I swear we used to have one?) - Kayne is right, the issue isn't exactly that the two things are unrelated, but that it's important to have a place to talk about the real-world unionization stuff that's going on (e.g. everything with Starbucks, Amazon, various organizing and legal stuff). So socialist theory, while not unrelated, should have its own location because discussion of it has a way of disrupting the only space in D&D that's dedicated to discussion of unions specifically.
It's now official: testers at Activision-owned Raven Software have voted to form the U.S. video game industry's first major union. There were 19 votes for and 3 votes against
Jason Schreier is a journalist covering the vidya and vidya workings
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Hail Hydra
+40
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Long overdue. Hopefully there’s an avalanche of unionization following this in the games industry.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I'm not part of a union, but obviously--from looking around in my industry/internationally--think they're dandy. I'd join one. However, I'd also be very upset if someone at my workplace in Random Distant Team X said "we voted, and you're part of a union now".
How's that usually work? It's not that I'd be mad about "the union" aspect, it's the "hang on, ask why don't you?" aspect, and sort of more generally what sorts of majorities are required? Obviously if 51% (or w/e) of "roughly my position" voted and that's how it came out, that's that even if I missed the memo, but I've read stories of "this random team voted and now the whole workplace is..." and well that just seemed weird.
Edit: For the record, I would also be mad if they said "we decided you're having Popeye's for lunch"; it's really the principle of the thing. I love Popeye's, but I am also a stubborn bastard.
You would have the opportunity to vote for forming the union, yes or no, if you are covered. And if you do join you would be able to vote on who represents you. You could also choose to not join and in general in the US closed shops are not a thing. Its not forcing you to do anything, just that they want to be allowed to negotiate wages as a group and withhold labor if those demands are not met and have certain legal protections for it.
It is important to remember that right now going it alone means you as a person trained to do a specific job are negotiating, by yourself, with a person whos whole job training is to do negotiating. With vastly more power and industry connections to get you at the rate they want. Going it alone in this kind of situation might feel right but you are at a major disadvantage in labor negotiations.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
You would have the opportunity to vote for forming the union, yes or no, if you are covered. And if you do join you would be able to vote on who represents you. You could also choose to not join and in general in the US closed shops are not a thing. Its not forcing you to do anything, just that they want to be allowed to negotiate wages as a group and withhold labor if those demands are not met and have certain legal protections for it.
It is important to remember that right now going it alone means you as a person trained to do a specific job are negotiating, by yourself, with a person whos whole job training is to do negotiating. With vastly more power and industry connections to get you at the rate they want. Going it alone in this kind of situation might feel right but you are at a major disadvantage in labor negotiations.
Yeah, I mean do refer to the first half of my post, there.
I have, however, read reports here and there about "X team voted to unionise and now the entire company is dealing with..." with the clear implication that "looks like other people were covered who nobody talked to". If that's not the case, great! (Hell, I think one was even here, where some QA department voted to, and everyone began talking about how now the rest of the studio would this and such.) It seemed weird, as that would definitely not be a majority of any amount of peoples, so I thought I'd ask.
Yeah that smacks of anti-union rhetoric to me. Certainly it’s possible to have happened, but I’ve NEVER encountered a situation where someone was forced into a union against their will. I know some job sites will be union-only, but they are upfront about that before you start there.
E: not you having anti-union rhetoric, to be clear. I meant the reportage of "X team voted to unionise and now the entire company is dealing with..."
It’s impossible in the US at the least. Closed shops are illegal (they shouldn’t be, but they are). A closed shop is a situation in which everyone at a company must be in a union. Gotta join the union to get hired.
While some states will make it so that everyone covered under a collective bargaining unit must pay the bargaining fee (there are other fees not paid) those people who choose to not be in the union are not in the union and are not “covered” except insomuch as they get the benefits of the contract.
Some states (as a union busting tactic) make even that setup illegal such that people not in the union are covered by the collective bargaining but do not have to pay for the cost of that collective bargaining.
So there really isn’t much to fear from other shops unionizing with regards to what it means for you.
With the exception that you should join the union if you have the option. Because it’s good stewardship of your fellow man and because union power will increase your take home wages. Get paid, join a union.
No no, so again, my point isn't "oh no, An Union!", the point is "who the hell are you lot and sorry what did you sign me up for" because, as read, the scenario was "small subgroup of company A votes for a union, and now everyone's bound by wtfever the jerks in Marketing decided" which sounded rather implausible as well as a bit against the point of "employee representation".
Unions are good. But if someone's negotiating for my shit I want input, as is only right and proper, is all. Even if that input's just "okay Bob, Susan, here's our list, y'all go sort this shit out because I do not want to deal with it", as I have now delegated to Bob and Susan as is logical.
And turns out that's how it generally works (rather like I thought), and the people discussing the other scenario as though it was a good thing were A: Wrong and B: That's not how it works.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
No no, so again, my point isn't "oh no, An Union!", the point is "who the hell are you lot and sorry what did you sign me up for" because, as read, the scenario was "small subgroup of company A votes for a union, and now everyone's bound by wtfever the jerks in Marketing decided" which sounded rather implausible as well as a bit against the point of "employee representation".
Unions are good. But if someone's negotiating for my shit I want input, as is only right and proper, is all. Even if that input's just "okay Bob, Susan, here's our list, y'all go sort this shit out because I do not want to deal with it", as I have now delegated to Bob and Susan as is logical.
And turns out that's how it generally works (rather like I thought), and the people discussing the other scenario as though it was a good thing were A: Wrong and B: That's not how it works.
The testing wing of Raven Software is apparently about 30, according to PC Gamer
Fencingsax on
+1
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
My union has contracts all across our regional jurisdiction that boil down to "You don't have to be a member to work here, but you have to join (or become "Fair Share" after so many hours because of a prior contractual agreement between your employer and our organization." It's referred to as a Union Security Clause. The clause kicks in after ~500 hours of recognized work, is covered in an employee's introductory paperwork/onboarding (and if it isn't, the employer is on the hook for it), and is basically a standard negotiated provision for all our contracted employers at this point.
To try to get around it would cause a rift between employer and worker (basically seen as union busting or scabbing), and is largely unheard of but for few exceptions. Those exceptions tend to be notoriously shitty employers who resent their workers for unionizing in the first place, in my experience.
So, employees at Seven Seas Entretainment, the largest independant manga publisher around, decided to unionize, forming the United Workers of Seven Seas, in coordination with CWA. From their official Twitter:
Will all these individual stores eventually be able to form a nationwide union?
That's going to be the next big fight isn't it?
Once Starbucks, et.al. have been forced to deal with the smaller single store unions, they're either going to want a single point of contact to smooth things out (which would be the smarter thing) or continue to kick their own shins by getting in the way of consolidation of negotiation.
Maybe they think that fighting against the consolidation will keep the hit to their pocketbooks small, but I'm betting it's more those in charge think themselves smarter than the unions. And with that arrogance believe they can trick one or more of the unions into being ineffective.
Again, just pointing out that by letting the unions consolidate, they can make it easier on themselves in both the short and long term by getting a single point of contact that they can then corrupt as needed.
But I doubt the big-brains running things currently see it that way.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I mean it's pretty much all under the Starbucks Workers United banner, which is itself is affiliated with the SEIU in some manner, although I think still somewhat independent (I'm not sure of the details there). The union recently established a $1 million strike fund to support striking stores. The unionization is happening store by store, but there is a broader umbrella organization for the effort, it's not just a bunch of unaffiliated unions.
Edit - do you mean more specifically that they should establish a nationwide contract with the company?
Also IIRC Starbucks wanted to force a company-wide effort in the beginning. It is a much more daunting task and prevents individual victories that are enabled by the localized efforts
Speaking off, Starbucks went for the next step on anti-union escalation and closed a location as punishment for unionizing. Reporter Michael Sainato says:
Can a Unionized National Guard refuse deployment? That's really why I wouldn't want them in a union.
The ruling applies to National Guard members operating for the local state. Unionization for anyone operating for the federal government would not be included.
+1
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Yea I think the NG union protects the soldiers during non military deployments like hospital staffing, disaster relief and things like that.
The military has its own laws and regulations that make this a different kettle of fish. Like, you can't be charged with a crime because your manager at Best Buy told you to do something lawful and you refused to do so.
Yea I think the NG union protects the soldiers during non military deployments like hospital staffing, disaster relief and things like that.
Could soldiers refuse deployment in non military matters?
Define deployment.
A state can't send them overseas to some other country, that's solely the purview of the federal government.
A state can mobilize them for a local emergency which, based on this, the union could theoretically refuse in part or conpletely depending on conditions but not an individual soldier.
Yea I think the NG union protects the soldiers during non military deployments like hospital staffing, disaster relief and things like that.
Could soldiers refuse deployment in non military matters?
That would probably depend on the exact agreement. I know the intent of the unionization is to pushback against 'emergency' deployments by the state that are longer than what any reasonable person would deem an emergency.
The lawsuit for the decision came from CT and I'm not familiar with the details, but another example is Texas governor About deploying NG personnel for a year long involuntary activation on border.
Public employees, even if unionized, typically have their right to strike legally prohibited by states. I would be very surprised if it turned out differently for the National Guard.
I apologize if this comes out unclear. I'm struggling how to describe my concern.
Basically after seeing a Republican federal government actively try and divert emergency supplies from perceived Blue states to perceived Red States I am concerned that providing a union (permitting strikes or refusal to deploy or whatever) would give cover to not helping during emergencies.
For example, refusing to help a predominantly minority community in a Republican held state
I apologize if this comes out unclear. I'm struggling how to describe my concern.
Basically after seeing a Republican federal government actively try and divert emergency supplies from perceived Blue states to perceived Red States I am concerned that providing a union (permitting strikes or refusal to deploy or whatever) would give cover to not helping during emergencies.
For example, refusing to help a predominantly minority community in a Republican held state
The Guard is under the command of the governor so in that situation they'd just...not be sent.
Speaking of public employees, the DSA needs to start pushing those states that ban public employees (i.e. the majority of states) to repeal those laws. In my state it'd be as simple as a ballot initiative. Convincing state legislatures to legalize such strikes will of course be impossible at this stage regardless of whether they're Democratic or Republican controlled, but it should be a standard demand and rallying point for DSA chapters in every state.
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
This is besides other political bullshit like sending the National Guard to be substitute teachers because no one wanted to admit that getting all the teachers infected with COVID was a bad plan. They're increasingly being used as band-aids on gaping wounds the politicians don't want to deal with seriously and understandably they'd like to not die from this bullshit and want to protect themselves.
Posts
My grandmother's brother went to the gulag for years for complaining about working conditions in the iron foundry he worked at (to his best friend at the time, who reported him to the UDBA).
I'm of two minds about this. Obviously... yay union. Also... union of members of state violence apparatus... and that's worked so well with police unions. Obviously not 1:1 here so probably overconcerned.
Also the union only applies when they’re controlled by a state so there is an immediate union busting tool available to the National govt*
*not to say that this is good just to say that it’s a curb on the unions power and so if there are issues this does make them weaker.
**not to say it doesn’t happen (see Air Force evangelicals) but I am simply less worried about it than in the police.
Eh, it's worth a tiny bit of sideeye for the reasons noted. But on the flip side, National Guard doesn't have the same carve outs and culture that cops do, so there's less of that occupation mentality among their ranks I would expect, which make a union less prone to be used as a cudgel the same way Cop Unions are.
@Shivahn just want to double check, socialist theory as it relates to labour and unions is still okay though?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Isn't there a specific thread for socialist theory somewhere already?
Jason Schreier is a journalist covering the vidya and vidya workings
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I'm not part of a union, but obviously--from looking around in my industry/internationally--think they're dandy. I'd join one. However, I'd also be very upset if someone at my workplace in Random Distant Team X said "we voted, and you're part of a union now".
How's that usually work? It's not that I'd be mad about "the union" aspect, it's the "hang on, ask why don't you?" aspect, and sort of more generally what sorts of majorities are required? Obviously if 51% (or w/e) of "roughly my position" voted and that's how it came out, that's that even if I missed the memo, but I've read stories of "this random team voted and now the whole workplace is..." and well that just seemed weird.
Edit: For the record, I would also be mad if they said "we decided you're having Popeye's for lunch"; it's really the principle of the thing. I love Popeye's, but I am also a stubborn bastard.
It is important to remember that right now going it alone means you as a person trained to do a specific job are negotiating, by yourself, with a person whos whole job training is to do negotiating. With vastly more power and industry connections to get you at the rate they want. Going it alone in this kind of situation might feel right but you are at a major disadvantage in labor negotiations.
Yeah, I mean do refer to the first half of my post, there.
I have, however, read reports here and there about "X team voted to unionise and now the entire company is dealing with..." with the clear implication that "looks like other people were covered who nobody talked to". If that's not the case, great! (Hell, I think one was even here, where some QA department voted to, and everyone began talking about how now the rest of the studio would this and such.) It seemed weird, as that would definitely not be a majority of any amount of peoples, so I thought I'd ask.
E: not you having anti-union rhetoric, to be clear. I meant the reportage of "X team voted to unionise and now the entire company is dealing with..."
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Not to say it's impossible, but it seems like pearl clutching over an astronomically unlikely outlier, to me.
While some states will make it so that everyone covered under a collective bargaining unit must pay the bargaining fee (there are other fees not paid) those people who choose to not be in the union are not in the union and are not “covered” except insomuch as they get the benefits of the contract.
Some states (as a union busting tactic) make even that setup illegal such that people not in the union are covered by the collective bargaining but do not have to pay for the cost of that collective bargaining.
So there really isn’t much to fear from other shops unionizing with regards to what it means for you.
With the exception that you should join the union if you have the option. Because it’s good stewardship of your fellow man and because union power will increase your take home wages. Get paid, join a union.
Unions are good. But if someone's negotiating for my shit I want input, as is only right and proper, is all. Even if that input's just "okay Bob, Susan, here's our list, y'all go sort this shit out because I do not want to deal with it", as I have now delegated to Bob and Susan as is logical.
And turns out that's how it generally works (rather like I thought), and the people discussing the other scenario as though it was a good thing were A: Wrong and B: That's not how it works.
The testing wing of Raven Software is apparently about 30, according to PC Gamer
To try to get around it would cause a rift between employer and worker (basically seen as union busting or scabbing), and is largely unheard of but for few exceptions. Those exceptions tend to be notoriously shitty employers who resent their workers for unionizing in the first place, in my experience.
Seven Seas responded by....hiring an union busting firm:
And, for some completely mysterious reason, Seven Seas is suspending their license annoucements:
So, it appears that is boycott time.
That's going to be the next big fight isn't it?
Once Starbucks, et.al. have been forced to deal with the smaller single store unions, they're either going to want a single point of contact to smooth things out (which would be the smarter thing) or continue to kick their own shins by getting in the way of consolidation of negotiation.
Maybe they think that fighting against the consolidation will keep the hit to their pocketbooks small, but I'm betting it's more those in charge think themselves smarter than the unions. And with that arrogance believe they can trick one or more of the unions into being ineffective.
Again, just pointing out that by letting the unions consolidate, they can make it easier on themselves in both the short and long term by getting a single point of contact that they can then corrupt as needed.
But I doubt the big-brains running things currently see it that way.
Edit - do you mean more specifically that they should establish a nationwide contract with the company?
Also IIRC Starbucks wanted to force a company-wide effort in the beginning. It is a much more daunting task and prevents individual victories that are enabled by the localized efforts
The ruling applies to National Guard members operating for the local state. Unionization for anyone operating for the federal government would not be included.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Could soldiers refuse deployment in non military matters?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Define deployment.
A state can't send them overseas to some other country, that's solely the purview of the federal government.
A state can mobilize them for a local emergency which, based on this, the union could theoretically refuse in part or conpletely depending on conditions but not an individual soldier.
That would probably depend on the exact agreement. I know the intent of the unionization is to pushback against 'emergency' deployments by the state that are longer than what any reasonable person would deem an emergency.
The lawsuit for the decision came from CT and I'm not familiar with the details, but another example is Texas governor About deploying NG personnel for a year long involuntary activation on border.
Wouldn't that need a union strike?
Basically after seeing a Republican federal government actively try and divert emergency supplies from perceived Blue states to perceived Red States I am concerned that providing a union (permitting strikes or refusal to deploy or whatever) would give cover to not helping during emergencies.
For example, refusing to help a predominantly minority community in a Republican held state
The Guard is under the command of the governor so in that situation they'd just...not be sent.
This is besides other political bullshit like sending the National Guard to be substitute teachers because no one wanted to admit that getting all the teachers infected with COVID was a bad plan. They're increasingly being used as band-aids on gaping wounds the politicians don't want to deal with seriously and understandably they'd like to not die from this bullshit and want to protect themselves.