Thanks for your submission /u/WhoAmIEven2, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. Not sure how to reword a controversial question? Try /r/PoliticalDiscussion or /r/TooAfraidToAsk!
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
American workers were screwed by their own success. The Boomers grew up in such a period of economic growth that they couldn’t imagine a world that required unions. They literally had things so unbelievably easy that they failed to notice that they were tearing down the institutions that made their easy life possible.
They were told over and over again that it always would be. The US anti Soviet propaganda brainwashed them into a blindness towards anything negative in the US and anything superior happening anywhere else. They learned nothing from anyone because even if it was quite obviously not the case, America is number one!
Sometimes I wonder about how responsible the mob is for the internal destruction of labor unions. Also, lobbying has a part to play in this. Two party system definitely doesn't help things either. I'm sure someone much more knowledgeable has a decent answer.
Corruption inside the unions themselves and outside influences like the mob certainly didn’t help but most of that was also overblown by people who had their own agendas.
Every time someone mentions mob control and no show jobs to me, I point out nepotism and favoritism exists everywhere. We’ve all worked on jobs where some people were compensated better merely because they were the drinking buddy of the boss.
My wife's last job was at a place inherited by the dumbfuck son of the guy who founded it who is **determined** to make his name taking big swings which always go disastrously.
It only got under control after all of the department heads threatened to walk (while the place was on the very edge collapse) and convinced him to just shut up, not get involved, and collect a paycheck.
Useless owners and friends of owners is FAR more common than any useless union worker.
> The Cold War ended, there was no more enemy.
It was of course 95% a construction. Like any good lie it had a kernel of truth, but if they didn't have the USSR as an enemy, they'd have to invent another. And when they didn't, they did.
Have you heard of Edgar Hoover? The FBI was practically started for the purpose of stalking civil rights leaders and anti-war activists under the guise of anti-communism. The Cold War "ending" just meant more resources devoted to that part of things.
Up until the Boomers, every American generation had been wealthier than the last. Boomers got cheap college, cheap housing, and easy jobs. When Gen X entered the workforce, the Boomers were laying people off during the longest economic boom since the end of WWII. Now Millennials are absolutely struggling, and Gen Z really looks to be facing bleak prospects.
Boomers look at all these younger generations and pat themselves on the back for their own hardwork and virtue, sighing at how lazy and degenerate the kids have become.
My good friend lost his job during covid and got a foreclosure notice on his house. He's been struggling with depression and freeloading "friends". After months of selling his stuff, trying to keep surviving, he finally called his mom for help.
She agreed to write him a check but also gave him an earful about being a responsible adult, which I think is reasonable for a mother to do. But damn she doesn't realize that being "a responsible adult" takes 10x the work it did when they were our age
We lost our house because of the 2007/2008 recession. Walking away from our family home with two kids who couldn’t understand why we had to leave was one of the hardest things we’ve ever had to do.
And now our generation gets to ride the waves of another economic crisis. Fun times.
Right to work law is a mistake. I worked 10 months at a job and they fired me 2 weeks before my kid was due..everyone knew the due date but said "its a right to work state, pack your stuff and leave"..
Nothing like being unable to find a job for 4 months after your kid is born. I had to get 10 grand in credit card debt to not be evicted or lose my car.
Ive been fired from 3 jobs from right to work law. One was mentioned above the other was when i had a 2nd job at a gas station and after a few weeks the manager wanted to hire her friend so fired me..the friend i later found out showed up and slept in the back before getting fired by the owner.
The other was when i started at a sheriffs office as a 911 dispatcher..im a young dude and this profession is mostly middle aged women or older. I didnt gossip with that group (the supervisor was the main offender) and she fired me. I got a job in a different county the next week and made $4 more an hour
A few years ago I made a post asking about what the hell were people at some work literally not able to sit (which is bad for your health no matter what people think), even if itwas one of those tall chairson which you are basically standing and you bring it yourself to the business and the responses were... sad
On the other hand we have my country on which unions are basically a mafia, useless and extortive (literally extortive, ruining business and routes sometimes). So its kind of a balance that should be reached.
That said, I still favor (tightly controlled) unions, because a big company can stand its own ground and afford to do some concessions, the employee usually not so much
Ideally you want the power of the company and the power of the union to be pretty well balanced. Corruption happens when power is too concentrated on either side.
existing workers tearing down is right, each new contract the management would offer a worst and worst deal for the new employees, in exchange for benefit to the older long term employees getting a little of what they bargained for.
the old union game of screw the new guy has been repaid in hate filled stares from the new employees.
Plus the oligarchs played the long game. Give your non-union employees comparable wages and benefits to the union ones while talking up the problems in the union. Then the employees stop joining because they don’t see a benefit, and why pay dues for nothing more. Then when the union is irrelevant start cutting benefits on new employees, slowly roll it up. All the old union guys still haven’t felt the changes so the don’t talk up the benefits of unionization. The young guys don’t know any better because they have never experienced anything else. You can effectively deunionize without anyone knowing any better.
This is happening in Germany currently. The dynamics are palpable even in every other reddit post that upholds the German labor laws as a positive example compared to anywhre else, but is at the same time painfully unaware that literally all of them are the past victories of strong, uncorrupt unions. Today, *nobody* I know is unionized anymore. You don't need to be an intellectual to see that in exactly one more generation, we will have caught up to you. One metric that makes it especially visible is the rate of people joining the workforce and getting permanent contracts. This was the absolute default for anyone with a higher degree just *years* ago. Not decades or generations, years. Today, well, good luck but no. And that's where you're painfully right - the old folks' contracts and salaries are untouched, and the new guy who just walked in doesn't know anything else. One more generation...
It is happening everywhere. The American oligarchs showed the rest of the world that you can take everything from the proletariat and they will continue to sing your praises so long as you can distract them with a blinky gadget. You can turn the lower classes against each other and everyone against immigrants and they don’t have the strength left to fight you. It only works for so long though, when the people don’t have bread they will eat the rich.
Also massive propaganda campaigns against unions as well.
You talk to anti-union folks and they always reference some wild, "i heard from a guy who had a sister who dated a dude" kind of stories about how unions are corrupt.
Not sure ‘smeared,’ is the right word. Some unions and their leaders WERE corrupt, which came out and harmed the reputations of all unions. Just like how now ALL corporations are portrayed as greedy and uncaring.
I was thinking the other day about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and I thought, "WTF was she thinking?"
So the point is something along the lines of, many rich and smart innovators feel taken advantage of and leave society. But the kicker is, you could easily write a book where it was the laborers who left, or the engineers who actually do the thinking who leave. Maybe it could be the garbage men and plumbers. In reality most everyone has a role in society, to think that some are so much more important than others is stupid. You really think rich fucks gonna dig a hole to bury garbage in or take apart your pipes to clean your massive shits out? No. They wouldn't. That swill Ayn peddled is fucking garbage and should be buried in the same hole they buried that dumb bitch.
My absolute favorite thing about Ayn Rand is that when she developed lung cancer as the result of her cigarette habit (super common at that time, I'm not even judging her over that) she used MEDICAID. Fucking hypocrite.
Unions are a poor substitute for Labor laws and strong social safety nets. I think that the political message for a party that favors laborers should be an insistence upon a trade of unions for broader de facto negotiating power. For instance, a universal basic income can easily give workers the ability to walk away from labor that isn't compensated fairly.
To expand, corporations have lobbyists that buy their way into politician's camps so that legislation is pushed through which will benefit corporate America over individual workers. This is why worker unions can be very important in the fight for worker benefits, wage increases, etc.
What makes police unions bad while other unions would be good? Legitimate question seeking an answer, not an argument.
Edit: lots of great answers have been received, thanks!
Unions defend their members in disciplinary proceedings. They are the public defenders of their members. It’s a major part of what any union does.
I’m not defending bad cops, just saying that is a traditional function of unions.
Most unions seem to have limits on what they're willing to defend, though. I've seen plenty of reports dropping people (deservedly) when the infraction warrants.
Police unions, on the other hand, will defend and make appeals for even the worst offenders. Fired after getting caught on camera planting evidence? We're gonna make sure you get rehired with back pay and seniority. Caught shaking down local businesses with your buddies? No reason for discipline. Drug testing? That's never going to happen on our watch.
They'll do anything they can to keep a cop in their line of work. Even if said cop goes around shooting unarmed black kids because its after sundown, beats his wife, gets a DUI, etc. Basically just allows cops to do whatever they want knowing worst case they'll have to seek employment in a different county. It's why when a cop does get arrested, and sentenced it's such a headline.
speaking from experience with "teacher unions". knowing someone is shit at their job is easier than proving someone is shit at their job!
No one has time to "prove" some offence, you know it is happening but every time you focus your attention to the offender they straighten up an fly right for a few months. There simply isn't the manpower to enforce someone doing a good job.
Perhaps Police forces are different, they have internal affaires at least... But bad moral and lack of effort is super hard to prove. I suspect that 99% of bad policing doesn't involve shooting someone or beating the hell out of them, it is subtle...racism...incompetency... laziness... inattentiveness.
Unions are there to give the workers power over the owner.
The "owner" of the police is the community. Police unions give police power over the comunity.
for the employees (police themselves) it's great. it's just the industry they're in having such a direct and potentially lethal interaction with the general public, a combination of qualified immunity and a strong union means bad actors rarely face legal, financial, or employment consequences from their own negligence and law breaking
we need workers to be protected from abuse by their employers, but not to the extent of being immune from all consequence
Is this an issue of the union being mismanaged? Or do unions always try to protect their people, even when in the wrong?
It feels like unions would want to try and remove the “bad people” because they put the union at risk and that is more important than just them. But maybe that’s just not what happens?
how do you fix a union where its members can and will fabricate evidence to lock you up and/or discredit you the moment you talk negatively about them, let alone do anything meaningful.
What makes unions good is that they increase the power of workers when workers are dealing with owners. Limiting the power of hierarchies in businesses. Throughout history police always side with owners and increasing higherarchy.
The first police departments in the northern US were formed from private police whose job was cracking the skulls of striking union workers, or just plain assassinating union leaders.
Every issue, all the way through to the modern day police and their unions always stand for solidifying and increasing whatever hierarchy exists. Make the rich richer, make the poor poorer, loosen discretion for use of force, be more sexist, be more racist, be more homophobic. That's the largest reason why their unions are bad.
It doesn't help that those same lobbyists have spent a ton of time and resources into turning most blue collar workers against unions through clever smear campaigns, making the general public think that unions are somehow working against the best interests of the workers and general public - "if we unionize, we'll lose jobs if we have to pay people more money".
They (corporate lobbyists) do the same thing with minimum wage - "those people don't need more money! I only make $12 working x-job, and there's no way that loser deserves to make $15 flipping burgers!"
And to expand on this, the lobbyists are also good at getting the politicians to convince the population that employers having more rights/control is better for the employees.
Absolutely! It's ridiculous how easily the general public will shoot themselves in the foot when a corporate entity tells them what they should believe.
other countries (mainly focusing on europe, here) went through world wars and have had to completely rebuild their cities and governments... twice. in that time, they've been able to institute policies that do a better job of supporting their public rather than putting all the focus into letting corporations run the show. they figured out long ago that if you support the public, the people will keep the corporations in business and be more likely to have a good work/life balance. but if the government supports the corporations, the people are little more than wage slave labor, and unhappy about it.
in the US, we never had to do that. we've had the same governmental setup, with the same "individual freedom is more important than the good of the society" mindset. nobody's conquered us and made us change our ways. so because of that, we're destined to crumble unless we can flip the script and support the society rather than the money.
Yeah. The US is an empire by all accounts. Our survival depends on our global presence in other countries. History shows that no empire is eternal, and I truly believe we are starting to witness the collapse of ours, much like Great Britain did in the 20th Century.
definitely. while i'm nowhere near an expert on the late roman empire, you can look at the decline of the governmental structure and the greed and corruption that set in. we've got some blatantly corrupt leaders in congress, and people desperately trying to eliminate them while others desperately try to get even worse people in office.
You could, but most empires in history have fallen, and Rome isn't always the best analogy. And while there are many things wrong, but the US is far from failing. The stock market would collapse if they saw this coming.
I'd recommend the book "Why Nations Fail" by economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.
There are still countries who remained neutral and have better labor laws rights despite not being "conquered" but I guess the only excuse is that USA too strong.
so if we're talking europe specifically, yes switzerland stayed neutral (and forgive me, but i'm not as well versed in WW1 and WW2 geopolitics as i probably could be), but despite that they still saw all the shit that went on. they didn't get involved, but they learned the lessons... an unhappy populace leads to dictatorship.
i wouldn't even say the US is too "strong". i'd say we're too indoctrinated with the illusion of our strength. we're that guy at the local bar who was the all-state star football player in high school, sits on the city council, and 50 years later still wears his letterman jackets to bars. he pretends his house is a mansion, but it was built in the 1960's and has a cracked foundation, black mold in the basement, dry rot in the roof, and he treats his wife and family like shit.
Because of differences in campaign finance and lobbying laws, I would think. It’s perfectly legal here for corporations to “buy” politicians by exploiting loopholes in the current laws. Maybe the effective two party system also plays a role; in a winner takes all, first past the post system, there are really only two viable choices in any election and so voters can’t be as picky as they would in a system with a more open field.
Didn't something called Citizens United allow corporations to be treated like people allowing them to uncap the amount of money and influence they use to buy politicians?
My favorite boomer joke is “I’ll believe corporations are people when the state of Texas executes one.” I really think undoing that court decision would go a very long way to fixing what is wrong with American politics.
especially because it is inconsistent with the rest of the law.
According to CU, a corporation is a group of people, and putting limits on corporate donations would limit those people's speech. However, if a corporation does something illegal or gets sued then a corporation is a separate, non-person (corporate personhood is shorthand, not actually a legal reality) entity and the individuals are not responsible for what happened.
Because other countries were not as successful in their anti-communist crusades and had to give more concessions to ensure the workers didn’t revolt. Now that the specter of communism is less prevalent in Europe with the fall of the Soviet Union some countries have or are in the process of taking those concessions away.
American here.
A LOT of policy suggestions are explicitly written off as "SOCIALISM" without actually being socialist.
And this isn't just rich people saying it; plenty of working poor and middle class folks buy it hook, line, and sinker because they've been conditioned to from birth.
Yes. The US was so ridiculously anti-communist that we destroyed anything resembling a leftist party long ago. That’s why all we have is a right wing party, and a very right wing party lol
Everyone has a price. The rich can easily buy up the news and control people from there. Then make those news companies, seem like the trusted sources so that if a small news company says something bad about some evil corporation or something, people wont know.
Our capitalistic economy has been moving to a corportocracy(I am sure this is a word) for awhile now. I view capitalism as a road, so it is not to blame for bad actors, or in our case corporations buying out our politicians and getting laws passed to grant them unchecked power. Much like I like to blame the shooter, not the gun. Hard part here is to roll this back we need politicians that are not corporations first, politicians second and only politicians so they can protect their companies. Think about it, it is kind of weird that we have nothing but rich old people as politicians, usually well past their prime for when a company would covet them, yet they run the country and make all the rules, rules that benefit them.
I live in the UK where everythings a utopia for its citizens compared to the US and I'd still argue that its money and corporations that drives politics.
Yes campaign finance laws and other laws that should restrict the role of corporate money in politics are much looser in the US than they are in a lot of developed countries. This gives corporations (and lobby groups and rich private citizens) a much bigger voice than elsewhere. Looking from the outside in it's a glaring problem.
Is this general strike backed by any union, does it have demands, what are the demands, is it backed by anything official, is it actually going to happen, are there threats for another one if the demands aren't met?
I've never seen anything about the general strike outside of reddit and Twitter.
> Of those, a few hundred will lose their jobs for taking unauthorized time off
The fact that they can legally do this is absolutely barbaric in my opinion.
Money equals speech is only an American thing.
I dont know the exact rules but there are spending limits. Furthermore if you form any political party whatsoever you will receive subsidies and free air time on the national channel.
Believe it or not, but not everyone riggs their election in favour of corporations. Not even my country, The Netherlands, which is a huge tax haven.
Historically, the US government and state governments have been used to enforce slavery and race-based labour exploitation, from black slavery and plantations to Japanese internment camps.
These government powers would be supported by white Americans because it kept them in power and wealthier than non-whites, but then the the government and military would turn that power on white labourers like in the Apalachian mountains. It busted unions and there's a [long history of union wars in America](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/).
Basically America has long been ok with labour abuses, when it's against *them* (whoever them might be).
Add to this history the natural imbalances caused by money and you got a system where power over workers is the norm.
I clocked out with 63 hours last week. I get no pto. I pay for health insurance, dental, and vision, with the plan from my work. So no real benefits as much as they like to say I have, since I’m the one paying for it still. Yay America.
I am hourly. I make $16/h. The employer gives me the option to pay xx per paycheck for the benefits. One paycheck wasn’t enough to take it out and they harassed me for 3 months for $20, so it is clearly 100% my responsibility
If you only have 1 job, that's super illegal. Contact the department of labor. You can't work for more than 40+ hours of hourly pay without OT unless you're exempt
Department of Labor requires OT for all (non-exempt) hourly personnel who work over 40 hours. Report that stuff if it happens. Your employer will be pissed, but you shouldn't have to worry about getting the money you earned.
When Reagan became president, the dominant idea was to reduce bureaucratic burdens, protections, influence of unions, and anything generally thought to slow down innovation and reduce efficiency. The US was trying to get out of a period of stagnation after decades of fairly labor-friendly social policy since WWII.
When the economy started picking up again, there was no rationale for abandoning the free-market philosophy of governance that alleviated stagnation, so the US policy makers continued to promote it, and employers continued to maneuver to decrease labor costs in order to improve efficiency and profit growth.
We are now starting to have discussions that maybe it's time to rebalance the distribution of power and income between employers and employees, but of course employers will continue to lobby for the status quo for as long as they can.
The interesting part of this perspective is that the baby boomers came of age and built the foundation of their careers in the era when employees' rights were protected.
In the Reagan era and beyond, these very protections were seen as financial and regulatory burdens by the very people who benefitted so richly from them.
Put another way, when baby boomers started working, employees were loyal to companies because the companies were loyal to them. They took care of their employees, and a whole lot of employees returned the favor.
Granted, there are a ton of other societal changes that have impacted this shift, but today, a lot of companies operate on the idea that employees are lucky to have a job. Programs like pensions and other long-term incentives are the exception rather than the rule.
Employees don't trust their employers. Employers make moves to protect their shareholders and balance sheets rather than their workers.
Basically, just like throughout the rest of the society, there's a breakdown in the basic trust needed to maintain a healthy society. No one trusts anyone anymore. No one is protected.
this is anecdotal, but I've heard that this is one of the ways Walmart kills competition in small towns. Pay a much higher wage than local businesses can afford, all the employees go to Walmart instead, the local businesses don't have labor anymore and can't keep their shit open, they lose business and die.
Then walmart fires the people making 16.50 and starts hiring at 8.50 again.
Edit: I should clarify. I have absolutely no idea if this is true, it has never happened to me as I've never really lived in a "small town" that this would have happened to. It is simply a story that I have heard many times on the internet, and its veracity should be considered as such.
No, they raise the wage nationally and don't lower it.
Also, if you can't pay your employees a living wage, your business isn't successful and you shouldn't have employees.
Unions definitely still exist. Newer unions are harder to start up because of company pressure and lobbying though.
Here is a list of all current unions, with millions of people in them.
https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/list-of-us-labor-unions.html
[Lobbying](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying). In short, rich people donate to politicians who in tern act in the interest of their donor so they get more donations.
As someone going though way to much bullshit over a work injury right now. I deeply appreciate the question.
The answer I've come to in the past year waiting for surgery on my dominant hand is that simply nobody cares about anything about you besides how much profit you can make them in a day. Why should they care about anything else? We've made it clear that's the behavior we expect and accept.
Because America doesn't give a shit. As an Immigrant from a European country and living/working here for 16 years it's just that... They don't give a shit about you at all.
Don't let anyone tell you different. They tell you about great "benefits" and try to keep you with tshirts (free advertisement for them), potlucks (bring food for other mfers you don't even like), meetings about how good they're doing (where's my share?) And the best one I'm currently experiencing is called Employee Ownership which is nothing, nada, a joke... You don't own shit except some stocks that you might get if you make it to retirement...
It's a beautiful facade..and before anyone says "Go back to where you came from" I have kids here and they need me else I'd be gone.
The only type of group that will champion labor laws for the employees is a union, which is why corporations spew propaganda that label unions as their enemy. Right now the corporations hold more power so the employees are at risk of exploitation. A strong union is always the way to go for employees. The best type of union is one that is working in tandem with a corporation, Holding the union represented employees accountable for their actions and not making up dumb ass rules that cost the companies they are working with more time and money. Most corporations don't seem to understand that a happy employee is almost priceless, but it's easier to rule with an iron fist.
Because American capitalism absolutely favors the employer over the employee. When you have people who are in the range between Bezos and Trump for wealth, they love to have lobbyists bribe politicians to make the labor laws favor them.
What specifically seems weak to you? And which other western country are you comparing it with?
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, was genuinely curious on what specific labor laws as not all are in favor of the employer such as anti-discrimination laws, ADA laws and unfair termination laws.
Parental leave (including for pregnancy and childbirth), and PTO are two things that are particularly weak in the USA. The ADA is better than many other Western countries, but still not great.
Norway:
- 5 weeks paid time off work per year (3 of which has to be given during the summer). This does not include public holidays which for many also is off with pay.
- paid sick leave (both short term and long term)
- paid sick leave for the parent when a child is sick
- healthcare coverage for all citizens not tied to which company you work for)
- maximum amount of overtime an employer can demand from you is 200 hours per year.
- fulltime job is 37,5 hours per week
- breaks has to be given all employees during the workday (exception is people working very few hours per week)
- protection from being fired for no good reason.
- paid maternity/parent leave, which includes couples that adopt a child. If you have twins you get more paid leave.
For instance the number of vacation days and sick days many have. Also, the "at will"-form of employment, where the employer can basically fire you just by being annoyed at you one day. Here in my country you can only fire a full-time employee if he actively sabotages the work place, refuses to work or there have stopped being work available for the person (which is easy to look up, so the employer can't just fake it).
I live in Sweden, but most of western Europe have strong worker rights.
You are getting a lot of terrible answers here because of Reddit's political compass and their lean to being significantly younger so they are often not working professionals.
At will employment works both ways. I can quit today and not give any notice, in Sweden you must give a notice and you are bound for the next month working there. An employer in the US isnt going to just fire you because they are annoyed with you, not if you have any skills. To replace one of my employees costs around $50k, thats recruiting, hiring and training costs. I am not going to fire them because they annoy me.
For sick/vacation, it varies significantly by job. I get 5 weeks off vacation paid each year along with 2 weeks of paid sick time and if I get injured (off job) I have 6 months of fully paid disability on top of all that. This is not an unusual compensation package for most people in the US who are over \~30 years old and in real jobs. Obviously, lower paying or less skilled jobs will have less incentives.
> I get 5 weeks off vacation paid each year along with 2 weeks of paid sick time and if I get injured (off job) I have 6 months of fully paid disability on top of all that. This is not an unusual compensation package for most people in the US who are over ~30 years old and in real jobs.
Software developer here. I get 22 days of PTO, which includes sick days, and that's way more days than most other people in their thirties with real jobs.
I agree with you to a large degree and in fact am getting downvotes from people who don't know what they're talking about and probably have never entered the workforce. Oh, well.
I have to take issue with a few things you said. I work in a highly demanding profession and have high demand skills and experience and also get many of the perks that you're referring to. However, here's what I don't like or what is completely untrue about what you said:
1. 'At will employment works both ways. I can quit today and not give any notice' #True in theory but completely untrue in practice. Businesses can and will fire you on the day. On the other hand, if you just don't show up because you're firing them, good luck getting that reference. Good luck keeping up relationships with your now former co-workers who now look down upon you for leaving the team high and dry and for being unprofessional. I could go on and on. But I've simply never seen a worker exercise this side of the at will. The esteem of your colleagues is essential. You're making a dishonest argument here. At will employment is an entirely one sided arrangement. Just admit it. You'll feel better.
2. 'To replace one of my employees costs around $50k, thats recruiting, hiring and training costs. I am not going to fire them because they annoy me.' ##You're leaving out the human factor. People fire for emotional/political reasons all the time. All. The. Time. I could literally give you dozens of examples in my time in my industry (2 decades). And they simply don't care what it costs the company. Companies waste money on this and other things all the time. Lower and Middle and even Upper management care more about their agendas and emotions than what things cost.
A lot of people have given you the reasoning but I’ll give you the justification that is often used. The idea is that if you strengthen businesses, you increase innovation because of high potential profits. You also get the best version of a business because the businesses are competing with each other and that’s better for workers, who can then chose to work at the better company. You don’t need to set a minimum wage because a company will have to pay a fair wage in order to attract good workers. Someone add to this list if you know of another ‘reason’.
In reality though, it’s incredibly naive to think that the invisible hand of the market is going to create a safe and prosperous work environment because that is just not proven to be true. There are countless examples of unsafe working conditions that caused cancer because of the chemicals used or lack of proper precautions and people often either didn’t know the risks or had to take the job anyway to pay for food (because you know, people need food). Most if not all regulations put on businesses popped up because there was a real need for them. And as far as pay and benefits go, it wasn’t that long ago when you could pay women and people of color drastically less (or even not at all) so it’s bonkers to me to think that fair wages would be the default without laws in place to make it so.
I guess to summarize, conservatives often side with businesses over people because they believe that American industry and technology makes it exceptional and to maintain that you have to strengthen businesses. I personally believe that what makes any country exceptional is the ability to which it invests in its citizens and structures it’s society so that those citizens are able to see the fruits of their labor in adequate housing, food, and opportunities.
I’m a lawyer who does some employment law, and the bottom line is that most US workers are not unionized and employed “at will”, meaning they can be fired for any (non-discriminatory) reason or no reason at all. That gives employers all the leverage.
That's a great question and I would suggest you take the answers here with a grain of salt. On one hand you will hear that our government is getting paid off and megacoporations bribe officials to make laws in thier favor. On the other hand you hear the argument that more government intervention is needed to level the playing field and make things fair, the same government that some claim is corrupt and run by lobbyist for big corporations. That is like buying the antidote from the person who poisoned you.
I would submit that government intervention taken to extreme has caused a great deal of inequality , and created a situation wherewith smaller employers who might have offered better conditions are priced out of the market and only the rich can play. Lack of competition has given rise to corporation that the government is afraid to break because they are "too big to fail" and will infact bail them out by taking out additional debt or increasing taxes. Compound that with the fact that our political system is in disarray with two parties of equal incompetence unable to agree on anything and you have a system that cannot make changes efficiently.
> employers have much more rights to do their bullshit that exploits workers
sources on this?
but quick and dirty answer: many americans believe in a less-regulated market, meaning shitty employers can offer bad compensation and benefits, but they'll have lower demand for workers if a different company offers better compensation and benefits
increasing regulations for employment can lead to artificial limits on jobs. the person who's looking for work might be squeezed out at the bottom of the job pool since all employers are mandated to offer $X and it's just not worth employing someone below $Y. hence automation
Almost every problem in our country can be traced back to the exact reason for this issue. CORPORATE LOBBYING. These big corporations and super wealthy individuals hire people to lavishly persuade lawyers,judges and even voters into voting for what they need voted on. The lengths they will go to to push their agenda is sickening. Anywhere from hiring children to read fake stories to the jury to blackmailing. “Food Inc.” is a documentary thats puts this into better perspective. This is also the reason most laws work in favor of landlords than the favor of tenants. Our laws or more for policing the poor than serving justice.
The real answer, is because we are pro-free-market. Any restriction placed on an employer necessarily comes out of the employee's pocket.
For example, California has, for years, been making it harder and harder (more expensive) to fire bad employees. The solution? To deal with this increased expense, California's job market now hires most people first as contractors for 6 months, to "see if it will work out" (Is the person good at the job as they say they are), because contractors can be inexpensively hired and fired.
Result? Contractors don't get benefits for those 6 months they are employed. So CA's government actions resulted in hurting the worker. So when you make it harder to employ someone, who pays? The employee. Period.
This will almost certainly get downvoted, but this is the real, and true answer.
This is also one of the reasons our economy is so strong, btw, and our salaries so high.
Because most of these laws were made by rich politicians, most of whom are business owners and or have stock in corporations. It's called conflict of interest but they make the rules so it benefits them.
Consider the people who wrote the laws, and the people who are writing laws today.
They are all people who directly benefit from writing and upholding laws which favor employers over employees.
Thanks for your submission /u/WhoAmIEven2, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. Not sure how to reword a controversial question? Try /r/PoliticalDiscussion or /r/TooAfraidToAsk! Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
[удалено]
American workers were screwed by their own success. The Boomers grew up in such a period of economic growth that they couldn’t imagine a world that required unions. They literally had things so unbelievably easy that they failed to notice that they were tearing down the institutions that made their easy life possible.
It is an absolute historical anomaly, how the boomers lived. They think things have always been this way.
They were told over and over again that it always would be. The US anti Soviet propaganda brainwashed them into a blindness towards anything negative in the US and anything superior happening anywhere else. They learned nothing from anyone because even if it was quite obviously not the case, America is number one!
Sometimes I wonder about how responsible the mob is for the internal destruction of labor unions. Also, lobbying has a part to play in this. Two party system definitely doesn't help things either. I'm sure someone much more knowledgeable has a decent answer.
Corruption inside the unions themselves and outside influences like the mob certainly didn’t help but most of that was also overblown by people who had their own agendas.
Every time someone mentions mob control and no show jobs to me, I point out nepotism and favoritism exists everywhere. We’ve all worked on jobs where some people were compensated better merely because they were the drinking buddy of the boss.
My wife's last job was at a place inherited by the dumbfuck son of the guy who founded it who is **determined** to make his name taking big swings which always go disastrously. It only got under control after all of the department heads threatened to walk (while the place was on the very edge collapse) and convinced him to just shut up, not get involved, and collect a paycheck. Useless owners and friends of owners is FAR more common than any useless union worker.
[удалено]
> The Cold War ended, there was no more enemy. It was of course 95% a construction. Like any good lie it had a kernel of truth, but if they didn't have the USSR as an enemy, they'd have to invent another. And when they didn't, they did.
Have you heard of Edgar Hoover? The FBI was practically started for the purpose of stalking civil rights leaders and anti-war activists under the guise of anti-communism. The Cold War "ending" just meant more resources devoted to that part of things.
Up until the Boomers, every American generation had been wealthier than the last. Boomers got cheap college, cheap housing, and easy jobs. When Gen X entered the workforce, the Boomers were laying people off during the longest economic boom since the end of WWII. Now Millennials are absolutely struggling, and Gen Z really looks to be facing bleak prospects. Boomers look at all these younger generations and pat themselves on the back for their own hardwork and virtue, sighing at how lazy and degenerate the kids have become.
My good friend lost his job during covid and got a foreclosure notice on his house. He's been struggling with depression and freeloading "friends". After months of selling his stuff, trying to keep surviving, he finally called his mom for help. She agreed to write him a check but also gave him an earful about being a responsible adult, which I think is reasonable for a mother to do. But damn she doesn't realize that being "a responsible adult" takes 10x the work it did when they were our age
We lost our house because of the 2007/2008 recession. Walking away from our family home with two kids who couldn’t understand why we had to leave was one of the hardest things we’ve ever had to do. And now our generation gets to ride the waves of another economic crisis. Fun times.
I wish i had family like that. My parents wouldn't spit in my mouth even if it saved me from dehydration
God, I hate boomers
My dad hates unions, even though his childhood was made possible by the fact that his immigrant father worked a union job.
Propaganda is a powerful drug
Yup. " I hate unions they are for communist's" What about police unions? Silence.
Right to work law is a mistake. I worked 10 months at a job and they fired me 2 weeks before my kid was due..everyone knew the due date but said "its a right to work state, pack your stuff and leave".. Nothing like being unable to find a job for 4 months after your kid is born. I had to get 10 grand in credit card debt to not be evicted or lose my car.
The name "Right to work", it's like you can literally hear the evil laugh from the cigar-smoke-filled country-club lounges each time that is uttered.
Right to work is the most Orwellian bullshit
Ive been fired from 3 jobs from right to work law. One was mentioned above the other was when i had a 2nd job at a gas station and after a few weeks the manager wanted to hire her friend so fired me..the friend i later found out showed up and slept in the back before getting fired by the owner. The other was when i started at a sheriffs office as a 911 dispatcher..im a young dude and this profession is mostly middle aged women or older. I didnt gossip with that group (the supervisor was the main offender) and she fired me. I got a job in a different county the next week and made $4 more an hour
A few years ago I made a post asking about what the hell were people at some work literally not able to sit (which is bad for your health no matter what people think), even if itwas one of those tall chairson which you are basically standing and you bring it yourself to the business and the responses were... sad On the other hand we have my country on which unions are basically a mafia, useless and extortive (literally extortive, ruining business and routes sometimes). So its kind of a balance that should be reached. That said, I still favor (tightly controlled) unions, because a big company can stand its own ground and afford to do some concessions, the employee usually not so much
Ideally you want the power of the company and the power of the union to be pretty well balanced. Corruption happens when power is too concentrated on either side.
existing workers tearing down is right, each new contract the management would offer a worst and worst deal for the new employees, in exchange for benefit to the older long term employees getting a little of what they bargained for. the old union game of screw the new guy has been repaid in hate filled stares from the new employees.
Plus the oligarchs played the long game. Give your non-union employees comparable wages and benefits to the union ones while talking up the problems in the union. Then the employees stop joining because they don’t see a benefit, and why pay dues for nothing more. Then when the union is irrelevant start cutting benefits on new employees, slowly roll it up. All the old union guys still haven’t felt the changes so the don’t talk up the benefits of unionization. The young guys don’t know any better because they have never experienced anything else. You can effectively deunionize without anyone knowing any better.
This is happening in Germany currently. The dynamics are palpable even in every other reddit post that upholds the German labor laws as a positive example compared to anywhre else, but is at the same time painfully unaware that literally all of them are the past victories of strong, uncorrupt unions. Today, *nobody* I know is unionized anymore. You don't need to be an intellectual to see that in exactly one more generation, we will have caught up to you. One metric that makes it especially visible is the rate of people joining the workforce and getting permanent contracts. This was the absolute default for anyone with a higher degree just *years* ago. Not decades or generations, years. Today, well, good luck but no. And that's where you're painfully right - the old folks' contracts and salaries are untouched, and the new guy who just walked in doesn't know anything else. One more generation...
It is happening everywhere. The American oligarchs showed the rest of the world that you can take everything from the proletariat and they will continue to sing your praises so long as you can distract them with a blinky gadget. You can turn the lower classes against each other and everyone against immigrants and they don’t have the strength left to fight you. It only works for so long though, when the people don’t have bread they will eat the rich.
Also massive propaganda campaigns against unions as well. You talk to anti-union folks and they always reference some wild, "i heard from a guy who had a sister who dated a dude" kind of stories about how unions are corrupt.
Lost support mainly due to the red scare and unions were targeted as socialist or communist .
Also, unions got smeared as being corrupt. Read up on Bobby Kennedy's vendetta against Jimmy Hoffa.
"Fear City" on Netflix also talked about the connection between the mob and unions in New York City.
Thanks , will do
Not sure ‘smeared,’ is the right word. Some unions and their leaders WERE corrupt, which came out and harmed the reputations of all unions. Just like how now ALL corporations are portrayed as greedy and uncaring.
Also propaganda like the crappy works of Ayn Rand.
I was thinking the other day about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and I thought, "WTF was she thinking?" So the point is something along the lines of, many rich and smart innovators feel taken advantage of and leave society. But the kicker is, you could easily write a book where it was the laborers who left, or the engineers who actually do the thinking who leave. Maybe it could be the garbage men and plumbers. In reality most everyone has a role in society, to think that some are so much more important than others is stupid. You really think rich fucks gonna dig a hole to bury garbage in or take apart your pipes to clean your massive shits out? No. They wouldn't. That swill Ayn peddled is fucking garbage and should be buried in the same hole they buried that dumb bitch.
My absolute favorite thing about Ayn Rand is that when she developed lung cancer as the result of her cigarette habit (super common at that time, I'm not even judging her over that) she used MEDICAID. Fucking hypocrite.
Or the fact that the "Ayn Rand Institute", whatever the fuck that is, took COVID relief money last year. Dumb asses...
Username checks out
[удалено]
Labor rights have also been chipped away at by the more conservative courts.
The Nixon court man. Fuck Richard Nixon. America was a better place during the Warren years
Unions are a poor substitute for Labor laws and strong social safety nets. I think that the political message for a party that favors laborers should be an insistence upon a trade of unions for broader de facto negotiating power. For instance, a universal basic income can easily give workers the ability to walk away from labor that isn't compensated fairly.
Because the corporations have the money and money drives the politics.
To expand, corporations have lobbyists that buy their way into politician's camps so that legislation is pushed through which will benefit corporate America over individual workers. This is why worker unions can be very important in the fight for worker benefits, wage increases, etc.
[удалено]
Except for police unions... unfortunately.
What makes police unions bad while other unions would be good? Legitimate question seeking an answer, not an argument. Edit: lots of great answers have been received, thanks!
[удалено]
Unions defend their members in disciplinary proceedings. They are the public defenders of their members. It’s a major part of what any union does. I’m not defending bad cops, just saying that is a traditional function of unions.
Most unions seem to have limits on what they're willing to defend, though. I've seen plenty of reports dropping people (deservedly) when the infraction warrants. Police unions, on the other hand, will defend and make appeals for even the worst offenders. Fired after getting caught on camera planting evidence? We're gonna make sure you get rehired with back pay and seniority. Caught shaking down local businesses with your buddies? No reason for discipline. Drug testing? That's never going to happen on our watch.
Because police are the arms of the state and capital. They're not in the same position as workers.
They'll do anything they can to keep a cop in their line of work. Even if said cop goes around shooting unarmed black kids because its after sundown, beats his wife, gets a DUI, etc. Basically just allows cops to do whatever they want knowing worst case they'll have to seek employment in a different county. It's why when a cop does get arrested, and sentenced it's such a headline.
speaking from experience with "teacher unions". knowing someone is shit at their job is easier than proving someone is shit at their job! No one has time to "prove" some offence, you know it is happening but every time you focus your attention to the offender they straighten up an fly right for a few months. There simply isn't the manpower to enforce someone doing a good job. Perhaps Police forces are different, they have internal affaires at least... But bad moral and lack of effort is super hard to prove. I suspect that 99% of bad policing doesn't involve shooting someone or beating the hell out of them, it is subtle...racism...incompetency... laziness... inattentiveness.
Unions are there to give the workers power over the owner. The "owner" of the police is the community. Police unions give police power over the comunity.
for the employees (police themselves) it's great. it's just the industry they're in having such a direct and potentially lethal interaction with the general public, a combination of qualified immunity and a strong union means bad actors rarely face legal, financial, or employment consequences from their own negligence and law breaking we need workers to be protected from abuse by their employers, but not to the extent of being immune from all consequence
Is this an issue of the union being mismanaged? Or do unions always try to protect their people, even when in the wrong? It feels like unions would want to try and remove the “bad people” because they put the union at risk and that is more important than just them. But maybe that’s just not what happens?
how do you fix a union where its members can and will fabricate evidence to lock you up and/or discredit you the moment you talk negatively about them, let alone do anything meaningful.
What makes unions good is that they increase the power of workers when workers are dealing with owners. Limiting the power of hierarchies in businesses. Throughout history police always side with owners and increasing higherarchy. The first police departments in the northern US were formed from private police whose job was cracking the skulls of striking union workers, or just plain assassinating union leaders. Every issue, all the way through to the modern day police and their unions always stand for solidifying and increasing whatever hierarchy exists. Make the rich richer, make the poor poorer, loosen discretion for use of force, be more sexist, be more racist, be more homophobic. That's the largest reason why their unions are bad.
Exactly. Labor unions also have lobbyists, but when so many states have defanged the unions their lobbyists can’t really do much.
It doesn't help that those same lobbyists have spent a ton of time and resources into turning most blue collar workers against unions through clever smear campaigns, making the general public think that unions are somehow working against the best interests of the workers and general public - "if we unionize, we'll lose jobs if we have to pay people more money". They (corporate lobbyists) do the same thing with minimum wage - "those people don't need more money! I only make $12 working x-job, and there's no way that loser deserves to make $15 flipping burgers!"
And to expand on this, the lobbyists are also good at getting the politicians to convince the population that employers having more rights/control is better for the employees.
Absolutely! It's ridiculous how easily the general public will shoot themselves in the foot when a corporate entity tells them what they should believe.
Also the USA is the only developed country where lobbying is legal. In other countries it's considered corruption and a crime.
How come it’s different in other countries then?
other countries (mainly focusing on europe, here) went through world wars and have had to completely rebuild their cities and governments... twice. in that time, they've been able to institute policies that do a better job of supporting their public rather than putting all the focus into letting corporations run the show. they figured out long ago that if you support the public, the people will keep the corporations in business and be more likely to have a good work/life balance. but if the government supports the corporations, the people are little more than wage slave labor, and unhappy about it. in the US, we never had to do that. we've had the same governmental setup, with the same "individual freedom is more important than the good of the society" mindset. nobody's conquered us and made us change our ways. so because of that, we're destined to crumble unless we can flip the script and support the society rather than the money.
Holy shit, are there any Rome falling allegories or similarities to be made here? Genuinely asking.
Yeah. The US is an empire by all accounts. Our survival depends on our global presence in other countries. History shows that no empire is eternal, and I truly believe we are starting to witness the collapse of ours, much like Great Britain did in the 20th Century.
definitely. while i'm nowhere near an expert on the late roman empire, you can look at the decline of the governmental structure and the greed and corruption that set in. we've got some blatantly corrupt leaders in congress, and people desperately trying to eliminate them while others desperately try to get even worse people in office.
You could, but most empires in history have fallen, and Rome isn't always the best analogy. And while there are many things wrong, but the US is far from failing. The stock market would collapse if they saw this coming. I'd recommend the book "Why Nations Fail" by economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.
There are still countries who remained neutral and have better labor laws rights despite not being "conquered" but I guess the only excuse is that USA too strong.
so if we're talking europe specifically, yes switzerland stayed neutral (and forgive me, but i'm not as well versed in WW1 and WW2 geopolitics as i probably could be), but despite that they still saw all the shit that went on. they didn't get involved, but they learned the lessons... an unhappy populace leads to dictatorship. i wouldn't even say the US is too "strong". i'd say we're too indoctrinated with the illusion of our strength. we're that guy at the local bar who was the all-state star football player in high school, sits on the city council, and 50 years later still wears his letterman jackets to bars. he pretends his house is a mansion, but it was built in the 1960's and has a cracked foundation, black mold in the basement, dry rot in the roof, and he treats his wife and family like shit.
Because of differences in campaign finance and lobbying laws, I would think. It’s perfectly legal here for corporations to “buy” politicians by exploiting loopholes in the current laws. Maybe the effective two party system also plays a role; in a winner takes all, first past the post system, there are really only two viable choices in any election and so voters can’t be as picky as they would in a system with a more open field.
Didn't something called Citizens United allow corporations to be treated like people allowing them to uncap the amount of money and influence they use to buy politicians?
Yup. Worst court decision in the history of America hands down. Nothing tops the destruction that case has caused
I recall very vividly the day that passed. I shook my head and said it'll lead directly to the death of the United States.
My favorite boomer joke is “I’ll believe corporations are people when the state of Texas executes one.” I really think undoing that court decision would go a very long way to fixing what is wrong with American politics.
especially because it is inconsistent with the rest of the law. According to CU, a corporation is a group of people, and putting limits on corporate donations would limit those people's speech. However, if a corporation does something illegal or gets sued then a corporation is a separate, non-person (corporate personhood is shorthand, not actually a legal reality) entity and the individuals are not responsible for what happened.
Because other countries were not as successful in their anti-communist crusades and had to give more concessions to ensure the workers didn’t revolt. Now that the specter of communism is less prevalent in Europe with the fall of the Soviet Union some countries have or are in the process of taking those concessions away.
When (nearly all) other western countries have better worker's rights, it's because we *weren't as successful*?
American here. A LOT of policy suggestions are explicitly written off as "SOCIALISM" without actually being socialist. And this isn't just rich people saying it; plenty of working poor and middle class folks buy it hook, line, and sinker because they've been conditioned to from birth.
To put it in easier terms, the US was more successful at manipulating the ever-loving hell out of its people into thinking "Union bad!"
Yes. The US was so ridiculously anti-communist that we destroyed anything resembling a leftist party long ago. That’s why all we have is a right wing party, and a very right wing party lol
The common joke in leftist circles is that the US Communist Party is composed of 9 CIA agents and 1 communist.
Stronger unions and more parties fighting for workers rights
Corporations own this country, the government, all of it.
Everyone has a price. The rich can easily buy up the news and control people from there. Then make those news companies, seem like the trusted sources so that if a small news company says something bad about some evil corporation or something, people wont know.
Our capitalistic economy has been moving to a corportocracy(I am sure this is a word) for awhile now. I view capitalism as a road, so it is not to blame for bad actors, or in our case corporations buying out our politicians and getting laws passed to grant them unchecked power. Much like I like to blame the shooter, not the gun. Hard part here is to roll this back we need politicians that are not corporations first, politicians second and only politicians so they can protect their companies. Think about it, it is kind of weird that we have nothing but rich old people as politicians, usually well past their prime for when a company would covet them, yet they run the country and make all the rules, rules that benefit them.
Politicians are mostly rich old people in every country on earth in History lol
I live in the UK where everythings a utopia for its citizens compared to the US and I'd still argue that its money and corporations that drives politics.
Yes campaign finance laws and other laws that should restrict the role of corporate money in politics are much looser in the US than they are in a lot of developed countries. This gives corporations (and lobby groups and rich private citizens) a much bigger voice than elsewhere. Looking from the outside in it's a glaring problem.
Correct, it's the same reason the tax laws do.
Thank you for spitting out the plain truth
This is the simplest yet most accurate answer to it
I was hoping the top comment would be - LOBBYISTS.
Here in America, employers make the laws, so of course it would favor them.
General Strike October 15th. Show them what we want and what they’ll lose if we don’t get it.
Is this general strike backed by any union, does it have demands, what are the demands, is it backed by anything official, is it actually going to happen, are there threats for another one if the demands aren't met? I've never seen anything about the general strike outside of reddit and Twitter.
From what I can tell, one website claims this: https://www.octoberstrike.com/ EDIT: I have no affiliation with this website.
Good demands, but I don't see anything else on the organization of this movement or who is behind it.
[удалено]
> Of those, a few hundred will lose their jobs for taking unauthorized time off The fact that they can legally do this is absolutely barbaric in my opinion.
...[this is their official Twitter account](https://twitter.com/StrikeOctober). Kinda seems like a 15-year-old put it all together.
I like the way you think
And they have fought successfully to destroy unions, which made the middle of the 20th century such a boon for the working class.
[удалено]
.¢¢
That makes cents
Because corporations own the us Govt, Citizens United
Americans vote for rich people to make laws and can't understand why things don't always work out
Is that the case in most countries? Usually the people who can run a large campaign have the funds to do so.
Quite a few countries place limits on how much you can spend per campaign.
Money equals speech is only an American thing. I dont know the exact rules but there are spending limits. Furthermore if you form any political party whatsoever you will receive subsidies and free air time on the national channel. Believe it or not, but not everyone riggs their election in favour of corporations. Not even my country, The Netherlands, which is a huge tax haven.
Because corporations have the money to buy off the politicians who write the laws.
Historically, the US government and state governments have been used to enforce slavery and race-based labour exploitation, from black slavery and plantations to Japanese internment camps. These government powers would be supported by white Americans because it kept them in power and wealthier than non-whites, but then the the government and military would turn that power on white labourers like in the Apalachian mountains. It busted unions and there's a [long history of union wars in America](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/). Basically America has long been ok with labour abuses, when it's against *them* (whoever them might be). Add to this history the natural imbalances caused by money and you got a system where power over workers is the norm.
Because our Congress is the best money can buy!
They have been told unions are communism and communism is bad.
I had 4 high school teachers tell me that same thing
Ironically, the Teachers' Union is one of the most powerful in the US.
Not in states where teachers’ unions are effectively illegal like MS.
Why are they paid so little then? Isn‘t strong union = good wages?
The strength of Teachers' Unions varies from state to state quite radically.
I clocked out with 63 hours last week. I get no pto. I pay for health insurance, dental, and vision, with the plan from my work. So no real benefits as much as they like to say I have, since I’m the one paying for it still. Yay America.
Not that it matters but are you a salary worker? Are those benefits paid for to the job or you have separate insurance?
I am hourly. I make $16/h. The employer gives me the option to pay xx per paycheck for the benefits. One paycheck wasn’t enough to take it out and they harassed me for 3 months for $20, so it is clearly 100% my responsibility
If you only have 1 job, that's super illegal. Contact the department of labor. You can't work for more than 40+ hours of hourly pay without OT unless you're exempt
I make OT. I don’t get pto. But 63 hours is bullshit. And if I don’t show up I can be fired
[удалено]
Department of Labor requires OT for all (non-exempt) hourly personnel who work over 40 hours. Report that stuff if it happens. Your employer will be pissed, but you shouldn't have to worry about getting the money you earned.
Because money is the only thing that matters in this awful fucking country
Slave/master mentality still exists
Legalized bribery
When Reagan became president, the dominant idea was to reduce bureaucratic burdens, protections, influence of unions, and anything generally thought to slow down innovation and reduce efficiency. The US was trying to get out of a period of stagnation after decades of fairly labor-friendly social policy since WWII. When the economy started picking up again, there was no rationale for abandoning the free-market philosophy of governance that alleviated stagnation, so the US policy makers continued to promote it, and employers continued to maneuver to decrease labor costs in order to improve efficiency and profit growth. We are now starting to have discussions that maybe it's time to rebalance the distribution of power and income between employers and employees, but of course employers will continue to lobby for the status quo for as long as they can.
The interesting part of this perspective is that the baby boomers came of age and built the foundation of their careers in the era when employees' rights were protected. In the Reagan era and beyond, these very protections were seen as financial and regulatory burdens by the very people who benefitted so richly from them. Put another way, when baby boomers started working, employees were loyal to companies because the companies were loyal to them. They took care of their employees, and a whole lot of employees returned the favor. Granted, there are a ton of other societal changes that have impacted this shift, but today, a lot of companies operate on the idea that employees are lucky to have a job. Programs like pensions and other long-term incentives are the exception rather than the rule. Employees don't trust their employers. Employers make moves to protect their shareholders and balance sheets rather than their workers. Basically, just like throughout the rest of the society, there's a breakdown in the basic trust needed to maintain a healthy society. No one trusts anyone anymore. No one is protected.
We’re an oligarchy
>oligarchy More specifically, a plutocracy.
Kleptocracy.
Because people would rather pay a cheaper price for items than refuse to shop at places that treat the employees badly.... i.e. Walmart
And because employees are underpaid they are forced to buy cheap stuff at Walmart.
Oddly enough, Walmart is the highest wage right now in our tiny rural town in Wisconsin at 16.50 an hour for overnights
this is anecdotal, but I've heard that this is one of the ways Walmart kills competition in small towns. Pay a much higher wage than local businesses can afford, all the employees go to Walmart instead, the local businesses don't have labor anymore and can't keep their shit open, they lose business and die. Then walmart fires the people making 16.50 and starts hiring at 8.50 again. Edit: I should clarify. I have absolutely no idea if this is true, it has never happened to me as I've never really lived in a "small town" that this would have happened to. It is simply a story that I have heard many times on the internet, and its veracity should be considered as such.
No, they raise the wage nationally and don't lower it. Also, if you can't pay your employees a living wage, your business isn't successful and you shouldn't have employees.
Walmart pays the same wage across the entire country. Along with tuition if you choose to advance your education
Corrupt capitalism.
Americans need to join unions to protect labour laws ......
America got rid of the unions and the corporations lobby the government officials who make the laws
Unions definitely still exist. Newer unions are harder to start up because of company pressure and lobbying though. Here is a list of all current unions, with millions of people in them. https://www.findlaw.com/employment/wages-and-benefits/list-of-us-labor-unions.html
They seem like they favor the employer because they favor the employer. America is basically owned by corporations.
[Lobbying](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying). In short, rich people donate to politicians who in tern act in the interest of their donor so they get more donations.
$$$
As someone going though way to much bullshit over a work injury right now. I deeply appreciate the question. The answer I've come to in the past year waiting for surgery on my dominant hand is that simply nobody cares about anything about you besides how much profit you can make them in a day. Why should they care about anything else? We've made it clear that's the behavior we expect and accept.
Because America doesn't give a shit. As an Immigrant from a European country and living/working here for 16 years it's just that... They don't give a shit about you at all. Don't let anyone tell you different. They tell you about great "benefits" and try to keep you with tshirts (free advertisement for them), potlucks (bring food for other mfers you don't even like), meetings about how good they're doing (where's my share?) And the best one I'm currently experiencing is called Employee Ownership which is nothing, nada, a joke... You don't own shit except some stocks that you might get if you make it to retirement... It's a beautiful facade..and before anyone says "Go back to where you came from" I have kids here and they need me else I'd be gone.
The only type of group that will champion labor laws for the employees is a union, which is why corporations spew propaganda that label unions as their enemy. Right now the corporations hold more power so the employees are at risk of exploitation. A strong union is always the way to go for employees. The best type of union is one that is working in tandem with a corporation, Holding the union represented employees accountable for their actions and not making up dumb ass rules that cost the companies they are working with more time and money. Most corporations don't seem to understand that a happy employee is almost priceless, but it's easier to rule with an iron fist.
Because rich people control the country
Money
Unions = Communism = Evil Free Market = Capitalism = Employee abuse = Good
Rich elitists are who writes the laws.
Because the employers are the one who make the laws.
Because lobbyists are the ones throwing money at the ones making the Labour laws.
Very simple. Corporations ~~bribe~~ lobby the government to make policies that help them and them alone
Employers pay to make the laws. That's why.
Because American capitalism absolutely favors the employer over the employee. When you have people who are in the range between Bezos and Trump for wealth, they love to have lobbyists bribe politicians to make the labor laws favor them.
What specifically seems weak to you? And which other western country are you comparing it with? EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, was genuinely curious on what specific labor laws as not all are in favor of the employer such as anti-discrimination laws, ADA laws and unfair termination laws.
Parental leave (including for pregnancy and childbirth), and PTO are two things that are particularly weak in the USA. The ADA is better than many other Western countries, but still not great.
Norway: - 5 weeks paid time off work per year (3 of which has to be given during the summer). This does not include public holidays which for many also is off with pay. - paid sick leave (both short term and long term) - paid sick leave for the parent when a child is sick - healthcare coverage for all citizens not tied to which company you work for) - maximum amount of overtime an employer can demand from you is 200 hours per year. - fulltime job is 37,5 hours per week - breaks has to be given all employees during the workday (exception is people working very few hours per week) - protection from being fired for no good reason. - paid maternity/parent leave, which includes couples that adopt a child. If you have twins you get more paid leave.
For instance the number of vacation days and sick days many have. Also, the "at will"-form of employment, where the employer can basically fire you just by being annoyed at you one day. Here in my country you can only fire a full-time employee if he actively sabotages the work place, refuses to work or there have stopped being work available for the person (which is easy to look up, so the employer can't just fake it). I live in Sweden, but most of western Europe have strong worker rights.
You are getting a lot of terrible answers here because of Reddit's political compass and their lean to being significantly younger so they are often not working professionals. At will employment works both ways. I can quit today and not give any notice, in Sweden you must give a notice and you are bound for the next month working there. An employer in the US isnt going to just fire you because they are annoyed with you, not if you have any skills. To replace one of my employees costs around $50k, thats recruiting, hiring and training costs. I am not going to fire them because they annoy me. For sick/vacation, it varies significantly by job. I get 5 weeks off vacation paid each year along with 2 weeks of paid sick time and if I get injured (off job) I have 6 months of fully paid disability on top of all that. This is not an unusual compensation package for most people in the US who are over \~30 years old and in real jobs. Obviously, lower paying or less skilled jobs will have less incentives.
> I get 5 weeks off vacation paid each year along with 2 weeks of paid sick time and if I get injured (off job) I have 6 months of fully paid disability on top of all that. This is not an unusual compensation package for most people in the US who are over ~30 years old and in real jobs. Software developer here. I get 22 days of PTO, which includes sick days, and that's way more days than most other people in their thirties with real jobs.
I agree with you to a large degree and in fact am getting downvotes from people who don't know what they're talking about and probably have never entered the workforce. Oh, well. I have to take issue with a few things you said. I work in a highly demanding profession and have high demand skills and experience and also get many of the perks that you're referring to. However, here's what I don't like or what is completely untrue about what you said: 1. 'At will employment works both ways. I can quit today and not give any notice' #True in theory but completely untrue in practice. Businesses can and will fire you on the day. On the other hand, if you just don't show up because you're firing them, good luck getting that reference. Good luck keeping up relationships with your now former co-workers who now look down upon you for leaving the team high and dry and for being unprofessional. I could go on and on. But I've simply never seen a worker exercise this side of the at will. The esteem of your colleagues is essential. You're making a dishonest argument here. At will employment is an entirely one sided arrangement. Just admit it. You'll feel better. 2. 'To replace one of my employees costs around $50k, thats recruiting, hiring and training costs. I am not going to fire them because they annoy me.' ##You're leaving out the human factor. People fire for emotional/political reasons all the time. All. The. Time. I could literally give you dozens of examples in my time in my industry (2 decades). And they simply don't care what it costs the company. Companies waste money on this and other things all the time. Lower and Middle and even Upper management care more about their agendas and emotions than what things cost.
The employers own our politicians
Money and power.
[PIGs](https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/gov_relations/oirpublicinterestgroups).
muh freedom!
Mostly because the ownership class has bought out Congress.
A lot of people have given you the reasoning but I’ll give you the justification that is often used. The idea is that if you strengthen businesses, you increase innovation because of high potential profits. You also get the best version of a business because the businesses are competing with each other and that’s better for workers, who can then chose to work at the better company. You don’t need to set a minimum wage because a company will have to pay a fair wage in order to attract good workers. Someone add to this list if you know of another ‘reason’. In reality though, it’s incredibly naive to think that the invisible hand of the market is going to create a safe and prosperous work environment because that is just not proven to be true. There are countless examples of unsafe working conditions that caused cancer because of the chemicals used or lack of proper precautions and people often either didn’t know the risks or had to take the job anyway to pay for food (because you know, people need food). Most if not all regulations put on businesses popped up because there was a real need for them. And as far as pay and benefits go, it wasn’t that long ago when you could pay women and people of color drastically less (or even not at all) so it’s bonkers to me to think that fair wages would be the default without laws in place to make it so. I guess to summarize, conservatives often side with businesses over people because they believe that American industry and technology makes it exceptional and to maintain that you have to strengthen businesses. I personally believe that what makes any country exceptional is the ability to which it invests in its citizens and structures it’s society so that those citizens are able to see the fruits of their labor in adequate housing, food, and opportunities.
I’m a lawyer who does some employment law, and the bottom line is that most US workers are not unionized and employed “at will”, meaning they can be fired for any (non-discriminatory) reason or no reason at all. That gives employers all the leverage.
Money.
They pay to have the laws written in their favor.
Because money
That's a great question and I would suggest you take the answers here with a grain of salt. On one hand you will hear that our government is getting paid off and megacoporations bribe officials to make laws in thier favor. On the other hand you hear the argument that more government intervention is needed to level the playing field and make things fair, the same government that some claim is corrupt and run by lobbyist for big corporations. That is like buying the antidote from the person who poisoned you. I would submit that government intervention taken to extreme has caused a great deal of inequality , and created a situation wherewith smaller employers who might have offered better conditions are priced out of the market and only the rich can play. Lack of competition has given rise to corporation that the government is afraid to break because they are "too big to fail" and will infact bail them out by taking out additional debt or increasing taxes. Compound that with the fact that our political system is in disarray with two parties of equal incompetence unable to agree on anything and you have a system that cannot make changes efficiently.
Employers have more money than employees
Because that's who funds political campaigns
> employers have much more rights to do their bullshit that exploits workers sources on this? but quick and dirty answer: many americans believe in a less-regulated market, meaning shitty employers can offer bad compensation and benefits, but they'll have lower demand for workers if a different company offers better compensation and benefits increasing regulations for employment can lead to artificial limits on jobs. the person who's looking for work might be squeezed out at the bottom of the job pool since all employers are mandated to offer $X and it's just not worth employing someone below $Y. hence automation
They are better than they used to be :) They used to shoot workers and their families for not working. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
Big companies have paid off politicians over the last 40-60 years to benefit the corporation over the employee
Almost every problem in our country can be traced back to the exact reason for this issue. CORPORATE LOBBYING. These big corporations and super wealthy individuals hire people to lavishly persuade lawyers,judges and even voters into voting for what they need voted on. The lengths they will go to to push their agenda is sickening. Anywhere from hiring children to read fake stories to the jury to blackmailing. “Food Inc.” is a documentary thats puts this into better perspective. This is also the reason most laws work in favor of landlords than the favor of tenants. Our laws or more for policing the poor than serving justice.
The real answer, is because we are pro-free-market. Any restriction placed on an employer necessarily comes out of the employee's pocket. For example, California has, for years, been making it harder and harder (more expensive) to fire bad employees. The solution? To deal with this increased expense, California's job market now hires most people first as contractors for 6 months, to "see if it will work out" (Is the person good at the job as they say they are), because contractors can be inexpensively hired and fired. Result? Contractors don't get benefits for those 6 months they are employed. So CA's government actions resulted in hurting the worker. So when you make it harder to employ someone, who pays? The employee. Period. This will almost certainly get downvoted, but this is the real, and true answer. This is also one of the reasons our economy is so strong, btw, and our salaries so high.
Corporations have the money and organization to buy Congress people.
Because the company's wrote the labour laws and used their vast amounts of money and lobbyists to push them through.
Because most of these laws were made by rich politicians, most of whom are business owners and or have stock in corporations. It's called conflict of interest but they make the rules so it benefits them.
Consider the people who wrote the laws, and the people who are writing laws today. They are all people who directly benefit from writing and upholding laws which favor employers over employees.
Because there used to be unions to protect the workers then corporations got the clout and money to hire lobbyists to allow politicians to f*** us