Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)C
Posts
811
Comments
430
Joined
7 yr. ago

  • well, from where else should come the power to interject with the company's plans if not from forming unions? Like what does it mean to hold a company accountable if you have no leverage? Quitting and making a post on social media about it?

  • it's a mostly-American resource for mostly-Americans. I don't think it tries to be more than that. Also most of the power pushing AI is in the USA. Resisting it from the provinces of the empire with a localist strategy won't do much.

  • Good, even though the union strategy of getting a slice of the cake while enabling processes that will screw over workers everywhere else can be debated.

  • when*

  • because these statements are instrumental to building power. They are not a draft of a negotiation proposal. They are a galvanizing message for workers, not a formal demand. Without power, formal demands are pointless. To build power, clarity, concreteness and directness beats idealism, rigour and formalism every day.

  • I've been in tech labor organizing for 8 years at this point. I know written documents matter pretty much nothing for organizing, let alone tech workers organizing. And yes, tech workers need a simple language.

    The statement you've written is very good to argue on the internet, but it closes any avenue for picking winnable issues in the real world. If the original one sets a clear, achievable goal (canceling a new contract), the one you wrote prevents any kind of realistic demand and sets an unachievable goal for a newly formed union.

  • If you speak a language workers don't understand, you increase the cognitive load and lower interest and participation. It's a trade-off and it's an ineliminabile part of the game. Being correct and being useful are two different things

  • It's labor organizing, not intellectual engagement. The point is to build power in the company, not argue about vocabulary. Words are instrumental, they are not the goal.

  • The author is Italian teaching in Canada. While it's true that in the USA democratic structures in the workplace are less common than elsewhere, I think the author is presenting the phenomenon in a rethorical fashion to motivate workers to fight the new forms of Authorian control in the workplace.

  • are you behind a VPN? Because disconnecting from my VPN it started working again.

  • as if leftists behaved any better

  • Puoi parlare in italiano in ogni comunità. Basta che ignori le lamentele dei mangiahamburger

  • logical fallacies are out of context when used in a normal conversation rather than a scientific debate. It's just a way to escape and kill the conversation.

  • happy to be presented with counterevidence

  • offer people what AI cannot offer: relationships, fun, belonging, relief. If your political organizing is less enjoyable than talking to a chatbot, people will stick to the chatbot.

  • How do you explain to yourself that religious and spiritual people are the drivers of mainstream politics and new political ideologies, while atheists/modernists/disenchanted are pretty much either irrelevant or clinging desperately to their position of vaning power, paralyzed, and often depressed?

  • did you ever organize a strike in a big company?

  • You live in a world of fantasy. Fascists are taking over the whole of the West. Do something about it and stop larping.

  • You're fetishizing Non-Westeners because the strategy you want to use work there and not here, and instead of changing strategy, you project yourself into a different context. The article is clearly about the Global North, for which what you described has failed over and over. You make politics with the people you have, not with the people you would like to have. Blaming workers for not being receptive to your strategies is delusional.