This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] catechumen 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
You know what I mostly learned: EPI = strong bias for unions; heritage foundation = strong bias against unions
[–] The_Wanderer 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
And that's all you can take away from half the studies in academia, now (if you maintain a healthy sense of skepticism by default); a list of the particular partisan biases of those involved. Once you find them it all but renders their data useless; why would you trust a known liar, even on the off-chance they are telling the truth? This is one of the major reasons the sciences are loosing credibility in the eyes of the general public.
I don't claim to have a terribly solid opinion on this particular economic practice, though. Frankly, I'm not sure how one even goes from "Employee has grievance + employee is in unionized job sector + employee pays in no union dues + union must take case anyway" and somehow have that end up as if by magic with "wages mysteriously end up lower". It seems like a completely counter-intuitive result. The Union should be driving wages up, shouldn't it? The only exception I can think of is massive corruption where the union bosses and the industries they negotiate with are actually in it together. Is that what they're saying is happening?
[–] mHtt 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
unions are inherently democratic so any criticism of them is actually a criticisms of the electorate: you get the leaders you deserve.
nothing inherently wrong with labor unions, there just one type of union a political party is a union and so is a group of parents organizing the neighborhood watch.
Unions provide negotiation parity with management and owners, who, like unions co ordinate together, to further their own agenda (owners literally pay managers to do specifically this). All a union does is level the playing field and says labor is allowed to organize before they go to the bargaining table. Owners and management do it, why not workers?
It's class warfare at it's worst/best.
you answered your own question and proved your not a skeptic but a cynic.