World of Warcraft promotes Overlords of Outland and Shadowlands 9.1.5 as labor organizers take the fight to Activision-Blizzard

    
40
cha-cha-cha-cha-changes

The Blizzard currently pumping out videos, timelines, and recaps of impending content is not really a Blizzard we recognize, but uh, it’s definitely happening. In what still appears to be a transparent and understandable attempt to repair spoiled relations with the playerbase, the World of Warcraft team has dropped yet another summary of inbound patches for both Retail and Classic WoW, complete with videos.

On the Classic side of things, Burning Crusade players can look forward to Overlords of Outland tomorrow evening, when Serpentshrine Cavern and The Eye go live, along with guild banks and the LFG browser.

And for Retail fans, the team offers preparations for 9.1.5, which of course will remove the conduit energy system, increases the drop rate for shards of domination, and add new customization options as previously noted.

“On the 9.1.5 PTR, a wide array of changes and quality-of-life improvements are being added and tweaked in real-time, more will be going live over the course of this week, and we welcome your input,” the studio says, as our eyebrows escape Earth orbit.

Meanwhile, the A Better ABK group within Activision-Blizzard announced this afternoon that it has filed a suit with the National Labor Relations Board seeking a ruling to prevent Activision-Blizzard from intimidating workers discussing the terms of their contracts – an accusation the state of California already leveled at the company during that whole “shredding evidence” fiasco. “If the NLRB rules in our favor, the ruling will be retroactive and we will set a precedent that no worker in the US can be intimidated out of talking about forced arbitration,” the proto-union group says.

Activision-Blizzard is considered a controversial company in the MMO and gaming space owing to a long string of scandals over the last few years, including the Blitzchung boycott, mass layoffs, labor disputes, and executive pay fiasco. Most recently, the company was sued by the state of California for fostering a work environment riddled with sexual harassment and discrimination, the disastrous corporate response to which has further compounded Blizzard’s ongoing pipeline issues and the widespread perception that its online games are in decline.
Advertisement

No posts to display

40
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Neurotic

The eyebrows bit, omg 😂

Grimalkin
Reader
Grimalkin

We all see the hypocrisy here, right?

Reader
Utakata

…this gem is worth repeating. <3

“‘On the 9.1.5 PTR, a wide array of changes and quality-of-life improvements are being added and tweaked in real-time, more will be going live over the course of this week, and we welcome your input,’ the studio says, as our eyebrows escape Earth orbit.

(And the emphasis is mine.)

Reader
lispychicken

Blizzard could announce WoW2, on a new land, with everything we all want, and when it debuts, every single person who “boycotted” the company would be neck deep in the game on day 1.

Reader
Krzysztof Czajka

But they won’t so don’t worry about it

Reader
Josh

Uh no?

Ion could show up to my house and offer to personally code in all my wildest dream content and my reaction would still be “get fucked”

Reader
Bruno Brito

Sweetie, i would rather a pack of Kodos would trample me than being forced to play a second of BfA/Shadowlands.

I’m highly sure the seventh circle of hell is grinding Azerite or Soul Ash.

Reader
Utakata

Hopefully Blizz would have cleaned up their shit by then. /shrug

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

The Blizzard currently pumping out videos, timelines, and recaps of impending content is not really a Blizzard we recognize, but uh, it’s definitely happening.

Can’t coast on inertia forever, eventually you lose steam and need to start feeding the furnace again.

Which IMO is good either way, the WoW team has seemingly been pretty detached from reality for quite some time now (“You think you do, but you don’t.”) and seemingly getting high on their own product. A bit of humility might be just what the doctor ordered.

And go AKB group, more power to the workers, all the time.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Unions don’t provide power to the workers. Unions are just big business, and are there to make money. Sure, they make money by negotiating for the workers who pay them. Unions are just a service.

I, personally don’t like being in a union, after being in a few, while my mom and some other people I know did enjoy their time in a union. I always believe that you should not be forced to be in a union, but also, that if you are not in a union, then you should not be afforded the same benefits that the union negotiated, and must negotiate for you own. If you do better in negotiations, more power to you, if you do worse, well, that is all on you.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Unions don’t provide power to the workers.

Except that they do. The strength of collective bargaining, the protections of union reps and your fellow union members etc. Unions are responsible for the overwhelming majority of labor improvements throughout US history at least (I can’t speak for other countries), often times literally being killed in the process. Yes, it’s a “service”, no not all unions are “perfect” and there are some pretty corrupt/garbage ones, but none of that undermines the core function of the union which is to provide greater power and benefits for their members.

Unions laws overall need a huge overhaul as power has been stripped from them over the years. Is there room for how unions are handled in other countries, with non-members enjoying some of the negotiated benefits while having precisely zero of the protections the union grants? Probably. But unions are, and will remain important tools for workers to fight back against exploitative employers under our current economic system.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Unions played a role in getting better working conditions in the US, back when the government had a hands off approach. That is correct, and, if you are a small government advocate, then unions proved a much needed service to employees, and if an employee decided they would rather be exploited then join a union, then that would be on them.

But, unions are outdated now. The government has stepped in an legislated worker protections, as well as regulated what businesses can and cannot do in regards to workers.

I do believe laws regarding unions should be changed, as they are monopolistic in nature. Companies should be able to deal with multiple unions, etc, instead of just one.

What really protects people the most is the simple law of supply and demand. When there are more jobs than people, the competition for employees greatly increases their negotiating position. Likewise, when there are more people than jobs, their negotiating position is severely diminished. Utilizing strong arm tactics to force a better position in these times, has a negative effect across the economy.

Unions are great for some people, but they have also chased many companies to relocate their jobs in other countries. Life isn’t black and white, it is grey, and that is why I will always advocate for them to be optional, as they can provide benefits for many (people who aren’t good at negotiating), while not for others.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

back when the government had a hands off approach.

It still does, which is why unions remain important.

if you are a small government advocate, then unions proved a much needed service to employees

If you’re a small government advocate, you’re also statistically far more likely to be anti-union as well.

unions are outdated now.

Looks at stories of rampant abuse an exploitation, from sexual harassment to the absolutely inhumane conditions that immigrants in meat packing facilities works with*

Looks at stagnant wages for decades because unions haven’t been there to negotiate better wages due to government systematically gutting unions in favor of business interests*

Wat?

Companies should be able to deal with multiple unions, etc, instead of just one.

They may, it depends on the company. Single industry company with everyone doing functionally the same thing? Single union, most likely. Huge company with different unionized disciplines? More likely to have multiple unions to contend with, which businesses were not happy when the NLRB opened that door a while back.

What really protects people the most is the simple law of supply and demand

This is so hugely incorrect I don’t know where to begin. We’re only starting to see those effects come into play in more recent months as we’re seeing low-wage workers abandoning shitty, exploitative jobs in droves. We haven’t seen this before for a variety of reasons, in part because “the laws of supply and demand” don’t really exist, and even when that comes into play the power is primarily in the hands of employers, not employees.

Utilizing strong arm tactics to force a better position in these times, has a negative effect across the economy

Curious, because most of the stories relating to renegotiated union contracts during the pandemic showed that unions were fine taking TEMPORARY cuts to pay/benefits to save off layoffs while times were tough. And what we’re seeing now is that many are struggling to get those benefits back as the companies financial outlook improves because again, the ONLY way to force companies to actually treat workers with a modicum of decency and respect (as a whole) is to use “strong arm tactics” of collective bargaining.

but they have also chased many companies to relocate their jobs in other countries

Translation: Company chose to take their shitty, exploitative practices elsewhere rather than treat their employees like human beings.

people who aren’t good at negotiating

The notion of one person negotiating with a company is frankly, laughable. Very, very, very, very, very few people would have any leverage in that “negotiation”, as everyone is very replacable. It’s a situation where employers have an inherent advantage and edge, and while prospective employees may be able to negotiate some perks it’ll be nothing compared to what they could negotiate with the backing of a union.

The past decades have been nothing if not a lesson on how labor standards, pay, benefits, and working conditions fall as unions lose power and businesses gain power.

Reader
Hostagecat

Any time somebody says Unions are outdated, i cringe because they have not been following labor relations since the 70s. Unions have been severely weakened in this country for the last 50 years, thru steady erosion of membership and the attack on labor laws in favor of big corporations. Remember it was the Unions that forced government to do things to aid workers.

I do not always agree with Greater Divinity, but on this he is spot on.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Ashfyn Ninegold

The past decades have been nothing if not a lesson on how labor standards, pay, benefits, and working conditions fall as unions lose power and businesses gain power.

Thanks, GD. Saved me the trouble.

And if you don’t think unions are necessary for worker wages and health, look here:

Wealth of Jeff Bezos
2009: $6.8 billion
2021: $200.9 billion

Wealth of Mark Zuckerberg
2009: $2 billion
2021: $135.2 billion

U.S. Minimum Wage
2009: $7.25
2021: $7.25

And Blizzard’s own story is 100% about employees being isolated and without recourse. Of course employers don’t like unions, because they force accountability. Are they perfect? No. But other than Michelangelo’s Pieta, what is?

Reader
Andrew Clear

You need to understand what wealth is. They are wealthy because of stock value, which is their share of ownership in their (and other companies). That value is determined by what people like you and me, and anyone else who wants to buy stock, feels that stock is worth. Just because a stock is worth X today, doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow. If Jeff Bezos tried to cash out all his stocks tomorrow, he would get nowhere near 200.9 billion, because he would have to sell them for whatever people are willing to buy them for, and one consistent thing is that a mass sell off always leads to lower prices. Amazon’s stock could tank, and he would lose a lot of wealth. What is interesting about is ownership of Amazon, is that he could only make money off of the price of the share, because Amazon does not provide dividends, and thus, he wouldn’t get a share of the profit.

I did remember reading, a few years ago, that Zuckerberg, only pays himself around 300k a year. That is his income. He can sell stock, or get dividends from other stock that helps with that.

None of that implies they treat their workers unfairly, and if anyone actually did any research into Amazon at all, they would know that the company, for the majority of its existence, never turned a profit. It does now, but they aren’t all that profitable, so justifying an increase in wages doesn’t make much since, when the actual financials are looked at.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Ashfyn Ninegold

Am I to infer from this that it’s okay that the U.S. minimum wage is below the poverty level because Amazon chooses to reinvest and buyout companies rather than declare a profit.

For the record. There are ZERO counties in the U.S. where a minimum wage job will pay the rent. ZERO.

But glad to hear Amazon’s doing well.

Reader
Jeremy Barnes

Amazon has made a profit almost every single year since 2003. It was founded in 1994. It claims a loss in 2 years since. So it has not been profitable for 11 years. It has been profitable for 16 years. These numbers ignore the 2 years they reported losses since 2003 were years they spent a staggering amount on acquisitions.

Also, Amazon is incredibly profitable. In 2015, Amazon’s “Net Profit” was over 2 billion. Last year it was over 21 billion. Amazon routinely ranks in the top 10 of a ‘most profitable’ companies which is based on ‘net income’.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), has had a market share of over 30% for many years now, making it the largest cloud infrastructure provider in the world with Microsoft being the 2nd and more than 10% (or more) behind for all of that time.

I think your statements on Amazon may be based more on perception than research.

Reader
Slaasher

I dont klnow what Amazon you’re dealing with but here in Canada (where I am) the min wage is 14$/ hour – the closest AMazon warehouse to me has a starting wage of $17.60 / hour. That’s a full $3.60 above min wage as a starting pay.

While I do agree that big companies like Walmart, Amazon etc., can do more to make the lives of their employees better I would also like to point out that your numbers are off even considering that people in the US make less per hour than here.
YOu may want to catch up on some real numbers. Or if you’re numbers are real in America then there is more than one culprit – points finger at your government.

Reader
notReginald VelJohnson

The minimum wage in Canada varies by province, and certain workers, such as servers, have a different (i.e. smaller) hourly wage than the standard minimum.

I’m going to assume you’re talking about Ontario, considering that the wage you stated is that of Ontario. When one considers the skyrocketing cost of housing in Ontario, $17.60 is still a dogsh!t wage.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Sexual harrassment is actually against the law, and you don’t need unions to adhere to it. That shouldn’t even be brought up in terms of a conversation on unions, since harrassment happens inside of unions as well.

Unions are a business, plain and simple. They look after themselves and their employees first. They people they represent are their customers, and they will use their customers to better their business. You know, standard business practice. The real issue is that, you can’t shop around for a different union. That union is all you have, and all that can work with the employer. Unions do not, and I repeat, do not always do what is in the best interests of their clients. Look no further than the Hostess debacle around the beginning of the last decade, where the union would not give an inch in negotations, even though the company said they would go bankrupt, and they indeed just had to shut the whole company down and file for bankruptcy. It is what it is. It is generally in the unions best interest, to get the best deal for their clients.

People have some false, rosy images of what a union is. They provide a service that has a demand for it. Unions will not go away until there is no longer a demand. There will always be a supply for a product that is in demand.

Wages stagnate for a reason, and pushing labor prices to where a company isn’t competitive anymore hurts the employees. It would be great to pay everyone 15 dollars, hell why not 30, or 60, an hour, but all that does is move the poverty line to those figures. Meanwhile, many countries will not have labor that high, and either their companies will have a competitive advantage in the market due to lower cost that leads to lower prices, or that more companies will move their jobs over there in order to remain competitive and in business.

Reader
Rob Hagaman

Spoken like a true Reagan fan. I guess you also argue that raising the minimum wage would cause economic collapse. Every post you make makes us dumber just for reading it.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Rob, I would argue that raising minimum wage raises the poverty line, as inflation rises with it. I would also argue that there will always be rich, and always will be poor. No society will ever have an equal playing field in terms of outcome, because of simple human nature. The countries that “attempted” an experiment in equal outcomes, failed miserably, as their bureaucrats (elites) made more money than the rest of the populace.

I wouldn’t argue that it would collapse the economy, as even the great depression didn’t collapse the economy. The economy seems resilient and will be survive throughout mankind’s shenanigan’s. I will say it would be detrimental to millions of people.

But, that pales in comparison to how many people will suffer once people stop loaning the federal government money, and they can’t afford to keep doling out corporate and personal welfare, as well as employing as many people as they do.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Sexual harrassment is actually against the law, and you don’t need unions to adhere to it.

Technically, sure. But when you have concerns that rather than having your problems be resolved that the company will simply let you go and you’ll have no recourse (as we’ve seen) or will simply ignore the issue…practical reality crushes that talking point.

Yes, harassment can happen anywhere, even in unions, but being a part of a union affords victims more protections than not being in a union.

You know, standard business practice.

Yes, I’m glad we’ve discovered the never-buried and always obvious “secret” that Unions are literally a response to the power that employers have, and a way for employees to equalize the playing field.

Hostess

Was going bankrupt anyways, unions weren’t the reason. They played a part in what unfolded, but it was a messy, shitty situation.

People have some false, rosy images of what a union is.

I have no illusions that unions are all sunshine and daisies bucko, I’m well aware of the history of union corruption and the existing issues that persist in many unions.

But I also MASSIVELY benefitted from being a the child of a parent with membership in a strong union. Sure dues weren’t cheap, but the benefits were absolutely insane. Dozens of emergency room trips a year thanks to an illness that took years to diagnose? All covered with low out of pocket maximums. If my family didn’t have that kind of union negotiated medical coverage we’d have been bankrupted many, many, many times over.

Wages stagnate for a reason

Yes, because federal minimum wage has barely changed in decades and employers are looking to pay as little as they legally can in most instances.

We’re seeing that not working so well now in an EXTREME condition that is a pandemic, but largely it works damned well and has resulted in decades of average wage stagnation for workers while executives take all the increases in pay.

It would be great to pay everyone 15 dollars, hell why not 30, or 60, an hour, but all that does is move the poverty line to those figures.

This is a beyond empty strawman akin to, “DO YOU WANT YOUR TACO BELL TO COST $50?!” ignoring that Taco Bell’s in places that already have $15+ minimum wages cost…almost exactly the same as where the minimum wage is less than $10.

Meanwhile, many countries will not have labor that high

Other, largely developing, nations paying poverty wages – even in the context of those developing countries where money may have more value – is not an excuse for developed countries to do the same. It should never be. Ever.

Reader
Andrew Clear

“Other, largely developing, nations paying poverty wages – even in the context of those developing countries where money may have more value – is not an excuse for developed countries to do the same. It should never be. Ever.”

You are missing the point entirely here. Businesses have a responsibility to make money. They need resources, and employees are one resource, as well as materials, etc. They must sell their product in order to generate revenue to stay in business. If their costs exceed those of their competitors, then they must charge more than their competitors for their product (unless they can somehow collude with their competitors on a fixed price that allows them to still make money, just not as much as their competitors). There is generally a certain price that consumers would not purchase enough of the product for the company to still turn a profit, and then the company would have to find ways to cut the price. Labor, is generally the most expensive resource, and thus, the one that would get cut first. So, while it isn’t an “excuse” it is just a plain fact of reality.

“This is a beyond empty strawman akin to, “DO YOU WANT YOUR TACO BELL TO COST $50?!” ignoring that Taco Bell’s in places that already have $15+ minimum wages cost…almost exactly the same as where the minimum wage is less than $10.”

Yes, some areas restaurants were paying more money for workers than in other parts of the country. Hell, even other parts of their city / state. That is the supply / demand equation. Those employers also tend to have less employees now than they did a decade ago, and more computers / automation. Prices have gone up at many locations as well. One thing people need to understand, especially the restaurant industry, is that each store, even if the same chain / franchise, is not equal. Some make more than others. Hell, some restaurant chains are barely breaking even, while some are making comfortable profit, but that doesn’t mean each location is. Most of these companies have to give out their financially info as publicly traded companies, and if anyone bothered to actually find out how many employees they have, then find out how much a 2/3/4 dollar raise would be for 40hrs a week / for a year (maybe knock it down to 28/30 a week, to account for part time workers), and then multiply that by the number of workers, and find out if they would still be profitable…that would go a long way in assessing this situation. Most people don’t, as it is politics as usual in this country. Some restaurants can pay more, some do not.

“But I also MASSIVELY benefitted from being a the child of a parent with membership in a strong union. Sure dues weren’t cheap, but the benefits were absolutely insane. Dozens of emergency room trips a year thanks to an illness that took years to diagnose? All covered with low out of pocket maximums. If my family didn’t have that kind of union negotiated medical coverage we’d have been bankrupted many, many, many times over.”

I am glad that you benefitted from your parents have a job with good benefits. Unions generally negotiate great benefits, and that is why I said they are a good service for people who are not good negotiators. But, there are millions of jobs in the country, that have no union affiliation, that have excellent benefits as well. There are also millions of jobs in this country that have no benefits at all. In reality, it would be cheaper to offer a pay increase to people in the fast food industry, than to provide health care benefits (to a point) for employers. There is a reason why a lot of employers, in general, want Universal Medicine, and that is to save money on labor costs.

Reader
Bruno Brito

I’m the son of a lawyer that specializes in work law. I’ve worked with him. You have no idea how much any kind of scrap that empowers workers is needed.

I had a client that became a paraplegic after a ( avoidable ) accident at work and his co-workers had to carry him out on a pushcart because the ambulance couldn’t get inside the construction site, since it was unbelievably unsafe. I had a client that worked for half minimum wage and if he delayed 5 minutes, he would lose the payday AND a paid sunday, almost configuring slave labor. I had clients with mandatory unpaid overtime.

One of my “favourites” is actually my dad’s: He had a client that was discharged from the navy because he had hepatitis, and the army didn’t want to spend resources on his recovery. He was already extremely frail when he got to my father, and had cirrhosis. My father lost the first instance because he wasn’t used to fighting against military lawyers, he got together with a student of his and got creative, and won the appeal. He was almost getting the win and the money for the guy when the guy passed away. I was with him on the day and i won’t forget how somber he looked.

It’s actually baffling that you say things like “Unions are outdated” on a thread about a company that was caught sexually harassing it’s employees, fucking their promotions and driving a worker to suicide.

Must be great to spout those theories out of your comfortable fingertips since you’re not the one getting groped, crawled and harassed in powerless positions.

Miss me with that crap.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Unions wouldn’t have avoided any of the above mentioned issues within your country. We have unions, and we have people in the US that makes far below the minimum wage, and are exploited, and a union cannot help them because they are living and working in the country illegally. Bad people do bad things, and desperate people do desperate things. I personally believe people hiring illegals need to get punished, severely for violating the law, but the government seems to feel differently about that (as many of the people hiring and exploiting people do donate a lot of money).

Unsafe work conditions still happen at union shops. Unions don’t stop sexual harrassment (which is illegal, to begin with).

We have laws within our country that are pro worker, but bad things will always happen. Humanity is not altursitc, and in many cases humans are even descent animals.

I will continue to state that Unions are outdated in the US, and they have cost many jobs to leave the country, and some companies to actually go under. I will also continue to say that unions are a valid service for people who want them. I also believe that people who don’t want to be part of a union should not be forced to as well. Liberalism is about freedom, and people should be free to decide. I respect that you like unions, and find them very useful. I would argue that some countries, that do not have strong labor laws, would be an ideal place for unions to set up shop in.

Reader
Hostagecat

By the way, its cool you have not resorted to name calling, trust me i appreciate it. Unlike some of the folks that have responded to you. Again your making an argument based on your experience, and the way you see things.

You are right humankind is jerky, that is a fact. You are also right that corporations have no need to act ethically or morally. They only have one thing they need to do, they have to make money for there shareholders. That being said when that is the only reason y0u exist… you tend to cut corners. That is why governments have created laws forcing them to do the right things. The problem is those laws have been eroded and the people who are responsible for regulating them. Well lets say they have been captured by the business they are supposed to be regulating.

I get the way you think, i totally understand but the gradual attack against the American worker has been happening for decades. Business have been following Adam Smiths Vile Maxim and its having its effect, the problem is they dont care. They will just take those factories somewhere else., where they can exploit that countries workers, and when they abandon China and India for the cheaper labor force of Africa, all the native population will see is that another American company has used our resources and left us with a mess to clean, and if you do not think that has not happened you need to look up South America and Texaco.

I wish i could say those corporations will get punished but they do not. They contribute to human misery and help create an more dangerous world. Its just like i think this case from the state of California is going to go nowhere because they will pull a Big Tobacco and send there army of Lawyers and drag this on.

The whole time those poor Blizzard employees will probably never get the justice they deserve or want. The will be old and grey, and Activison Blizzard in 20 years will have another similar scandal, and people will be outraged for 15 minutes and go back to watching the TV. I just think that scenario is horrid and that is why I object, to American Big Business.

At least that is my 2 cents.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Yeah, I like how this was a civil discourse, for the most part. I respect everyone having their own opinions on it, and most people missed my points entirely. Too many people just like to divide people left / right, pro business / anti business, pro union, anti-union, etc. That works well for politicians to get elected, but hinders the functioning of a free society. The world is grey, not black / white, and many people fall into both sides of the same coin.

I am mostly about freedom, and that is why I kept stating that people should have the option to be in unions, especially since they provide a good service for some people. But, people who don’t want to be in a union, should still be able to work at the company and choose not to be in the union (I do believe they shouldn’t get the same deal as the union employees, and must negotiate their own). I know some states offer this while others do not.

I also don’t find business to be as evil as everyone else claims it to be. The plain reality is you either have business (private entities) produce the product, or you have government (public). I trust private entities more than the government, hands down. Plus, that experiment has been tried, and the government generally fails at being providing the goods / services needed to sustain a country.

Reader
Utakata

@ Andrew Clear

Can we stop please? We get you don’t like unions…we don’t need to sift through 50 K worded diatribe ad tedium just to say you don’t like unions. While most of us still remain unconvinced of your nonsense as to why. Time to move on now. I’m sure you’ll find a more receptive audience on the darkest reaches of the internet that’ll hear you out. This place ain’t one of them. Thnkx!

Reader
Dankey Kang

Stop gatekeeping. People have the right to an opinion whether you like to see it or not.

Reader
Utakata

Sorry bub, but it is very clear from the lengthy discourse above that nobody here is stopping anyone from their rights to their opinions, lol, whether you believe that or not. Nor can we.

Reader
Niniannn

You’re literally trying to shame the guy into shutting up because you don’t like his opinions. That’s the definition of gatekeeping.

Quote:diatribe ad tedium / your nonsense / find a more respective audience on the darkest reaches of the internet.

So toxic.

First time I’m reading a comments section on this website and it’s disgusting how rabid and toxic people are here. I won’t be back to this site.

Reader
Hostagecat

I have seen far worst, this is pretty civil compared to most political comments sections. You want to see toxic pop into one of those places.
However i get your point, and agree he shouldn’t be attacked for his opinions, and people shouldn’t be equating him to the devil because he has a different idea about how things should be run. We should be arguing his ideas not attacking the person for having them.

Reader
Utakata

@ Niniannn

What rubbish. There is nothing shaming about asking someone to stop with something they are repeating over and over again, even if I agreed with them. Nor is it shaming when calling someone out for views they’re repeating that appear to be not informed, willfully or otherwise. Nor am I gatekeeping even by the internet bro definition of such because I was asking and not telling. Nor is it toxic in doing so.

The only thing that is for sure here is that 1), you folks don’t like posters ragging on anti-union types, so you’re telling them shut-up without saying so. Which brings to point 2), and in doing that so you are likely stating all this in bad faith. Also see: Trolling.

So I see your little game here, but it does not change my position. Sorry about that too, bub.

Reader
Andrew Clear

Utakata, you, like many, have missed my point. Sure, I believe unions are outdated, but I said repeatedly that they server a valid service for some people. I also stated that I believe they should be optional, and not mandatory. Most of the people commenting back are just firing off their discriminatory attacks against businesses and the plight of the worker, disregarding that there are millions of people who do not have unions jobs, with benefits that are equivalent to those jobs, provided by the evil corporations. They have good pay as well. People are also missing my point about unions being big business as well, and no better than the evil corporations that many people attack. Many unions even employ people around minimum wage levels, and I don’t see people attacking them, while their presidents and board members are raking in 200-400k easily a year. What is their net worth?

So, while I believe in freedom of choice, many in here do not, and they want to enforce an ideology. That is always dangerous. People need to study history a little more and see how the experiments turn out. No ideology is perfect, and most of them are so biased that they cannot succeed, because they disregard the realities of how humans behave.

I understand everyone has an opinion on these matters, and that is a good thing. We can always do better as a society, but at the same time, we could always do worse. Everyone believes their way is better, and many people do not like to have their beliefs challenged. A free society is supposed to allow people to have their own opinions, whether we like them or not. We can always choose to ignore them.

Reader
Hostagecat

Again i do not think your arguments are invalid. I appreciate that that you have not resorted to name calling and have stayed consistent with your message. You have stated your arguments well.
But, i think we will have to agree to disagree about Unions being a dead thing. Governments and Big Business will not do things if they do not have somebody counterbalancing them. People will continue to get run rough shod over if they do not have champions. I guess my viewpoint is that Unions are a positive force and a counterbalance to the depredations for big corporations. I hold these opinions even though i have never been in a union. I presently live in a state that is a Right to Work state. So Unions here are not strong, but yet i have a positive outlook on them, because i have seen they historically have been a positive force.
I would never begrudge you your opinions and ideas. I cant argue against them become corrupt and dysfunctional, but so can businesses and governments.
In the end, i think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Reader
Bruno Brito

If they serve a valid service for “some people”, they’re not outdated.

It’s that simple. It’s really easy to have such detached posturing when you can comfortably say things on a PC, while others will be killing themselves on top of grills or in cubicles, withstanding every kind of moral harassment imaginable to make a paycheck and feed themselves.

Unions are flawed but they are an answer. Your concept of workers “negotiating” has been disproven by decades of capitalism having all kinds of workers putting themselves through hell because of necessity. Companies will just look for that cheap labor.

Reader
Utakata

@ Andrew Clear:

There was no points that where missed here. As you are clearly stating you don’t like unions for given personal reasons and opinions. My issue is that you could of said all that in one or two replies or instead of dragging it out in tedium.

So who are you trying to convince here? As most of us have likely made up our minds on subject matter with informed reasons. Thus you are asking us to figuratively believe our spherical world is flat again, without providing anything new or compelling for doing so. While the evidence is most in favor of collective bargaining rights, regardless if you like that or not.

Reader
strangequark18

@Andrew you’re my hero for making these arguments. You’re 100% right on every point.

With how much quality of life has improved, it’s a shame that people aren’t able to embrace laissez faire economics, let alone capitalism for getting us to where we are.

They’d rather engage in modern day ideological pearl clutching and die on the pro-union, pro regulation hill.