EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3574
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6226 Posts
If we reluctantly acknowledge that the existence of our country requires us to find people who will join the military on our behalf, and we are aware of the cost to them and mindful of the fact that they are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, I think we are absolutely required to take responsibility for the ones that come back broken. Removing veterans' healthcare while still expecting people to fight for us is completely incompatible with any model of equity and fairness that I can agree with. The only way to get there is to either believe that service is a sufficient reward in itself via glory, patriotism, payment etc, or to just nakedly state that by having the power to exploit someone we gain the right as well. Both of those are pretty horseshoe-ish. I think there's a lot of people with an unfocused pacifism who see the VA as a soft target, but this is very contradictory to me. From a humanist perspective, if you are going to chip away at the military, the VA should be the absolute last thing to go. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23153 Posts
On April 01 2022 07:44 farvacola wrote: Indeed, judging the personal choices of others without regard to their circumstances is as easy as it is morally repugnant. I’m not a fan of horseshoe theory but it’s not a coincidence that purity tests can be found in all corners of the spectrum. I'm no fan of Amway but they aren't known to be a great purveyor of war crimes. If I saw a doctor, a teacher, a waiter, an Amway salesperson, and a member of the US military I'm just saying that I'm more inclined to commend any of them for their professional service to humanity ahead of the US military member (despite the post 9/11 thank a soldier for their service propaganda I was immersed in growing up). To be clear though, I specifically pointed to the inextricably exploitative composition of US hegemony and the known impressionability of youth in reference to some of the circumstances that help feed recruitment. Also that they should be treated with basic human dignity regardless of their job. From my perspective we see in the benefits provided to US servicemembers a situation of a meritocratic dogma attempting to reshape a limited protection from specific forms of exploitation (topically for-profit healthcare) and promoting hollow praise in what amounts to a | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8976 Posts
On April 01 2022 07:44 farvacola wrote: Indeed, judging the personal choices of others without regard to their circumstances is as easy as it is morally repugnant. I’m not a fan of horseshoe theory but it’s not a coincidence that purity tests can be found in all corners of the spectrum. It is an easy way out, to be jaded by the collective history of the US and what one has gone through in life, to see that if only the US never existed to came to terms with its past, that all would be better. To forget that, for the times that the US has been in existence, that there has always been a need for some power to try and sow peace. Violence is one way and hedging bets against others in favor of power in a region with support or other, another. I' am speaking from my own history and my own thoughts on the matter, so if it is deemed "emotional" then so be it. But I see that, if the world was left to its own devices, then there would be chaos and anarchy. We scream of equality and equity but which country, with an exponentially diverse society and fabric, provides an example? You can look through the history of the world and find not one place where everyone lived in peace. From Ancient Egypt and Rome to today. There is always the strong over the weak. Those with benevolent aspirations do seek to bring those treasured virtues to the masses, but it is and will always be stained in blood. Where we are today and what we strive for tomorrow should not be given up because it is painful or encroaches on a minority. If we as a society were to give in to every demand and seek reparations for every injustice, then we get no where. We are only left with warring tribes. That we have had some semblance of peace throughout the ages and especially today, should not be taken for granted. Again, I do think there is a lot wrong with the US and all of the machinations that make it so. I do think that it can be better and we should strive for it. (this isn't a direct reply to you Farvacola, I just liked the response.)_ | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On April 01 2022 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote: The US has been at war for all but ~20 years of its entire history so it's always "a tough moment" or "not the right time" to impugn the US imperialist racial capitalist war machine. There is a lot of geopolitical stuff surrounding the conflict in Ukraine so it can't be responsibly reduced to Putin bad = giving Ukraine weapons good. I will say that the bipartisan support for weapons is representative of a long history of bipartisan backing of the aforementioned war machine and its unabashed mission to violently entrench US hegemony. Not sure exactly where or how much we disagree. I mean, impugn away! I’m certainly not trying to discourage it, just saying I think the environment is more hostile to it now than it’s been in maybe 15 years or so. If you’re using phrases like “imperialist racial capitalist war machine” there’s not gonna be a good time to make your case without offending people. I’m somewhat curious what your more nuanced analysis than “Putin bad = sending weapons good” would be (although considering you’ve already upset some people in the last page I’m pretty sure you would draw a lot of ire). But I’m a bit conflicted about weapons these days. Without following events in Syria closely I don’t think people really grasp the horrors modern conventional weapons will inflict if large-scale war comes to their area. The US defense industry has really driven the development of those weapons in the last century, and frequently we’ve been the ones pulling the trigger. Most of the time whatever global tragedy we’re using as our justification for unleashing our latest generation weapons designs was a predictable consequence of our actions when we unleashed the last generation of weapons in pursuit of some questionable cause. When most of your problems (and everyone else’s!) are directly traceable to all the other times you decided to start shooting guns, maybe it’s time to stop making so many guns. On the other hand, I’m fairly confident a world in which wars of conquest are the norm would be a worse one, and I don’t have much doubt about the evils the government of, for instance, Russia (or China! Or a lot of other governments!) would inflict on the world unchecked. It may be an oversimplification to reduce the situation to “Putin bad” but Putin is, in fact, bad. A guy that posts on this very forum had his whole city destroyed because Putin decided the consequences of doing so would probably be manageable and he had an ax to grind. I don’t have a lot of hope in the US’s ability to solve the problems of the day and turn itself around into some moral exemplar. I’m pretty sure things are going to go very bad for just about everyone in the next 20 or so years, and I don’t think our democracy has the capability or desire to avoid that. What I don’t know is whether we have the ability to make those terrible things less terrible, and what we would have to do. I suspect “stopping the world order from devolving into a bunch of wars of conquest” is on the list of things we could do that might make the coming decades less horrible for everyone. What that means in terms of policy, though, I have no idea. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23153 Posts
On April 01 2022 10:01 ChristianS wrote: Not sure exactly where or how much we disagree. I mean, impugn away! I’m certainly not trying to discourage it, just saying I think the environment is more hostile to it now than it’s been in maybe 15 years or so. If you’re using phrases like “imperialist racial capitalist war machine” there’s not gonna be a good time to make your case without offending people. I’m somewhat curious what your more nuanced analysis than “Putin bad = sending weapons good” would be (although considering you’ve already upset some people in the last page I’m pretty sure you would draw a lot of ire). + Show Spoiler + But I’m a bit conflicted about weapons these days. Without following events in Syria closely I don’t think people really grasp the horrors modern conventional weapons will inflict if large-scale war comes to their area. The US defense industry has really driven the development of those weapons in the last century, and frequently we’ve been the ones pulling the trigger. Most of the time whatever global tragedy we’re using as our justification for unleashing our latest generation weapons designs was a predictable consequence of our actions when we unleashed the last generation of weapons in pursuit of some questionable cause. When most of your problems (and everyone else’s!) are directly traceable to all the other times you decided to start shooting guns, maybe it’s time to stop making so many guns. On the other hand, I’m fairly confident a world in which wars of conquest are the norm would be a worse one, and I don’t have much doubt about the evils the government of, for instance, Russia (or China! Or a lot of other governments!) would inflict on the world unchecked. It may be an oversimplification to reduce the situation to “Putin bad” but Putin is, in fact, bad. A guy that posts on this very forum had his whole city destroyed because Putin decided the consequences of doing so would probably be manageable and he had an ax to grind. I don’t have a lot of hope in the US’s ability to solve the problems of the day and turn itself around into some moral exemplar. I’m pretty sure things are going to go very bad for just about everyone in the next 20 or so years, and I don’t think our democracy has the capability or desire to avoid that. What I don’t know is whether we have the ability to make those terrible things less terrible, and what we would have to do. I suspect “stopping the works order from devolving into a bunch of wars of conquest” is on the list of things we could do that might make the coming decades less horrible for everyone. What that means in terms of policy, though, I have no idea. Perhaps, but it was virtually treasonous to do it in the immediately preceding years and outrightly so during the civil rights/Vietnam era I don't think I can do the situation, Gerald Horne, or his analysis justice in a post here but I find myself in agreement with him/it (can't speak to the interviewer/channel). The TLDW of it is that you can't understand where we are without an understanding of how we got here. Which speaks to your point about the US rationalizing the next intervention with the fallout of their last. Sometimes finding themselves literally fighting against people the US trained that are using weapons the US gave/sold them. I don't know how deep your curiosity is but that'll give anyone that wants it a baseline so any clarification/questions/disagreements can be informed and pertinent. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Not that there isn’t value in understanding the historical context. Putin has occasionally given quotes saying the collapse of the Soviet Union was a humanitarian tragedy. This tends to make Westerners uncomfortable, since they remember the Soviets mostly for their atrocities, but it absolutely was! Westerners were too busy celebrating and expanding NATO into former Soviet states to care much, but collapse of the government that was managing the whole economy is going to have massive humanitarian cost, and we didn’t do nearly as much to offset that as we could have. That’s a lot of why things have gone so poorly since then, and why Russia would be eager to reconquer ex-Soviet territory today. But none of that justifies the invasion, any more than Versailles justified German aggression. And if you want less atrocities to happen you have to want wars of conquest to stop, because wars of conquest have never not led to atrocities. More than leftism or democracy or liberalism or anything else, I believe in going into other people’s houses with guns being bad. If we can’t oppose that, what the hell are we doing? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23153 Posts
On April 01 2022 14:19 ChristianS wrote: Interesting video. I find a fair amount of common ground in his historical analysis, although right at the start I think he whiffs the first question: Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine! It isn’t complicated! When you invade a neighboring country to try to eliminate its leadership and annex them, you’re the aggressor! If your definition of imperialism has gotten so nuanced it no longer includes “literally invading your neighbors and massacring their people so you can expand your territory” you’ve gone too far, and you should retrace your steps to figure out where you fucked this up! Not that there isn’t value in understanding the historical context. Putin has occasionally given quotes saying the collapse of the Soviet Union was a humanitarian tragedy. This tends to make Westerners uncomfortable, since they remember the Soviets mostly for their atrocities, but it absolutely was! Westerners were too busy celebrating and expanding NATO into former Soviet states to care much, but collapse of the government that was managing the whole economy is going to have massive humanitarian cost, and we didn’t do nearly as much to offset that as we could have. That’s a lot of why things have gone so poorly since then, and why Russia would be eager to reconquer ex-Soviet territory today. But none of that justifies the invasion, any more than Versailles justified German aggression. And if you want less atrocities to happen you have to want wars of conquest to stop, because wars of conquest have never not led to atrocities. More than leftism or democracy or liberalism or anything else, I believe in going into other people’s houses with guns being bad. If we can’t oppose that, what the hell are we doing? I agree with him that labeling an aggressor isn't necessarily the best way to analyze and understand the situation. I see it as simple to propagandize and reductive in a way that benefits US imperialism by ignoring/rationalizing how we got here and the role things such as the US supporting the overthrowing of the Ukrainian government just a handful of years earlier, NATO expansionism, etc played, but doesn't foster a thoughtful understanding. I find it to typically be a cheap rhetorical trick to shutdown critical analysis of how the US has provoked both sides of this for its own benefit (further entrenching US hegemony/feeding the war machine) without caring about the devastation that the Ukrainian people (especially the Roma) or Russians living under sanctions that punish them for not overthrowing their government are enduring. It's a cheap way to signal "I'm on the good side because Putin/Russia is on the bad....RIGHT?!?!" and lump anti-imperialist socialists with right wing reactionaries under various pejoratives. It's not all that dissimilar from the "But Saddam (famously pictured glad-handing Rumsfeld) is a bad guy so you're either on the US's side or his" kind of nonsense. People immediately jump to stuff like your definition of imperialism has gotten so nuanced it no longer includes “literally invading your neighbors and massacring their people so you can expand your territory” you’ve gone too far, and you should retrace your steps to figure out where you fucked this up! when he (or I) said nor implied no such thing. It's a total strawman. Same with jumping to "justifying the Russian invasion". The US also has no problem supporting/engaging in wars of conquest (the internationally recognized criminal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine comes to mind), it does however have a huge problem with anyone doing it outside of their purview, against their economic interests, and/or when it undermines US hegemony. Lastly I'm a socialist in the US, so while I try to maintain an internationalist perspective, I focus on the US's role (it's funded in part by my community's taxes and supported by US elected officials I ostensibly have a choice to vote for/against) in the ongoing atrocities resulting from the perpetuation of US imperialist racial capitalist hegemony while being in opposition to that role and those atrocities. Nothing about that means I don't oppose other atrocities or whatever. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 01 2022 08:44 Belisarius wrote: I think if you are on the left and accept that a military is necessary, it's very difficult to argue against veterans' benefits in some form. If we reluctantly acknowledge that the existence of our country requires us to find people who will join the military on our behalf, and we are aware of the cost to them and mindful of the fact that they are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, I think we are absolutely required to take responsibility for the ones that come back broken. Removing veterans' healthcare while still expecting people to fight for us is completely incompatible with any model of equity and fairness that I can agree with. The only way to get there is to either believe that service is a sufficient reward in itself via glory, patriotism, payment etc, or to just nakedly state that by having the power to exploit someone we gain the right as well. Both of those are pretty horseshoe-ish. I think there's a lot of people with an unfocused pacifism who see the VA as a soft target, but this is very contradictory to me. From a humanist perspective, if you are going to chip away at the military, the VA should be the absolute last thing to go. Even more than that, I personally can't see an ethical way to eliminate VA health benefits as long as there are still a million + draftees who were compelled to fight by the state (many of whom were disadvantaged and thus lacked the resources to dodge the draft) and are alive. Short of guaranteeing everyone equally good care of course or some "draft-only" VA but that seems ripe for abuse. Getting rid of the draft doesn't get rid of the moral duty to care for the people you drafted previously. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On April 01 2022 08:44 Belisarius wrote: I think if you are on the left and accept that a military is necessary, it's very difficult to argue against veterans' benefits in some form. If we reluctantly acknowledge that the existence of our country requires us to find people who will join the military on our behalf, and we are aware of the cost to them and mindful of the fact that they are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, I think we are absolutely required to take responsibility for the ones that come back broken. Removing veterans' healthcare while still expecting people to fight for us is completely incompatible with any model of equity and fairness that I can agree with. The only way to get there is to either believe that service is a sufficient reward in itself via glory, patriotism, payment etc, or to just nakedly state that by having the power to exploit someone we gain the right as well. Both of those are pretty horseshoe-ish. I think there's a lot of people with an unfocused pacifism who see the VA as a soft target, but this is very contradictory to me. From a humanist perspective, if you are going to chip away at the military, the VA should be the absolute last thing to go. The flip side is the likes of the VA, or other benefits are a form of inducement that enables the kind of manpower required for various ill-advised foreign excursions. You’re effectively dangling carrots that certain segments of society have no equivalents elsewhere. I mean it gets circular, you can’t cut the benefits because veterans need taken care of, but they wouldn’t be on that hook if there were equivalent opportunities elsewhere, or indeed the military wasn’t deployed as it has been historically. Which is in part due to those benefits offered | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On April 01 2022 15:42 GreenHorizons wrote: I agree with him that labeling an aggressor isn't necessarily the best way to analyze and understand the situation. I see it as simple to propagandize and reductive in a way that benefits US imperialism by ignoring/rationalizing how we got here and the role things such as the US supporting the overthrowing of the Ukrainian government just a handful of years earlier, NATO expansionism, etc played, but doesn't foster a thoughtful understanding. I have no desire to propagandize or erase US guilt in general. But if analysis is the goal, “imperialist aggression” is, I think, quite obviously the correct category for Russia’s actions here. He gave the example of Korea as a war where “aggressor” isn’t the right framing, and I think that’s a reasonable way to analyze the Korean War, but here we have an absolutely prototypical imperial war of conquest. Putin wants to conquer Ukraine, to acquire territory, to enhance his “greatness,” to create a desert and call it peace. That’s what imperialist aggression looks like! An analysis which fails to recognize this is, in my opinion, deficient! The comparison with Euromaidan couldn’t be weaker. I mean seriously, if you spend 10 minutes researching Yanukovych and Euromaidan, and juxtapose with Zelenskyy and Russia’s invasion in 2022, the difference couldn’t be starker. I don’t know the nature of US involvement in Euromaidan (I’m sure we were eager to help wherever we could) but I’m confident we can’t claim too much credit because we’re basically never able to achieve an outcome like that and we’re always trying. The framing that’s failing us here, I think, is analyzing everything primarily through the lens of “how does this relate to the US’s actions?” Ukrainians overthrew Yanukovych, and Ukrainians are fighting off Putin now; everything isn’t always about us. As you allude to later in this post, it makes sense for us as Americans to focus more on our role in things, but that doesn’t mean we should overestimate our centrality or causal importance in every situation. I find it to typically be a cheap rhetorical trick to shutdown critical analysis of how the US has provoked both sides of this for its own benefit (further entrenching US hegemony/feeding the war machine) without caring about the devastation that the Ukrainian people (especially the Roma) or Russians living under sanctions that punish them for not overthrowing their government are enduring. It's a cheap way to signal "I'm on the good side because Putin/Russia is on the bad....RIGHT?!?!" and lump anti-imperialist socialists with right wing reactionaries under various pejoratives. It's not all that dissimilar from the "But Saddam (famously pictured glad-handing Rumsfeld) is a bad guy so you're either on the US's side or his" kind of nonsense. Again, I have no desire to shut down critical analysis or lump you with right eing reactionaries; if you can point me to a pejorative I used to do so I’d appreciate it, because that was not my intention. People immediately jump to stuff like when he (or I) said nor implied no such thing. It's a total strawman. Same with jumping to "justifying the Russian invasion". The US also has no problem supporting/engaging in wars of conquest (the internationally recognized criminal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine comes to mind), it does however have a huge problem with anyone doing it outside of their purview, against their economic interests, and/or when it undermines US hegemony. Wasn’t intending to accuse you or him of being pro-Russian invasion, but again, I think the invasion is imperialist aggression by any reasonable definition, and that is absolutely a good framing for analysis of this situation. Stuff like “well the US provoked this by expanding NATO” isn’t unreasonable analysis in a longer time scale historical context, in the same sense that “the Allies provoked Germany with the treaty of Versailles” isn’t unreasonable analysis, but that’s only so useful when Germany’s invading Belgium. I think the comparison to occupation of Palestine is a reasonable one, but I’d think that more or less proves my point! Wouldn’t you say Israel/the US are the imperialist aggressors in Palestine? Wouldn’t you say any analysis which omits that framing and focuses on the historical provocations the US/Israel are responding to is deficient? Lastly I'm a socialist in the US, so while I try to maintain an internationalist perspective, I focus on the US's role (it's funded in part by my community's taxes and supported by US elected officials I ostensibly have a choice to vote for/against) in the ongoing atrocities resulting from the perpetuation of US imperialist racial capitalist hegemony while being in opposition to that role and those atrocities. Nothing about that means I don't oppose other atrocities or whatever. Absolutely reasonable emphasis, and I generally share the impulse to focus on my country’s role in things. Not that I think I have much control over that either, but to the extent there’s any value in me discussing American politics it’s in helping Americans decide what Americans should do. But I think that impulse goes astray when, for instance, Americans decide to view world events as solely resulting from US actions. Sometimes people have their own shit going on! Easy-ish example: Reagan didn’t end the Soviet Union by giving stern speeches or escalating the arms race; that was US policy for most of the last 40 years before the Soviet Union fell! There was internal stuff happening that we only had so much to do with. Apologies for the long post, I hate to do the quote-splitting thing but I think the topic is important. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8976 Posts
On April 02 2022 01:18 WombaT wrote: The flip side is the likes of the VA, or other benefits are a form of inducement that enables the kind of manpower required for various ill-advised foreign excursions. You’re effectively dangling carrots that certain segments of society have no equivalents elsewhere. I mean it gets circular, you can’t cut the benefits because veterans need taken care of, but they wouldn’t be on that hook if there were equivalent opportunities elsewhere, or indeed the military wasn’t deployed as it has been historically. Which is in part due to those benefits offered The VA itself is not as enticing an incentive that people in this thread have made it out to be. It's something that is really only thought of as after the fact. The main purpose for recruits joining are vast. I certainly didn't join the Marines for the VA benefits but after I served my 4 years, I was glad I had it for various reasons. Using th VA is akin to taking unemployment. You really only want to use it if you have no other recourse. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9112 Posts
On April 01 2022 15:42 GreenHorizons wrote: I agree with him that labeling an aggressor isn't necessarily the best way to analyze and understand the situation. I see it as simple to propagandize and reductive in a way that benefits US imperialism by ignoring/rationalizing how we got here and the role things such as the US supporting the overthrowing of the Ukrainian government just a handful of years earlier, NATO expansionism, etc played, but doesn't foster a thoughtful understanding. I find it to typically be a cheap rhetorical trick to shutdown critical analysis of how the US has provoked both sides of this for its own benefit (further entrenching US hegemony/feeding the war machine) without caring about the devastation that the Ukrainian people (especially the Roma) or Russians living under sanctions that punish them for not overthrowing their government are enduring. It's a cheap way to signal "I'm on the good side because Putin/Russia is on the bad....RIGHT?!?!" and lump anti-imperialist socialists with right wing reactionaries under various pejoratives. It's not all that dissimilar from the "But Saddam (famously pictured glad-handing Rumsfeld) is a bad guy so you're either on the US's side or his" kind of nonsense. People immediately jump to stuff like when he (or I) said nor implied no such thing. It's a total strawman. Same with jumping to "justifying the Russian invasion". The US also has no problem supporting/engaging in wars of conquest (the internationally recognized criminal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine comes to mind), it does however have a huge problem with anyone doing it outside of their purview, against their economic interests, and/or when it undermines US hegemony. Lastly I'm a socialist in the US, so while I try to maintain an internationalist perspective, I focus on the US's role (it's funded in part by my community's taxes and supported by US elected officials I ostensibly have a choice to vote for/against) in the ongoing atrocities resulting from the perpetuation of US imperialist racial capitalist hegemony while being in opposition to that role and those atrocities. Nothing about that means I don't oppose other atrocities or whatever. The self-described anti-imperialist Americans never seem to acknowledge or care what the people living in the countries they are discussing want or have to say. We (former Warsaw Pact countries) are the ones who came knocking on NATO's door, not the other way around. It was the #1 issue in multiple election cycles, we begged for years to be let in because the other two options are either not having any security or having security in Russia's sphere of influence at an astronomical cost to liberties and development. Yes, there are benefits in it for the US, they didn't let us in for moral reasons but they are minimal, that's why we needed to persuade them rather than the other way around. Far from being exploited, our security is being indirectly subsidized, we would have had to spend a significantly higher % of our GDP on defense in either of the other two scenarios. We have not spent shit on Raytheon and Lockheed, our aircraft and tanks are almost entirely Soviet era scrap metal. If US policy in Eastern Europe was what you seem to think it is, then they're really really incompetent at it. We would have absolutely spent 4% of our GDP on buying American made military equipment if that were the cost having security with free elections and free press and rapid growth, but it isn't. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7288 Posts
If there’s any hope for the US organizing labor is it. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/amazon-workers-in-staten-island-vote-to-unionize.html | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21630 Posts
On April 02 2022 03:48 Zambrah wrote: so your telling me that tomorrow everyone there will be fired to avoid said union from forming?Good news for labor organization! First Amazon warehouse has voted in favor of unionization! JFK8 in Staten Island won their unionization vote by about 500 votes, and now they just need to have the results certified by the NLRB! If there’s any hope for the US organizing labor is it. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/amazon-workers-in-staten-island-vote-to-unionize.html | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13867 Posts
On April 02 2022 03:51 Gorsameth wrote: so your telling me that tomorrow everyone there will be fired to avoid said union from forming? Effectivly they can pretty easily. They'll have to phrase it differently but in reality there are a lot of options to them to not have to work with a union if they don't want to. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8976 Posts
On April 02 2022 03:51 Gorsameth wrote: so your telling me that tomorrow everyone there will be fired to avoid said union from forming? That would only invite a class action. Only thing I can see happening from this is that they get a say in when they leave during peak periods, when mandatory overtime happens, and how much they get paid. Source: I used to work at a fulfillment center and delivery center for Amazon. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
