site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29130 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The United Auto Workers have gone on strike: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-auto-union-strike-three-detroit-three-factories-2023-09-15/

What happens if Ford and GM simply say: "okay, you're fired"? This seems to have quite a few benefits, mostly that they can get rid of union workers and remove the threat of another strike.

I'll admit that unions sortof confuse me. I didn't grow up around them and have always wondered the mechanism by which everybody gets to quit their job but then demand extra money to come back. Are the people running factory machines inside of Ford and GM (or starbucks, or a hollywood writers room) really that highly skilled?

It should be noted that Tesla is not unionized, and will not be a part of this strike. Do you guys think there is a chance that the government tries to force Tesla to stop making cars during the strike to make things more fair?

I'll be honest about my feelings towards unions: I don't get it at all, and I think I'm missing something. I do think that workers should have an adversarial relationship with their employer, but it seems to me like unions have all but destroyed the american auto industry. I think you'd be insane to not just fire anybody who joins a union on the spot. I don't get how places can "vote to unionize". Why does the employer not simply fire the people doing the organizing? Sure you can all vote to make a starbucks union, but...I just won't hire anybody in your union.

Why does the employer not simply fire the people doing the organizing?

Because it is illegal

Are the people running factory machines inside of Ford and GM (or starbucks, or a hollywood writers room) really that highly skilled?

Autoworkers and screenwriters? Yes. Baristas? Not so much. Which is why unions have historically been more successful in skilled trades than in nonskilled trades; it is difficult for employers to simply fire skilled workers because it is difficult to replace them. More importantly, if it is more expensive to replace them than to give them a raise, well, that answers your question about why employers do not simply fire them.

it’s illegal

To an outside this seems absolutely insane.

I remember a job I did in NYC once building a stage for a music festival. It was something custom we had built at home in Texas at our shop, then shipped to NYC to assemble. When we got on site, it was explained that the venue had a contract with a union and we were required to use their workers. This means every cable that was plugged in had to be plugged in by a union electrician, every piece of stage had to be assembled by a union carpenter, etc. It was madness. I cannot overstate the uselessness of these people. Absolutely the laziest, stupidest people I have ever met, and who seemed to be constantly on break.

If these are the same types of people working in auto factories, then it doesn’t seem like any of the automakers would be at any loss to simply fire them all.

How long can the strike go on before the company is allowed to just fire everybody?

At my work study job in college I once spilled some food on the ground. I went to clean it up and was stopped by my boss. Cleaning up messes was reserved for the union janitorial staff.

To an outside this seems absolutely insane.

It seems insane from the inside, too. I'm told you basically need a whole history course to figure out how we got to this weird place where "firing someone for refusing to do their job" and "employees agreeing to go on a 'wildcat' strike without The Union's approval" are both illegal.

I haven't taken that history course myself, so best I can do is quote from some old discussions I read online, without endorsing their accuracy:

Back in the day when labor struggles involved a lot more militancy, US unions very much did want workers to join, and sometimes their militant arms would clash as the organizations fought over members. And over other things, like some being (alleged) “company unions” that did not represent the interests of the workers.

So the US govt passed a ‘one union per industry; employers may only bargain with that one union’ union-unifying law to prevent [in?]fighting between the North Side Steelworkers Union and the South Side Steelworkers Union.

This had the side effect of massively empowering the resulting megacorporate-unions. So the US govt passed some laws limiting union bargaining power - in different ways, like making it illegal for the mega-unions to strike so much. Unsurprisingly, these laws had unintended consequences and overshot, so the government passed some more laws to empower unions in different ways again. Along the way, war rationing and wage controls and employer-provided healthcare-default happened, upsetting the bargaining positions some more, and guess what the US government did? That’s right, passed some federal regulations to fix it!

(This did not fix it.)

Or, with a handful of references:

Under the Wagner Act of 1935 (NLRA) ...

An employee cannot, for instance, join a competing union or negotiate separately from the union.

...

...striking employees are cannot legally be fired. Even if they are permanently replaced during the strike (which is greatly restricted and doesn’t get rid of the union), they must go to the top of the list to be taken back on when the strike is over.

...

  • Strikers/picketers are allowed to trespass on employer property, and employers are barred from seeking legal redress against this. Under the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932 (Anti-Injunction Act).
  • In non-right-to-work states, unions can demand that all employees must join or pay “agency fees” to the union as a condition of employment. “Right-to-work” means they can’t do that, which was left to the states as a compromise, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Employers are barred under the Norris-La Guardia Act from requiring the reciprocal: not joining a union as a condition of employment.
  • Under U.S. v. Enmons (1973), union violence is exempt from the Hobbs Act of 1934 (Anti-Racketeering Act), prohibiting the obstruction of interstate commerce by robbery or extortion.

I like the comedy of the UC Santa Cruz graduate student union wildcat strike of 2019 and 2020. They illegally wildcat striked against their recently approved union contract that most of them voted against, but was forced onto them by union leadership getting other UCs to approve it. So a majority of union members at all UCs approved it and UCSC union members cannot negotiate a new contract just for them. The dean's office correctly stated that would be illegal and there will be no negotiation with the graduate students. The union approved of a contract against their will and that is what they shall get.

Yes, like all human endeavors, laws are regulations re unions are not perfect. They include some pitfalls, one of which you identify here. But why would you form a judgment that the entire system is "insane" without assessing all of the costs and benefits, rather than only one? By your logic, the Defund the Police folks are correct, because they can certainly point to an instance in which a police officer acted not only lazily and stupidly, but also maliciously. But, the Defund the Police folks are not correct, because, on net, having police is sound policy not "insane" policy.

I'd add it from an employer rights or business rights angle - as opposed to worker rights - it also feels intuitively absolutely insane that you would be stopped from putting to use your own materials because of intellectual property, or unable to repair something on your own (ala Louis Rossman on YT).

There are a lot of insane things in this world. What one chooses to highlight gives away a bias.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats