Who'da thunk that unions are run by third-party cronies and lawyers and rely on the subservience of the working class for leverage?

Woah man, turns out a ridiculously high minimum wage is a bad idea. Better hate on unions for realizing this.

>unions fight for $15 min-wage
>unions fight for union exemptions to $15 min-wage

Yeah, my cynicism totally isn't justified here. It's totally not as if they're trying to benefit unionised workers at the expense of non-unionised workers.

Surely, the correct response to their obviously sudden realisation about their own folly is to say "We got it wrong". Not to go "Oh well, let's just make sure our workers aren't shafted".

I'm actually amazed you perceive the situation in the way that you do.

I'm with my local UFCW but I can see why others wouldn't want to be a part of a union. Majority rule in voting for what terms workers want brought to the table with company may not reflect what you want brought up. Also there's the fact that you not only keep a little more of your paycheck every week, you get paid slightly more than Unionized workers. At least, that's how it is for my job. I only have union representation because I'm a bit unsure of myself on the job when handling money and would rather have an investigation be brought in if I screwed up than having my bosses flat out fire me at the possibility of stealing money.

It's 2016. If you're working a blue collar job, you're in a collective bargaining state, and you still refuse to join a union, you're just holding everyone back. I have no sympathy for workers who go out of their way to not be represented.

I'm with my local UFCW but I can see why others wouldn't want to be a part of a union. Majority rule in voting for what terms workers want brought to the table with company may not reflect what you want brought up. Also there's the fact that you not only keep a little more of your paycheck every week, you get paid slightly more than Unionized workers. At least, that's how it is for my job. I only have union representation because I'm a bit unsure of myself on the job when handling money and would rather have an investigation be brought in if I screwed up than having my bosses flat out fire me at the possibility of stealing money.

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 01:50:56 PM

It's 2016. If you're working a blue collar job, you're in a collective bargaining state, and you still refuse to join a union, you're just holding everyone back. I have no sympathy for workers who go out of their way to not be represented.

You don't have to pay dues, but you still get all the benefits union workers do. They can't only give their members benefits (they should be able to), they represent company workers as a whole.

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 01:50:56 PM

It's 2016.

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

I'm with my local UFCW

UFCW is shit.

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:11:30 PM

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Literally all you did was post a picture of John Oliver, when he has a fucking point every time he announces the year. It means that at this point in history, people should know better. It's an argument.

The only rebuttal to that argument that I've literally ever seen is mockery. "HAHA TIME AN DATE MAN HE SAYS THE YEAR THAT MEANS HES WRONG"

Simply naming the current date as if it's some kind credible point is not an argument.

"Yo Pope Urban why are we invading the Holy Lands"

"BECAUSE IT'S 1096, I MEAN C'MON"

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:27:24 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:24:20 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:11:30 PM

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Literally all you did was post a picture of John Oliver, when he has a fucking point every time he announces the year. It means that at this point in history, people should know better. It's an argument.

The only rebuttal to that argument that I've literally ever seen is mockery. "HAHA TIME AN DATE MAN HE SAYS THE YEAR THAT MEANS HES WRONG"

Simply naming the current date as if it's some kind credible point is not an argument.

Saying "your point of view is outdated" is an argument, and that's what saying the year implies.

This isn't hard.

What? So I'm just supposed to presume your argument is correct because you're able to tell the time?

It doesn't prove anything besides the fact that you mentioned a date.

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:32:50 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:30:18 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:27:24 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:24:20 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:11:30 PM

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Literally all you did was post a picture of John Oliver, when he has a fucking point every time he announces the year. It means that at this point in history, people should know better. It's an argument.

The only rebuttal to that argument that I've literally ever seen is mockery. "HAHA TIME AN DATE MAN HE SAYS THE YEAR THAT MEANS HES WRONG"

Simply naming the current date as if it's some kind credible point is not an argument.

Saying "your point of view is outdated" is an argument, and that's what saying the year implies.

This isn't hard.

What? So I'm just supposed to presume your argument is correct because you're able to tell the time?

It doesn't prove anything besides the fact that you mentioned a date.

....no. I just told you what you're supposed to presume.

This seems hard for you for some reason, so maybe every time you hear "it's 2016" in an argument, recognize that the point there is to imply your way of thinking is outdated. You can then respond to that accusation and say why it's not true instead of freaking out about "ALL U DID WAS SAY A DATE"

Uh yeah, all you did was mention a date. Again, not a fucking argument.

What is it supposed to tell me? How does it advance the discourse by any means? It's presuppositional faggotry of the highest order and nobody besides you and your social justice loser posse take it seriously, especially in academia.

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:41:31 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:36:59 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:32:50 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:30:18 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:27:24 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:24:20 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:11:30 PM

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Literally all you did was post a picture of John Oliver, when he has a fucking point every time he announces the year. It means that at this point in history, people should know better. It's an argument.

The only rebuttal to that argument that I've literally ever seen is mockery. "HAHA TIME AN DATE MAN HE SAYS THE YEAR THAT MEANS HES WRONG"

Simply naming the current date as if it's some kind credible point is not an argument.

Saying "your point of view is outdated" is an argument, and that's what saying the year implies.

This isn't hard.

What? So I'm just supposed to presume your argument is correct because you're able to tell the time?

It doesn't prove anything besides the fact that you mentioned a date.

....no. I just told you what you're supposed to presume.

This seems hard for you for some reason, so maybe every time you hear "it's 2016" in an argument, recognize that the point there is to imply your way of thinking is outdated. You can then respond to that accusation and say why it's not true instead of freaking out about "ALL U DID WAS SAY A DATE"

Uh yeah, all you did was mention a date. Again, not a fucking argument.

What is it supposed to tell me? How does it advance the discourse by any means? It's presuppostional faggotry of the highest order and nobody besides you and your social justice loser posse take it seriously, especially in academia.

Literally all it's fucking saying is that the person using the phrase thinks that the person the phrase is directed at has outdated views. That's what it's supposed to tell you. How many times do I have to repeat myself here?

Is this a trigger word for you or something? Should I just replace the word "outdated" with the number string "2016"? It means literally the same goddamn thing.

"DUDE YOUR VIEWS ARE OUTDATED ACCORDING TO MY SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD I WIN THE ARGUMENT SHUT UP SHUT SHUT UP"

I understand what it means you dolt, it just isn't a logical assertion by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:48:43 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:45:05 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:41:31 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:36:59 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:32:50 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:30:18 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:27:24 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:24:20 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:11:30 PM

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Literally all you did was post a picture of John Oliver, when he has a fucking point every time he announces the year. It means that at this point in history, people should know better. It's an argument.

The only rebuttal to that argument that I've literally ever seen is mockery. "HAHA TIME AN DATE MAN HE SAYS THE YEAR THAT MEANS HES WRONG"

Simply naming the current date as if it's some kind credible point is not an argument.

Saying "your point of view is outdated" is an argument, and that's what saying the year implies.

This isn't hard.

What? So I'm just supposed to presume your argument is correct because you're able to tell the time?

It doesn't prove anything besides the fact that you mentioned a date.

....no. I just told you what you're supposed to presume.

This seems hard for you for some reason, so maybe every time you hear "it's 2016" in an argument, recognize that the point there is to imply your way of thinking is outdated. You can then respond to that accusation and say why it's not true instead of freaking out about "ALL U DID WAS SAY A DATE"

Uh yeah, all you did was mention a date. Again, not a fucking argument.

What is it supposed to tell me? How does it advance the discourse by any means? It's presuppostional faggotry of the highest order and nobody besides you and your social justice loser posse take it seriously, especially in academia.

Literally all it's fucking saying is that the person using the phrase thinks that the person the phrase is directed at has outdated views. That's what it's supposed to tell you. How many times do I have to repeat myself here?

Is this a trigger word for you or something? Should I just replace the word "outdated" with the number string "2016"? It means literally the same goddamn thing.

"DUDE YOUR VIEWS ARE OUTDATED ACCORDING TO MY SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD I WIN THE ARGUMENT SHUT UP SHUT SHUT UP"

I understand what it means you dolt, it just isn't a logical assertion by any stretch of the imagination.

It can certainly be a logical assertion. Calling a view outdated can be right, wrong, or ambigous. If someone was going up and down the road saying black people's skull shapes biologically make them more violent, you would call their view outdated. You could even say (gasp) "it's 2016"

Yeah see there you just provided a justification/reasoning to the argument you were positing, which I have no problem with. Simply saying "le current solar cycle" as if it's the be all and end all to the debate is a shit tier way of getting your points across. It's a statement of a basic fact, not a statement of reasoning using evidence based conclusions.

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:55:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:50:58 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:48:43 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:45:05 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:41:31 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:36:59 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:32:50 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:30:18 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:27:24 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:24:20 PM

Quote from: Mordo on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:11:30 PM

Haha sick meme bro!! You're totally hip and happening

Argumentum ad novitatem is a shit fallacy pham

Literally all you did was post a picture of John Oliver, when he has a fucking point every time he announces the year. It means that at this point in history, people should know better. It's an argument.

The only rebuttal to that argument that I've literally ever seen is mockery. "HAHA TIME AN DATE MAN HE SAYS THE YEAR THAT MEANS HES WRONG"

Simply naming the current date as if it's some kind credible point is not an argument.

Saying "your point of view is outdated" is an argument, and that's what saying the year implies.

This isn't hard.

What? So I'm just supposed to presume your argument is correct because you're able to tell the time?

It doesn't prove anything besides the fact that you mentioned a date.

....no. I just told you what you're supposed to presume.

This seems hard for you for some reason, so maybe every time you hear "it's 2016" in an argument, recognize that the point there is to imply your way of thinking is outdated. You can then respond to that accusation and say why it's not true instead of freaking out about "ALL U DID WAS SAY A DATE"

Uh yeah, all you did was mention a date. Again, not a fucking argument.

What is it supposed to tell me? How does it advance the discourse by any means? It's presuppostional faggotry of the highest order and nobody besides you and your social justice loser posse take it seriously, especially in academia.

Literally all it's fucking saying is that the person using the phrase thinks that the person the phrase is directed at has outdated views. That's what it's supposed to tell you. How many times do I have to repeat myself here?

Is this a trigger word for you or something? Should I just replace the word "outdated" with the number string "2016"? It means literally the same goddamn thing.

"DUDE YOUR VIEWS ARE OUTDATED ACCORDING TO MY SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD I WIN THE ARGUMENT SHUT UP SHUT SHUT UP"

I understand what it means you dolt, it just isn't a logical assertion by any stretch of the imagination.

It can certainly be a logical assertion. Calling a view outdated can be right, wrong, or ambigous. If someone was going up and down the road saying black people's skull shapes biologically make them more violent, you would call their view outdated. You could even say (gasp) "it's 2016"

Yeah see there you just provided a justification/reasoning to the argument you were positing, which I have no problem with. Simply saying "le current solar cycle" as if it's the be all and end all to the debate is a shit tier way of getting your points across. It's a statement of a basic fact, not a statement of reasoning using evidence based conclusions.

There are far more flimsy arguments that get used all the time than calling something outdated. And yet this whole "le time man XDDD" meme is the one everyone like you spazzes out over.

That's probably because it's the most common argument your little brogressive clique uses.

You have the choice of whether or not to join a union.

You're ignoring the inconvenient fact that non-unionised labour had no choice in the legislation unions pushed through, and are now asking for exemptions from. It's ludicrous to suggest unions should be able to tip the scales so dramatically simply because non-unionised labour has chosen not to be unionised (and even this isn't entirely true; some sectors just don't lend themselves to unionisation). If your ultimate goal is enhanced collective bargaining, there are better ways to go about it than wagging your fucking tail for unions whose goal is to make non-union workers less competitive.

It's the equivalent of saying it would be okay for technocapitalists like Elon Musk to argue for a ridiculous income tax on the richest in society, and then give themselves an exemption because they're in the business of advancing our technology as a species. But I mean, all the other rich people should just choose to go into technology, right?

Sometimes I question whether you think about the propositions you make, at all.

Quote from: SecondClass on April 15, 2016, 02:22:25 PM

You have the choice of whether or not to join a union.

You're ignoring the inconvenient fact that non-unionised labour had no choice in the legislation unions pushed through, and are now asking for exemptions from. It's ludicrous to suggest unions should be able to tip the scales so dramatically simply because non-unionised labour has chosen not to be unionised (and even this isn't entirely true; some sectors just don't lend themselves to unionisation). If your ultimate goal is enhanced collective bargaining, there are better ways to go about it than wagging your fucking tail for unions whose goal is to make non-union workers less competitive.

It's the equivalent of saying it would be okay for technocapitalists like Elon Musk to argue for a ridiculous income tax on the richest in society, and then give themselves an exemption because they're in the business of advancing our technology as a species. But I mean, all the other rich people should just choose to go into technology, right?

Sometimes I question whether you think about the propositions you make, at all.

Except one branch of technology isn't inherently better than the other. Unionization over nonunionization is. Employers literally couldn't care less about their employees, their whole mission is to make a profit. The mission of unions is to make sure that desire for profit doesn't overshadow the well-being of the employee.

Not joining a union is willingly letting the necessary greed of corporations have it's way with you.