Employers Should Not Be Able To Intimidate With Political Views

The point is to be able to enact the same kind of institutional violence the capitalists can. The point is to be able to say "You don't want to treat us like people? **** you, we're forcing you to do what we want". I'm in favor of violent strikes and damaging property.

 

will you can say f*** you it's called quitting. Really you shouldn't be able to force someone to do your bidding with their property you didn't earn it they did.

I'm in favor of neutralizing such things with deadly force if necessary

 

It's cool that you think the pinkertons were more morally justified than the people who wanted to stop getting paid mere pennies for ruining their bodies 12 hours a day in shithole factory work.

The problem with folks like you is you're completely oblivious to your history, just how much things are awful, and how much worse things used to be. You see the market through rosy eyed glasses.

 

I wasn't talking about getting in a time machine and altering the past so good point if that's what I was proposing I guess.

Know the problem with folks like me is I don't dwell in the history. I understand it what happened and all that good stuff but there's a lot of factors that play now that weren't then.

I don't really see the market I'm not a stockbroker I don't care I have a skill a lucrative skill and I sell that I had to acquire this skill. I'm not obsessed with what other people have I'm able to be content with what I have it's plenty.

 

I'm criticizing you for forgetting what good unions have done. I'm calling you ignorant.

 

I didn't forget anything. Just because something did good once doesn't mean it's good for ever.

 

The need for unions has never gone away.
Why do you think there is such wealth inequality?

That has grown at almost exactly the same rate and over the same time period as the decline of unions. And why did unions decline?

Because of attacks BY those who benefit from income inequality

It's not Rocket Surgery

 

And you are a major reason why companies move overseas and you lose your jobs. Smart thinking. You don't want to do the job that you were hired to do.
When you act like thugs you can't expect to be treated like people because you are not acting like people.

 

What have good unions done? I know that they have done a lot for safety. What else?

 

Do you think that bosses just treat people decently despite it being contrary to their financial interests out of the goodness of their hearts? They don't. They treat people like **** whenever possible

 

Income equality is communism you should get what you earn and if it's not enough work harder.

 

Unions declined because of the thug mentality and outrageous demands for their services. To pay a high school dropout $90,000
per year is insane and the results are predictable.

 

Law enforcement should be present during strikes that turn violent and then you would be arrested and spend some time in the slammer
where you could get your rocks off.

 

That is patently "fake." It is your opinion that is driven by the fact that they are the haves and you are a have-not. You want what they have but don't have the education, mental capacity or leadership skills to make it a success. That is why they are where they are and you are where you are.

 

Owning capital takes literally zero skills whatsoever.

 

Owning it, yes. Working toward owning it takes a huge amount of skill. Most of these CEO's work for their shareholders who pay them
for their leadership skills and financial skills.

 

Oh you mean communism? That's been tried GMB, and it failed every time. I do, however, appreciate your ideological passion about the good of the commons.

 

I gained mine through skills.

 

What about workers who are forced into joining unions or voting the way the union tells them to?

Workers should not be forced to join a union or contribute to the union's political agenda.

 

There is an imbalance of power because as I said, employers have control over whether or not to employ or continue the employment of employees. And to see how this imbalance of power works in practice, one only need to consider the various cases of sexual harassment of women at Fox News by people such as Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. Therefore your contention that there is not an imbalance of power between employers and employees is absurd.

Next of all you would have us believe that employers are like robots or computers in the sense that machines have no biases or personal preferences. In your view employers simply impartially give employment and opportunities for advancement to whomever can make them money. While it is true that employers are in the business of making money, it is also true that because employers have control over financial resources, they frequently but not always, are able to choose between various candidates who are able to do a particular job. As such they are in a position to discriminate against those whose political views they don't agree with, and favor those whose views they do favor or those who are willing to tailor their views for the sake of gaining favor with en employer. Its not exactly the same thing, but along that same line of thought, I will tell you a very true story that I experienced in my first job out of school. An older engineer who had been involved in management pulled me to the side and in confidence told me that we can always find people who can do the work. But people who make it into management are those who are willing to go along with the management way of doing things. Now that is a true story. Sometimes the management way of doing things is to discriminate against those whose views they don't agree with. And as we have seen at Fox, the management way of doing things was to give favored treatment to women who were willing to engage in sex with those in power, and discriminate against those who were not. Therefore your contention that employers merely impartially give opportunities to whomever will make them money is also absurd.

 

Oh? So you think there is no limit to the economic power that capitalists will give to China?

 

And if they **** up, they get a billion dollar severance package and move on to the next conglomerate. These people face no consequences for failure or unethical behavior and don't have to be particularly competent either

 

I doubt you even own capital in the political economy sense, and I doubt even further that if so it's anything but a passive revenue stream

 

I would explain why you're wrong but you don't really give a ****

 

I feel ya buddy