I wish rolling PTO was a thing in Canada, personally. I have worked FT for about 20 years now and have never used more than 2 sick days in a year. Every year I have 8-10 sick days that go unused and provide me with no benefit whatsoever.
Meanwhile a certain group of co-workers always manage to use up their entire allotment of sick days. Amazing how those people are sick exactly 10 working days each year! Not 9 and not 11.
In terms of both company productity and moral, rolling PTO makes alot of sense to me. Should I get two weeks less off per year because I refuse to pretend I'm sick?
And before someone jumps down my throat, yes, there are people who use those sick days for very valid reasons. But they appear to be few and far between as best I can tell.
Using just two sick days is dumb. Take a mental health day a few times a year. Even for a couple days at a time. You're just leaving paid time off on the table and there's no reward for that. No need, either. It's not heroic.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
And why do these unions stay in place? I assume it's because you can't just break them by leaving them on a picket line forever but I'd defer to you.
Out of curiosity and for fun, I asked OpenAI's new ChatGPT a bunch of questions about this. Here's what it had to say.
Spoiler!
What factors have influenced the spread of unionized work in the US over time?
Spoiler!
The spread of unionized work in the US has been influenced by a number of factors over time, including economic conditions, political decisions, and social and cultural trends. Some of the key factors that have influenced the spread of unionized work in the US include:
Economic conditions: The prevalence of unionized work in the US has been influenced by the overall state of the economy, including the level of economic growth, the availability of jobs, and the wages and benefits offered by employers. During periods of economic expansion, unionized work has tended to be more prevalent, as workers have been able to demand higher wages and better working conditions. During periods of economic contraction, unionized work has tended to be less prevalent, as workers have been more willing to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions in order to retain their jobs.
Political decisions: The spread of unionized work in the US has also been influenced by political decisions, including laws and regulations that affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions. For example, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) established the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively, and this law has been instrumental in promoting the spread of unionized work in the US. On the other hand, some political decisions, such as the passage of right-to-work laws in several states, have limited the ability of workers to form and join unions, and have contributed to a decline in unionized work in those states.
Social and cultural trends: The spread of unionized work in the US has also been influenced by social and cultural trends, including changes in attitudes towards work, the role of government, and the power of organized labor. For example, during the early 20th century, the rise of the labor movement and the growth of the industrial economy led to an increase in unionized work, as workers sought to improve their wages and working conditions. In more recent years, however, there has been a shift towards a more individualistic and market-based approach to work, and this has contributed to a decline in unionized work in the US.
Why would, for example, a union of railroad workers be sustained over many years while unions in other industries are less stable?
Spoiler!
The sustainability of unions in different industries can vary depending on a range of factors, including the nature of the work, the economic conditions, and the attitudes of workers and employers. In the case of a union of railroad workers, several factors may contribute to its sustainability over many years, including:
The nature of the work: Railroad work is typically highly skilled and specialized, and workers may require extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively. This may make it more difficult for employers to replace unionized workers with non-union workers, and may give the union more bargaining power in negotiations with the employer.
The economic conditions: The railroad industry is typically relatively stable and immune to short-term economic fluctuations, and this may provide a degree of stability for unionized workers. During periods of economic contraction, for example, demand for rail transportation may not decline as sharply as in other industries, and this may help to preserve jobs and wages for unionized workers.
The attitudes of workers and employers: In the railroad industry, both workers and employers may have a strong commitment to the principles of collective bargaining and labor-management cooperation. This may create a more favorable environment for unionized workers, and may help to sustain union representation over many years.
Overall, the sustainability of unions in different industries can vary depending on a range of factors, and the sustainability of a union of railroad workers may be influenced by the specific conditions and characteristics of that industry.
Can you explain in greater detail how economic growth and contraction affects unions?
Spoiler!
The relationship between economic growth and contraction and the prevalence of unions is complex and can vary depending on a range of factors. Generally, however, economic growth is often associated with an increase in unionized work, while economic contraction is often associated with a decline in unionized work.
During periods of economic growth, employers typically experience increased demand for their products or services, and this can lead to an increase in hiring and a growth in the number of unionized jobs. As the economy expands, workers may have more leverage to demand higher wages and better working conditions, and this can create a more favorable environment for unionization. In addition, employers may be more willing to grant concessions to workers in order to retain their labor and maintain a competitive edge in the market.
During periods of economic contraction, on the other hand, employers may experience decreased demand for their products or services, and this can lead to a decline in hiring and a reduction in the number of unionized jobs. As the economy contracts, workers may be more willing to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions in order to retain their jobs, and this can create a less favorable environment for unionization. In addition, employers may be less willing to grant concessions to workers in order to maintain their profitability and competitiveness in a difficult economic environment.
Overall, economic growth and contraction can have a significant impact on the prevalence of unionized work, and can affect the bargaining power and working conditions of unionized workers.
Provide more details on policy changes over time in the US that affected sustainability of unions and unionization
Spoiler!
The sustainability of unions and unionization in the US has been influenced by a range of policy changes over time. Some of the key policy changes that have affected the sustainability of unions and unionization in the US include:
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA): This law established the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively, and it has been instrumental in promoting the spread of unionized work in the US. The NLRA established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is responsible for overseeing the process of unionization and collective bargaining, and for enforcing the rights of workers and employers under the law.
The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947: This law amended the NLRA, and it introduced a number of changes that were seen as being more favorable to employers and less favorable to unions. The Taft-Hartley Act, for example, allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, which prohibit employers from requiring workers to join a union as a condition of employment. This law also introduced new restrictions on the ability of unions to engage in certain types of activities, such as strikes and boycotts, and it established procedures for decertifying unions that had lost the support of their members.
The Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959: This law further amended the NLRA, and it introduced new regulations designed to protect the rights of individual union members and to prevent corruption and abuse within the labor movement. The Landrum-Griffin Act established new rules governing the internal affairs of unions, including rules on elections, financial reporting, and the use of union funds. It also established new procedures for disciplining union officials who engaged in misconduct, and it created a new federal agency, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), to enforce the provisions of the law.
Overall, policy changes in the US over time have had a significant impact on the sustainability of unions and unionization, and have shaped the legal and regulatory framework within which unions operate.
How about since 1960?
Spoiler!
Since 1960, there have been a number of policy changes in the US that have affected the sustainability of unions and unionization. Some of the key policy changes since 1960 include:
The passage of right-to-work laws in several states: Since the 1960s, a number of states have passed right-to-work laws, which prohibit employers from requiring workers to join a union as a condition of employment. These laws have had a negative impact on unionization in those states, as they have made it more difficult for unions to organize and maintain membership.
Changes to the NLRA and other labor laws: Since 1960, there have been a number of changes to the NLRA and other labor laws, including amendments to the NLRA, the adoption of new regulations, and the creation of new agencies to enforce the law. These changes have generally been seen as being more favorable to employers and less favorable to unions, and they have contributed to a decline in unionization in the US.
Economic and demographic changes: Since 1960, the US economy has undergone significant changes, including the decline of manufacturing and the growth of the service sector. These changes have had a negative impact on unionization, as many of the industries that were traditionally unionized, such as manufacturing, have declined, while many of the industries that are growing, such as healthcare and education, have been less unionized. In addition, demographic changes, such as the aging of the population, have also contributed to a decline in unionization, as older workers are typically less likely to be unionized than younger workers.
Overall, policy changes and other factors since 1960 have contributed to a decline in unionization in the US, and have had a negative impact on the sustainability of unions and unionized work.
Why would services industries be less likely to unionize than manufacturing industries?
Spoiler!
There are a number of reasons why services industries are typically less likely to unionize than manufacturing industries. Some of the key reasons why services industries are less likely to unionize include:
The nature of the work: Services industries, such as healthcare and education, typically involve work that is highly skilled and specialized, and workers may require extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively. This may make it more difficult for workers to organize and form unions, as they may be more focused on their individual careers and less interested in collective action.
The economic conditions: Services industries are typically less stable and more sensitive to economic fluctuations than manufacturing industries, and this can make it more difficult for workers to organize and form unions. During periods of economic contraction, for example, employers in services industries may be more likely to lay off workers or reduce their wages and benefits in order to maintain their profitability, and this can make workers less likely to support unionization.
The attitudes of workers and employers: Services industries, such as healthcare and education, are often seen as being more socially and politically sensitive than manufacturing industries, and this can affect the attitudes of workers and employers towards unionization. For example, workers in services industries may be more concerned about the impact of unionization on the quality of care or education, and this can make them less likely to support unionization. Similarly, employers in services industries may be more concerned about the impact of unionization on their ability to manage their operations and maintain a high level of service, and this can make them less willing to support unionization.
Overall, there are a number of reasons why services industries are typically less likely to unionize than manufacturing industries, and these factors can affect the ability of workers in services industries to organize and form unions.
So, is it a general trend that as the share of an economy made up of services industries increases there will be a reduction in the prevalence of unions?
Spoiler!
It is generally thought that as the share of an economy made up of services industries increases, there will be a reduction in the prevalence of unions. This is because the factors that make services industries less likely to unionize, such as the nature of the work, the economic conditions, and the attitudes of workers and employers, are likely to become more pronounced as the share of the economy made up of services industries increases.
As the share of the economy made up of services industries increases, the number of workers employed in services industries is likely to increase, and this can lead to a decline in the overall number of unionized workers. In addition, as the share of the economy made up of services industries increases, the overall level of unionization is likely to decline, as workers in services industries are typically less likely to be unionized than workers in manufacturing industries.
Overall, the trend towards an increasing share of the economy made up of services industries is likely to lead to a reduction in the prevalence of unions, as the factors that make services industries less likely to unionize become more pronounced.
Does the sense of financial security of a population also affect their willingness to unionize?
Spoiler!
The sense of financial security of a population can have a significant impact on their willingness to unionize. In general, people who feel financially secure are more likely to support unionization, as they are more likely to see unions as a means of protecting their economic interests and ensuring fair treatment by their employers. On the other hand, people who do not feel financially secure are less likely to support unionization, as they may be more focused on their individual circumstances and less interested in collective action.
There are a number of factors that can affect the financial security of a population, including economic conditions, levels of income and wealth, and the availability of social safety net programs. During periods of economic growth, for example, people are typically more likely to feel financially secure, and this can increase their willingness to support unionization. In contrast, during periods of economic contraction, people are typically less likely to feel financially secure, and this can decrease their willingness to support unionization.
Overall, the sense of financial security of a population can have a significant impact on their willingness to unionize, and can affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions.
It sounds as though the ideal context for development of stable unions would be one with stable conditions of economic growth and a worker population threat is reasonably financially secure and doing work that does not require a high level of education and specialization. Is this correct?
Spoiler!
It is generally thought that the ideal context for the development of stable unions would be one with stable conditions of economic growth, a worker population that is reasonably financially secure, and work that does not require a high level of education and specialization. In such a context, workers would be more likely to see the benefits of unionization, and would be more willing to support unionization and engage in collective action.
Stable conditions of economic growth would provide a supportive environment for unionization, as employers would be more likely to be hiring and expanding their operations, and workers would have more leverage to demand higher wages and better working conditions. A worker population that is reasonably financially secure would also be more supportive of unionization, as workers would be more likely to see unions as a means of protecting their economic interests and ensuring fair treatment by their employers. Work that does not require a high level of education and specialization would also be more conducive to unionization, as workers would be more likely to have similar interests and be able to organize and form unions more easily.
Overall, the ideal context for the development of stable unions would be one with stable conditions of economic growth, a worker population that is reasonably financially secure, and work that does not require a high level of education and specialization.
Your responses about railroad workers as being likely to unionize because they are highly skilled with specialized training seems to contradict your more recent responses that highly skilled industries requiring more education are less likely to unionize.
Spoiler!
I apologize if my previous responses were unclear or contradictory. In general, industries that require highly skilled workers with specialized training, such as railroad workers, are more likely to unionize than industries that do not require such high levels of skill and specialization. This is because workers in industries that require highly skilled workers with specialized training are typically more likely to see the benefits of unionization, and are more likely to engage in collective action to protect their interests.
At the same time, it is also true that industries that require highly skilled workers with specialized training, such as healthcare and education, are often less likely to unionize than other industries. This is because workers in these industries may be more focused on their individual careers and less interested in collective action, and because employers in these industries may be more concerned about the impact of unionization on the quality of care or education.
Overall, while industries that require highly skilled workers with specialized training may be more likely to unionize than other industries, there are also factors that can make it more difficult for workers in these industries to organize and form unions. I apologize if my previous responses were unclear or contradictory.
Is railroad work highly skilled? Can you give examples?
Spoiler!
Railroad work is generally considered to be highly skilled, as it requires workers to have extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively. Railroad workers are typically responsible for a wide range of tasks, including operating trains, maintaining track and equipment, and coordinating the movement of trains.
Examples of highly skilled railroad work include:
Train engineers: Train engineers are responsible for operating trains, including controlling the speed, direction, and braking of the train. Train engineers typically require extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively, and must have a thorough understanding of the safety regulations and operating procedures for trains.
Track workers: Track workers are responsible for maintaining the track and other rail infrastructure, including repairing and replacing rail, ties, and other track components. Track workers typically require a high level of skill and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively, and must be able to work safely and efficiently in a variety of weather and environmental conditions.
Train dispatchers: Train dispatchers are responsible for coordinating the movement of trains, including scheduling trains, routing trains, and communicating with train crews. Train dispatchers typically require a high level of skill and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively, and must be able to make quick and accurate decisions in order to ensure the safe and efficient movement of trains.
Overall, railroad work is generally considered to be highly skilled, and requires workers to have extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively.
Is railroad work considered highly skilled labor, but not knowledge work?
Spoiler!
Railroad work is generally considered to be highly skilled labor, but not necessarily knowledge work. Highly skilled labor refers to work that requires workers to have extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively, and railroad work is generally considered to be highly skilled labor, as it requires workers to have extensive training and experience in order to operate trains and maintain the rail infrastructure.
Knowledge work, on the other hand, refers to work that requires workers to have a high level of knowledge and expertise in a particular field or discipline, and to be able to use that knowledge to solve complex problems or create new ideas. While some railroad workers, such as train dispatchers or track engineers, may have a high level of knowledge and expertise in their field, most railroad workers do not typically engage in knowledge work as part of their job.
Overall, while railroad work is considered to be highly skilled labor, it is not necessarily considered to be knowledge work.
Is this highly skilled vs. Knowledge work distinction quite important for unionization?
Spoiler!
The distinction between highly skilled labor and knowledge work is not necessarily important for unionization, as both types of work can be unionized. However, there are some differences between highly skilled labor and knowledge work that can affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions.
One key difference between highly skilled labor and knowledge work is the level of skill and expertise required to perform the work. Highly skilled labor typically requires workers to have extensive training and experience in order to perform their jobs effectively, while knowledge work typically requires workers to have a high level of knowledge and expertise in a particular field or discipline. This can affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions, as workers in highly skilled labor industries may be more focused on their individual careers and less interested in collective action, while workers in knowledge work industries may be more interested in collective action and more willing to support unionization.
Another key difference between highly skilled labor and knowledge work is the economic conditions in which the work is performed. Highly skilled labor industries, such as manufacturing and construction, are typically more stable and less sensitive to economic fluctuations than knowledge work industries, such as healthcare and education. This can affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions, as workers in highly skilled labor industries may be more likely to have stable, long-term employment, and may be more willing to support unionization, while workers in knowledge work industries may be more vulnerable to economic downturns and may be less willing to support unionization.
Overall, while the distinction between highly skilled labor and knowledge work is not necessarily important for unionization, there are some differences between the two types of work that can affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions.
Can you summarize the content of your prior responses on the topic of unions and unionization?
Spoiler!
In my previous responses, I discussed the factors that influence the spread of unionized work in the US over time, including economic growth and contraction, policy changes, and the nature of the work being performed. I also discussed the differences between highly skilled labor and knowledge work, and how these differences can affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions. I also provided examples of industries that are likely to unionize, such as railroad workers, and industries that are less likely to unionize, such as service workers at companies like Starbucks.
Overall, the ability of workers to unionize and form unions is influenced by a range of factors, including the economic conditions in which they work, the nature of the work being performed, and the level of skill and expertise required to perform the work. While some industries, such as railroad work, are more conducive to unionization than others, it is possible for workers in any industry to organize and form unions to protect their interests and ensure fair treatment by their employers.
Would a context in which average personal debt levels are increasing, the time between recessions is decreasing, and political turmoil is elevated be conducive to unionization?
Spoiler!
A context in which average personal debt levels are increasing, the time between recessions is decreasing, and political turmoil is elevated is generally not conducive to unionization. In such a context, workers may be more focused on their individual financial security and less interested in engaging in collective action to support unionization. In addition, employers may be more concerned about the potential impact of unionization on their ability to respond to economic downturns and political turmoil, and may be less willing to support unionization.
However, it is important to note that the ability of workers to unionize and form unions is not determined solely by economic and political conditions. Other factors, such as the nature of the work being performed and the level of skill and expertise required to perform the work, can also affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions. For example, workers in industries that require highly skilled workers with specialized training, such as railroad workers, may be more likely to unionize, even in a context of economic and political uncertainty, as they are able to see the benefits of unionization and are more likely to engage in collective action to protect their interests.
Overall, while a context of economic and political uncertainty may not be conducive to unionization, other factors, such as the nature of the work being performed and the level of skill and expertise required to perform the work, can also affect the ability of workers to organize and form unions.
Are economic and social conditions in the US over the last decade conducive to unionization?
Spoiler!
Economic and social conditions in the US over the last decade have been generally not conducive to unionization. Over the last decade, the US economy has experienced a period of relatively slow growth and high levels of economic uncertainty, and many workers have faced challenges such as rising debt levels and increasing job insecurity. In such a context, workers may be more focused on their individual financial security and less interested in engaging in collective action to support unionization.
In addition, over the last decade, the US has experienced significant social and political upheaval, with increasing polarization and political turmoil. In such a context, workers may be more focused on individual issues and less interested in collective action to support unionization. Employers may also be more concerned about the potential impact of unionization on their ability to respond to economic and political uncertainty, and may be less willing to support unionization.
Overall, while it is not impossible for workers in the US to unionize and form unions, the economic and social conditions over the last decade have generally not been conducive to unionization, and many workers have been more focused on their individual financial security and less interested in engaging in collective action to support unionization.
Has the number of unions in the US increased or decreased in the last decade?
Spoiler!
The number of unions in the US has generally decreased over the last decade. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of workers represented by unions in the US decreased from approximately 16.8 million in 2009 to approximately 14.7 million in 2019. This represents a decline of approximately 12%, and indicates that over the last decade, fewer workers in the US have been represented by unions.
The decline in the number of unions in the US over the last decade can be attributed to a number of factors, including economic and social conditions, as well as changes in labor laws and policies that have made it more difficult for workers to organize and form unions. In addition, the rise of new technologies and changes in the nature of work have also contributed to the decline in the number of unions in the US, as workers in some industries have been displaced by new technologies and have been less able to organize and form unions to protect their interests.
Overall, the number of unions in the US has generally decreased over the last decade, as a result of a range of economic, social, and technological factors.
What changes in labor laws and policies over the last decade would have contributed to the reduction in unions?
Spoiler!
Over the last decade, there have been a number of changes in labor laws and policies in the US that have contributed to the reduction in unions. These changes include the following:
The passage of Right-to-Work laws in several states, which make it more difficult for unions to collect membership dues and maintain their membership.
Changes to the National Labor Relations Act, which have made it more difficult for workers to organize and form unions.
Changes to the definition of an independent contractor, which have made it more difficult for workers in certain industries to unionize.
The rise of new technologies, such as automation and artificial intelligence, which have displaced workers in some industries and made it more difficult for them to unionize.
Overall, these changes in labor laws and policies have made it more difficult for workers to organize and form unions, and have contributed to the reduction in unions in the US over the last decade.
TLDR
That was pretty long, so I also asked it to provide a tldr summary in bullet points:
Spoiler!
The ability of workers to unionize and form unions is influenced by economic and social conditions, as well as the nature of the work being performed and the level of skill and expertise required to perform the work.
Highly skilled labor and knowledge work are two different types of work, with different characteristics that can affect the ability of workers to unionize and form unions.
Some industries, such as railroad work, are more conducive to unionization than others, such as service work, due to the nature of the work being performed and the level of skill and expertise required to perform the work.
Over the last decade, economic and social conditions in the US have generally not been conducive to unionization, as workers have been more focused on their individual financial security and less interested in engaging in collective action to support unionization.
And last question: Will improvements in AI, such as you, be more conducive to conditions of unionization or union breaking?
Spoiler!
Improvements in AI, such as myself, may be more conducive to conditions of union breaking rather than unionization. As AI technologies become more advanced and are able to perform a wider range of tasks, they may be able to displace workers in a variety of industries, making it more difficult for those workers to unionize and form unions to protect their interests.
In addition, as AI technologies become more advanced and are able to perform tasks that previously required human skill and expertise, workers in those industries may find it more difficult to unionize and form unions. This is because the workers may not have the same level of skill and expertise as the AI technologies, and may be less able to negotiate strong collective bargaining agreements with their employers.
Overall, while it is not impossible for workers to unionize and form unions in industries that are impacted by AI technologies, improvements in AI may be more conducive to conditions of union breaking rather than unionization, as workers may be displaced by AI technologies and may have difficulty organizing and forming unions to protect their interests.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
So effectively, you're arguing that because a portion of your population enjoys rolling PTO (while most low and middle income workers don't receive it at all), this is an "institutional cultural difference" and must be respected by dint that Americans love their working poor staying poor?
God bless America.
What you don't understand is the Fair Labor Standards Act does NOT require an employer to pay you for time not worked. This is a benefit that the employer extends to you and they are under no obligation to manage these programs in any consistent way, as the law clearly states that pay for not working is not required.
On the issue of options, a majority of the population prefers the roll up option. When they have both options explained to them, they much prefer the PTO option rather than vacation and dedicated sick days. Here's why.
In a system where you get 2 weeks vacation and 10 sick days you are expected to use only those days for the appropriate purposes. You get to normally bank the unused time in each to a maximum. The standard gift of vacation for employees who have not server five or more years with a company is usually two weeks of vacation (80 hours). For five to 10 years of service you will normally see another 20-40 hours granted. After 10 or 15 years you me be lucky to get another 20-40 hours, usually maxing out at around eight weeks vacation. Sick days stay consistent and you accrue hours for the time you work. The maximums are set by the company, but most allow you to accrue up to eight weeks of vacation before they start forcing you to use it or lose it. There usually is no payout option, but some will give you a 50% payout on the hours that exceed your bank. Sick days are also capped out and no payout is standard. It usually takes a few years to accrue enough vacation to where you are capped out.
In the rolled up PTO scenario, you're getting your two weeks vacation, plus 5-7 days that rolled in to the available days off. You can use all of these days as you see fit, for sick time or for vacation time. For those who don't use their sick time this helps accrue vacation time more quickly and get you to the point where you may receive a payout for the time exceeding your bank. Also, when you leave the company you are with, they have to payout your vacation, so you have that backend benefit. It works out much better for most in the American system and culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
"Actually, Americans love having large corporations boot on their neck, just not the government's."
Yup, that's a pretty accurate generalization. It is true that we live in a corporatocracy and people will let business get away with murder while at the same time not trusting government. This is wat happens when you are exposed to media that tells you the government is corrupt but corporations continue to work for you, the consumer. It's all backwards and bull####, but it is the American way. I personally don't like it, but I wasn't born here and wasn't exposed to the brainwashing that Americans are, especially from very early ages.
I'm picking up what you're putting down, but I'm not really grasping why I'm supposed to respect this ####ed up cultural more, nor why it's some intractable position that can never be challenged.
I have a lot of American friends under 40 that have been turbo####ed by the system for years, it is not kind to those born into poverty or those who fall into marginalized groups.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I'm picking up what you're putting down, but I'm not really grasping why I'm supposed to respect this ####ed up cultural more, nor why it's some intractable position that can never be challenged.
I have a lot of American friends under 40 that have been turbo####ed by the system for years, it is not kind to those born into poverty or those who fall into marginalized groups.
I hear what you're saying. The system needs to change. The problem is corporations are really good at selling a bad product and Americans have a really over-inflated sense of self as a nation. Whatever is done in the United States is the greatest, even if every measure imaginable says otherwise. It is frustrating and requires change at every level of society. We need better education that has people look beyond the borders of the United States and learn about other countries and societies. They need to understand the history of the country other than what the founding fathers had to say. Would it surprise you to know that the great depression, the New Deal, the formation of trade unions, and the impact they had on the working class is NOT taught in school? How can you change the minds and culture of a nation if the history of unions and the benefits they provided are never exposed? The corporations have done a tremendous job burying the history of their abuses of the working class and making sure that people remain uneducated sheep. They continue to stack the deck, but do so in a way where there is short-term benefit to workers, which is what Americans are raised to focus on - the short-term.
So, with all the denials of any election they don't win and constant cries for re-counts, Colorado will be running a mandatory re-count by law given the small margin of victory by which Boebert was re-elected. I'm sure the results won't change but would love to see the results flip just so the Republican election deniers can cry some more.
So, with all the denials of any election they don't win and constant cries for re-counts, Colorado will be running a mandatory re-count by law given the small margin of victory by which Boebert was re-elected. I'm sure the results won't change but would love to see the results flip just so the Republican election deniers can cry some more.
Ridiculous that this idiot keeps getting elected. WTF is wrong with people in that district?
The Following User Says Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
One is protesting/intimidating the government. The other is intimidating private citizens. You don't see the difference in that?
No, please explain the difference. Both are using intimidation.
You're also going to have to explain this "intimidating the government" garbage too. Government is a mechanism of managing public policy and systems. You can't "intimidate" a policy or system, you can only intimidate the people that create or manage either. This intimidation is campaign based on fear and concerns of impending violence. That is the definition of terrorism. Are you suggesting that terrorism is okay?
Why would you think that one form of intimidation is okay over others. They are both terror campaigns and both extremely stupid and dangerous. The idiots who run around in tactical gear with guns and body armor are terrorists. They are nothing but Ya'll Qaeda and a threat to civil society.
the "culture war" is going to turn into a real war for one side.
Its bizarre to me. Its ok for anti Semitism and white supremacy, but drag queens crosses the line for them?
What a ####ed up country
Ok with anti-semitism and white supremacy? I am sure that is part of their mantra.
It seems there is at least a non zero chance that the power stations in NC that were shot up yesterday taking down power to 40,000 people was done to shut down a drag show that was being heavily protested.
Nothing close to definitive yet, but pretty f'n crazy if its gone that far. It seems the Club Q shooting has somehow started a war on drag shows?
