• FosterMolasses@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 minutes ago

    Scumbags. What the hell is this 'murkin propaganda? It’s like the whole country is unironically trying to become the Sith.

  • bebabalula@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Two questions:

    1. Is this for real?
    2. Does it work?

    I feel like a large company going to that kind of effort to explicitly tell me to not spend money on something would have the exact opposite effect. It’s not like they’re saying “unions are bad, actually” it just like “this thing you were going to spend money on, maybe don’t?”

    Imagine a poster saying “Drugs are really expensive - you’ll get more value for money if you buy videogames” - would that work?

  • tym@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    36 minutes ago

    AI Agents don’t form unions and THATS why the dems are toothless. AI is the solution to the biggest thorn in their greedy sides

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It costs you 700 now and it costs them an unknown amount in the future. They just don’t like it because they suspect it’ll be quite a lot more than the 700 that you’re paying to join. They’re right too.

      But union dues are annoying in the moment, because when it happens all you see is a reduction in your pay and initially no change in working conditions. That’s why they have posters like that up, because even though intellectually people understand that being in a union will long-term result in better pay, in the short term it does effectively result in a temporary pay cut, which can be hard if you’re already not really very well paid.

      If you’re joining an established union sometimes they will be smart and not charge members until they’ve renegotiated their salaries. But that only happens if you’re joining a already formed union.

    • Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 hours ago

      No it’ll cost you, it comes out of your after tax wage. But it’s an investment into you and your colleagues futures for better wages, stronger protections and benefits.

      • mirshafie@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The protections are key here. I’d take a slightly lower wage for a healthy work environment any day, and I know that most people agree.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Also if the company refuses and hires scabs you can always put the money towards hiring union enforcers. Mind you we aren’t quite there again but I don’t we’re too far off either, showing up to a scabs home at 2AM to have a nice talk or ambushing the boss on his way home. The glory days may be long gone but I hope to see new glory forged.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            What really works is when unions start being powerful enough to dictate governmental policy. That’s when things really improve. Of course the millionaires and billionaires will complain about interference, because it’s only good when they do it.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I know that this is what a lot of Americans think socialism is but it’s worth pointing out that socialism is not communism.

      Communists want to take over with force and violence and overwhelming thought policing. Inevitably this pisses people off and ultimately doesn’t work. See literally every communist regime ever.

      Socialists simply want to implement progressive policies and are generally happy to do that within the confines of current law (assuming the current law isn’t oppressive).

      The US becoming socialist would simply be via a series of increasingly progressive policies over a period of several electoral cycles. It wouldn’t be violence in the streets.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Okay I’m not sure where you got this from, but you’re wrong on both counts. Socialists absolutely want to do more than just implement progressive policies (you’re thinking of social democrats); the definition of a socialist is someone who believes the working class should seize the means of production. Some socialists believe that can be done through capitalist democratic systems (we call those democratic socialists), but still the goal is a lot more broad than just implementing progressive policies; on the other hand you have more militant or even revolutionary socialists, who usually advocate direct action (sometimes but not always including violence). Meanwhile communists are a subcategory of socialists who believe in the creation of a moneyless, classless, stateless utopian society as described by Karl Marx.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 hours ago

    When I worked at Best buy over 10 years ago they had the exact same propaganda. You know instead of union dues you could buy an Xbox! (From us no less!)

    …okay I added that last bit but it was implied

  • Broadfern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    9 hours ago

    That’s like one month of US health insurance next year. Way more than worth it over being at the whims of some fuckhead corporation

  • ms.lane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    In Australia, Union fees are tax deductible.

    They don’t cost you anything in the end.

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That just means you’re not paying taxes on the income. It’s not like you get the entire $700 back in taxes, because your tax rate probably isn’t 100%. If you pay 30% in taxes, (no clue what you actually pay), writing off the $700 would simply mean you pay $210 less on your taxes.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          The tax deduction is deducted from your taxable income, is what he said. His math checks out.

          Explained differently: A union membership costing 700 only costs you 490, assuming your tax is 30% and that it is deductible where you live.

          Meanwhile, the game console still costs 700.

        • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          You are allowed to deduct the money you spent on union dues from your income, thereby lowering your taxable income. So on that portion of income that you deducted, you don’t pay taxes. That’s how all deductions work.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t know if tax deductible means the same thing in Australia, but they’re also deductible in Canada. That means that you don’t pay tax on the money you paid in dues, but you don’t get it back.