this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
1127 points (99.9% liked)

196

18697 readers
453 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 337 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Hey guys, listen up. The scraps Amazon is giving me are insufficient to make ends meet. UNIONS ARE THE PROBLEM!

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 143 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Jesus, when you put it like that, even if Darla isn't a robot or a paid astroturfer, she's still making the case for unions.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah the argument itself is so transparently dumb that no legitimate person would hold it; and I think the dunk tweet is pointing out that in addition to having no good argument, Amazon thinks we're too stupid to notice the astroturf.

There are people who genuinely believe this, sadly. I've encountered them here where I live in South Dakota where we're propagandized against unions from a very young age. These are people who would easily fall for obvious astroturfing like Darla above. It's one reason I think basic tech and media literacy are so important.

Yeah, imagine being paid so poorly that union dues are a hardship. Maybe you could use a union there, pals.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 209 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Amazon pays me SO LITTLE I can BARELY Squeak by! And that's why UNIONS are bad!

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 165 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Jesus fuck how can they be this pathetically transparent?

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The Amazon employee hired to do this and is trying to fight for unions secretly: :(

[–] Lath@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

They're even shafting their shills when it comes to paying a decent wage.

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

There's no reason to try any harder than this. Most people who will see this tweet won't look at the handle or the replies - they're read the tweet, then move on. And if they see enough of these tweets, they may just internalize the notion that unions aren't worth it. It's better for Amazon to make more tweets than it is for them to make better tweets. And it's not like they're going to see any repercussions for trying to maliciously influence their employees.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 162 points 2 years ago
[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 105 points 2 years ago

As a gay black man...

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 93 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My union dues are 1/52 of my yearly pay. I make $25.77 an hour in an entry level job with no education requirements. Minimum wage here is $16.55 an hour.

[–] RandomVideos@programming.dev 84 points 2 years ago

You could have made -34.5% more without an union

[–] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 44 points 2 years ago
[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 years ago (1 children)

unions are trying to use the threat of a strike to increase worker wages so that fewer workers need to scrape by. We should have union loans that pay union dues until the wages are increased (by union activity), and then use part of the increased wages to pay off the loan.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That's pretty well what a strike fund does. Dues get paid in, and paid out if a strike happens.

[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

no, I think a strike fund is different, a strike fund is like a collective savings account for union members to save up for a strike, while my idea prevents workers interested in unions but not interested in union dues from needing to pay union dues until after their wages are increased.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, but that starts to walk right up to the 'right to work' line, give me the benefits of a union shop without the responsibilities like voting, dues, or solidarity of action until later. If a union is in place you already have benefits of it most likely by having a guaranteed raise schedule or higher starting wages than you otherwise would. If it's just being established you'll have a vote, and if it gets established against your vote then that's just the way it is and you either join or leave.

The dues are integral towards the operation by funding things like a strike fund, hiring negotiators, or any other operational costs.

Think the other side of it, you get hired and floated a 'loan' until some later point. In the interim a strike is called. Are you going to walk out and expect pay from the union from a fund you haven't paid into?

well yeah kinda. What I mean is that means testing employees trying to unionize by requesting union dues before joining is a great way to to segregate the workforce between the wealthy (those who can afford union dues) and the poor (those who can't afford union dues). At the extreme, it's like an elite club of the highest-earning employees and the employees who work a sidegig. There should be union financial aid available for those whose expenses and budget can't afford to join a union until after they get a raise.

[–] Rinna@lemm.ee 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is no war in Ba Sing Se

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 2 years ago

We are Ju-Di

[–] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Even the PFP is so obviously generated by thispersondoesnotexist.com lol

[–] tourist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

They all have that unnatural looking direct camera stare with a vague background.

A lot of them share that exact same smile. Not sure how to describe it

Also feels like the camera is the exact same distance from every face.

I'm sure if you zoom in to the original pfp, you'll find the classic image artifacts. Probably even the website watermark.

Using an actual unlicensed shutterstock image would feel more authentic at this point.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Darla there reads like a coherent Trump.

Anyone wanna bet on it being a fake account meant to spread misleading information on unions, while appearing to be voicing legitimate concerns?

[–] THE_MASTERMIND@feddit.ch 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That is the whole point of this post.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it? Hahaha well, at least I'm on the same page. Can't catch them all. My bad.

[–] THE_MASTERMIND@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah no worries

[–] Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world 7 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately for "Darla", Amazon already pays her barely enough to scrape by. Before union dues. I'm fairly certain the union or the dues aren't the issues "Darla" should be voicing her concerns over.