6-Year Old Girl Sexually Abused in Arizona (ICE) Detention Facility - Polidicks

My position on unions and labor is this. You're going to be fucked in the ass by someone, I'd honestly rather get fucked in the ass by the union then by the corporate suits.

You want to claim a major part of unions losing general support is because of corporate brainwashing, then prove it.

The absolutely mandatory videos about unions being horrible and how they won't do anything good to anyone who signs up with them which you, after watching, take a test for and - if you fail (by basically saying you'd consider working with a union or not reporting someone who's looking into starting/joining a union) - your job offer is rescinded? This is post-interview, mind, part of your job training.

Can you provide a real life example?

Apparently Walmart training videos are all about how unions are evil. Yes unions have had shady stuff in the part, bosses making you vote with the union for example, but they are needed to fight corporate exploitation.

My point is simply to give an alternative explanation for why people might show less support for unions.

I worked for Wal-Mart. I watched that video. There was a test. The test was failable. We were told that if we failed the test by 20% or more (I remember at least three questions were pretty much 'would you consider joining a union after watching this video; would you report someone who considered joining a union after watching this video; do you think a union would support you better than wal-mart would' and the like) that the onboarding process would be suspended and we would be handed a check for whatever hours we'd taken in going through training and then promptly showed the door. You can not skip this video watching/test. You can not opt out of it. It is shown as basically 'step two' of you going through the employment process. Every one of my co-workers watched this video. Every employee of Wal-mart watches this video; it's distributed by corporate. The quiz you're given is distributed by corporate. Every wal-mart employee (since at least 2004, which is when I worked for them first) has been shown this video and has at the very least been forced to either lie about not supporting unions or be brought to agree that 'yeah, unions are bad'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_VL4gqrCHc

Boy you should see the stupid crap that constantly happens at amazon warehouses then. http://fortune.com/2018/07/28/amazon-bumming-everyone-out/

Nobody is arguing that unions should be illegal. I personally don't think an employer, that almost nobody enjoys working for, is going to have enough ideological control over their own worker's opinions about unionization that they can't extrapolate their own desires based on their own experiences.

boy howdy do i have some news for you. When i got hired to work at FedEx Ground. They showed us a video of how Unions were pretty much the spawn of Satan and told us Unionizing was detrimental for us. Even the managers told us before the video that its a bit "Biased".

Got to love how Firof Umbra mocks my personal example, but rates yours "winner." I'm clearly discussion with balanced and honest people.

maybe we're tired of your constant "Personally i believe" excuse where reality dictates otherwise.

Yes, that's my point. You're tired of mine and celebrate other's. The point is that no one in this entire thread has given any evidence that corporate propaganda is the cause of decreasing union support, especially because general approval for unions has gone up, not down over the past 10 years, which is exactly what you would expect from an economic downturn. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/217331/labor-union-approval-best-2003.aspx)

Except i already stated that i witnessed this shit first hand and have seen people tricked by Corporate Propaganda. Also general approval doesn't mean shit if we can't implement it. Same with how a lot of people are in support of universal healthcare, but currently can't implement it cause of our pro-corporate government. Like this is the same shit in the other thread where you couldn't believe i was eating ramen noodles and rice cause i was dirt broke. Like you have this fucking attitude where your mind can't comprehend the fact people all over this fucking nation get fucked daily due to shit pay, the inability to form unions, racism, xenophobia, etc. And when we show you this evidence and even first hand experience of these situations. You think we're either a part of a "Hivemind" or we're bluffing. Like if anyone here is a fucking echo-chamber or a "Snowflake" who is terrified of their world view being shattered by other people's observations and experiences. It's you.

Yeah, this is the problem right here. This exact sentence with this exact phrase: 'any evidence'. Not 'compelling evidence'. Not 'damning evidence'. Any. As in it demonstrates or even goes partway to demonstrate the claim - you are saying it doesn't even meet that bar. That is objectively false. You submitted your own claim as a 'defense' that 'that doesn't happen'. I countered with 30 examples. Another posted countered with additional examples from a completely separate industry. Your response to these examples is 'nah, I choose to disbelieve those represent anything'. Meanwhile you assert that what you believe represents the truth while offering no evidence of your own - I know that's a bit harsh, to ask you to prove a negative, but surely if you're going to go to such lengths that you'll deny any and all evidence that's brought to you which doesn't come in the form of a letterhead written by the collective authority of every major corporation in America that states in it 'we are attempting to drive an agenda which busts unions and keeps our workers from unionizing' I think it's fair to ask for the same sort of difficult-to-obtain evidence if you're going to be so obstinate.

You seem to be confused here. The claim wasn't, "Corporations are against unions and do everything in their power to tell their employees as much." The claim was, "Union support has fallen because of corporate propaganda." You've provided some amount of evidence for the prior claim, though it's still a single corporation out of millions of employees across the nation, and a single video that isn't even being shown anymore, but you've provided zero evidence of the latter claim. None. You've done nothing to show that corporate videos like the one shown are what caused the decrease in union support. For example, can you please explain how those types of videos effected the large drops in support from 1960-1980?

Well we had a more recent video. But yeah it was pretty much the same as that one.

So you're saying it's an ongoing, continuing, effort where they keep having to make new videos because they want to make sure they're up to date. That doesn't show an investment in the concept at all. Certainly not a corporate investment; must be 'rogue elements' of the companies that are behind this. Well, in 1975 about as many people had air conditioning as they had color TVs -- and VCR wasn't even a thing until around 1980 itself which means near-everyone got their information from broadcast news. So 'these types of videos' weren't able to be spread in the way they're being spread now. What you had, instead, were company conferences, handouts, and flyers. So this was the equivalent of those same 'videos' in that time range: Textile Workers Union of America. South Region Records, 1947-1981 Three corporations. Video footage. Two first-hand accounts from entirely separate industries. Source, please, that they're not showing an updated video of this same one since they already upgraded it once. Irrelevant? Would you mind elaborating on that? I listed it as a contributing factor - you say that they aren't contributing at all. Why is it irrelevant? Yeah, there's good reasons for most of that. Despite the union videos being made, unions were fighting back in the 90s and early 00s - also those videos are still being made - today. Those same unions are struggling and dying en masse now, having been choked out in a lot of places, and the only thing that's really stemming that propaganda is simply the internet. There are people saying that as lately as 2012 that target has updated their anti-union video. Further, that doesn't mean they weren't attempting to brainwash people. While we're talking about time ranges - what do you think the cause would be for the massive 12% jump in 2008 for disapproval of Unions? Since the early 1930s corporations, the big ones, have been constantly churning out anti-union propaganda. From the graph below, I'd say that they've done a great job convincing people unions are bad, given where they started and where they are now. In less than a hundred years they've pushed the needle up 13-20% in disapproval for labor unions. These videos are but the latest in a suite of attacks and rags and tools that've been used to misinform and disrupt unions. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/f71f2016-8233-4861-8058-338857f25c6c/image.png

The jump from "these videos exist" to "these videos are the major cause for unions losing general support" is still nothing more than an assumption. Corporations have fought against unions since their very beginning. To help prove that cause and effect relationship, you could: 1) Show that union disapproval correlates strongly with the amount of corporate anti-union material. 2) Show that union disapproval correlates with the percentage of the workforce entering employment with large corporations. 3) Show that a random sampling of people who have seen those videos have a measurably different opinion of unions than those who haven't, especially in the mid to long term (what they think immediately afterwards is fairly irrelevant). 4) Etc. Here are some other interesting stats: 1) Young workers are more likely to have a favorable view of unions than any other age group. 2) Education level has essentially zero effect on one's view of labor unions. 3) Income level has very little effect of one's view on labor unions, though the poor have a slightly higher view. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/most-americans-see-labor-unions-corporations-favorably/) What a Leaked Training Video Reveals About Walmart's Anti The article states: "Walmart confirmed the video’s authenticity and said the company showed it to new hires from 2009 through last year. Early on in the course of the video’s nine minutes, an actor dressed as a Walmart employee says, “You’re just beginning your career with us. It’s hard to grasp everything that’s available to you, like great benefits.”" The link to the video is dead, but you can tell it's the same one based on the quotes within the article. It's irrelevant because it's doesn't do anything to establish cause and effect. For example, I can point to tons of pro-labor union propaganda, but in order to establish that it is the cause of increasing labor union support, I would need to find evidence to back up that cause and effect claim. It isn't enough to simply point out that propaganda exists.

Fuck sake mate this is the reason why nobody wants to debate/discuss with you. You never fucking believe anything we show to you. Videos, sources, articles, research, first hands accounts, you name it. Nothing will fucking budge you and you constantly question us like we dont know what we're talking about even though we witnessed this shit first hand.

You have zero proof they didn't simply update the video again. The video was 6 years old at that point. Given that I know they updated it because I watched a different one before 2009 why wouldn't they simply make a new video? 'We stopped showing that video' means nothing if it wasn't followed up with 'and we'll never show that sort of video again'. I don't know why you even made that 'single video' claim to begin with, because I have seen that video's predecessor which means automatically that we're talking about two videos rather than 'a single video'. It's a fairly logical assumption since it's one of the main efforts those corporations have used to fight against unions. Laws have helped along the way but also what's helped is threatening people's livelihoods (and at times just beating them half-to-death earlier in American history) and therefore depressing the amount of money Unions have to fight that propaganda. Here's some additional 'interesting facts' Partisanship has long been a major factor in public attitudes about labor unions. In the new survey, 68% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the reduction in union membership has been mostly bad for working people; half as many Republicans and Republican leaners (34%) say the same. By about two-to-one, blacks are more likely to say the decline in union representation has been mostly bad for working people than that it has been mostly good (65% vs. 29%). Smaller shares of whites (49%) or Hispanics (52%) say it has been mostly bad. Adults younger than 30 are the only age group in which a majority (56%) says the reduction in union membership has been mostly bad for working people. Among adults 30 and older, half (50%) express this view. And while 61% of adults with postgraduate degrees say the decline in union membership has been mostly bad for working people, fewer of those with less education (50%) view this trend negatively Note that last point, reconcile it with this one: Education level has essentially zero effect on one's view of labor unions. And take five and call me in the morning while you find some way to convince me that your data is better than my data on that point in particular.

This thread is just another reminder that sgman really has no right to ever complain again about people being meanies to him or FP having changed, maaaaaaaaan.

especially considering how hard he derailed the whole thing

You are very biased against unions imo.

I don't know dude Firgof and Death words their posts in a way that makes them much more understandable and coherent. What they say just makes sense.

Tacking on to the seemingly settled debate about why this is all Trump's fault and not Obama's: zero tolerance. Obama got rid of, for the most part, actual criminals and people that we genuinely don't want in America. Child separation still occurred, but for less time and without the high incidence of parents being deported without their children while an openly racist administration scrambled to figure out who's kids were whose. Obama deported more people than Trump is because illegal immigration was peaking during his administration and has been steadily declining since, ie Trump is reacting more harshly to less of a problem. Throw his racist rhetoric, zero tolerance and intentional separation of families as a deterrent on top of it all, and you can see why people are mad at Trump and not Obama. It's not complicated and all the people trying to make excuses for the situation are shameful.

I knew this was only a matter of time And there's only more to come

I'm honestly not sure how you could honestly think that. Someone could make literally the exact same point in reverse: that pro-union propaganda is the cause for unions support because it's one of the main efforts unions have used to get support. It's a silly argument eight way because they both come down to nothing more than, "I think it makes sense, therefore you must accept it." if you want to make the claim, then give some real evidence beyond what you feel makes sense.

No. One of those arguments is sillier than the other. Also, I'm done laboring on this point with you - it's obvious that you simply don't care about the truth of it and are, again, simply here to argue minutiae. If I presented to you a signed letter by a CEO of Wal-Mart that they are specifically brainwashing employees to be anti-union you'd say 'well that doesn't mean anything, they still can believe whatever they like'. If I gave you 300 signed affidavits which state 'I know a co-worker who was suckered by the anti-union ads my company forced us all to watch and I'm unable to correct them publicly or privately because I could lose my job' and you'd say 'that's not representative of the whole population'. To you, the 'benefit of the doubt' doesn't exist because you don't want it to. If God himself came down, smote half the world, and ripped your soul out of your body and demanded you call him God -- you'd ask for empirical proof that he was, in fact, God - and then you wouldn't accept it due to some minutiae because, I guess, you find pleasure in derailing and endlessly spinning arguments. I gave you grace before when I blocked you on oldpunch; my patience is at its end; beyond it, in fact. You may consider yourself to be yelling into the void if ever you respond to a post of mine from here-on-out. I refuse to let myself be drug around like a ragdoll simply because you enjoy endlessly debating literally anything and everything and then act the 'shocked victim' when people become annoyed and frustrated that not only will you never cede any point, but that you'll treat every point you lost as 'a win' and declare that anything else is silly or wrong or naive or contradicts your personal experience/beliefs. You ask me to debate your opinion, not the facts, because it is your opinion that what was suggested simply cannot be - and so therefore you will reject and debate to the subatomic level any evidence brought up to the contrary - because if the merest subatomic particle is out of place then the entirety of everything above it you will reject entirely. If you'd like to debate honestly once more in the future I'd be happy to indulge you but only after you resolve this issue you have with debate, honesty, and separation of your personal beliefs from objective evidence.

Amazing how asking for literally any evidence at all is considered "not caring about the truth."