"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - Steinbeck

It suddenly occurred to me that the idea of enslaving a class of people under the promise of the "American Dream" is the modern rehash of when the British would put Indian soldiers in the vanguard and promise any who survived immediate promotion to officer rank.

The dream of life-changing remuneration motivated the soldiers to fight, meanwhile the British seldom, if ever, had to pay out.

NOTE: I cannot remember where I heard this and a quick check for a citation failed me. If anyone could verify (perhaps it wasn't the British and Indian...) please do!

This wasn't unique to India but the British army did use what they called a "forlorn hope" as the first wave in attacking a fortress. Most were expected to die, but the survivors were often promoted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope

As exploitive as it sounds, given that someone had to attack in the first wave at least this seemed to match the rewards with the risk?

I think you have to look at it in a broader context - who was going to benefit from the fighting?

Thanks. That's made my day.

Ronald Wright, not Steinbeck.

Do you know what the connection between the two writers is? Seems to me that the quote is neither here nor there, but I haven't found anything solid to confirm who said what.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck#Disputed

> "John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires", Wright, Ronald (2004). A Short History of Progress. Toronto: Anansi Press. pp. 124.

"When reading a pithy observation about the state of the world, never assume the attribution is correct" -Mark Twain

"The problem with quotes found on the Internet is that they are often not true." --Abraham Lincoln

The misattribution doesn't make the observation any less pertinent.

That quote infers the opposite is preferable. I'd rather have a population that strives for their dreams rather than sits back and blames the bourgeois for all their troubles.

That's a false dichotomy.

> One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.

They failed because the majority of people are hard workers who loathe being yoked to a lazy or incompetent person, and unions have proven to be exceptionally good at maintaining employment of people who are terrible at their jobs.

Some people are absolutely baffled by the software industry not having unions. It's because people getting hired and fired within 12 months at my job is what ensures that I only work with the best.

Unions suffer from what most of the progressive movement does: everything bad that happens to them is the fault of the big, bad republicans and capitalists. If they'd bother to introspect for even a second, maybe they could fix their shortcomings and start to do some good.

The environmentalist initiative that went on the ballot in Seattle this month was lead by a guy who is working within the Republican party for climate reform because he's said it's not possible to work with the left anymore because of their dysfunction. The left's response to this? Tried to torpedo his climate bill. The head of the left is so far up its own ass that I think it's getting close to terminal. Progressivism in America will have to die and be reborn as a functioning body for political change.

While a bit more political and divisive than I would have gone with, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Those that would benefit most in theory from unions generally have the most experience "in the trenches" with them. This experience shows them that unions more or less became places to protect the lowest common denominator with zero regard for any value they bring to the table.

Show me a union that functions like a "guild" where it polices it's membership extremely well, and people strive to be skillful enough to join - then I will both support that union as a member, and hire those members when possible.

If all you exist to do is keep the lowest performers employed at the expense of your most productive members you can see why most hard working folks tend to have a complicated relationship at best with unions as they are implemented today.

Isn't the tension that the power of a union is defined by how large its membership is?

Thereby creating an incentive to accept as many people as possible, thereby lowering standards, thereby hijacking the agenda towards protecting incompetent workers.

If you're unionizing a low-skill segment of the labor market, I don't see a feasible alternative. Even if you only accept the best and brightest, the best and brightest are still trivially replaceable at that level.

That's the old distinction between the American Federation of Labor, for skilled trades, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for low-skilled factory workers. This was a big deal around 1950. In 1955, they merged to form the AFL-CIO.

There are still classic craft unions, with apprenticeship and training programs, but not many are left. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is still around. The Plumbers and Steamfitters have apprenticeship programs. The Animation Guild (Local 839, IATSE) represents animators at the major Hollywood studios. They give classes for members, both on using new technology and on classic techniques. Read The Animation Guild's contract, which applies to most animators in Hollywood.[1] This is for a job more creative than most programming.

[1] https://animationguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2015-2...

> "Show me a union that functions like a "guild" where it polices it's membership extremely well, and people strive to be skillful enough to join"

Pro sports players' unions.

It makes sense -- owners must act as a collective unit in order to ensure competitive balance and some degree of economic stability. A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans very fast. With owners acting collectively, players act collectively as a counterbalance. They make sure that they get a reasonable share of the overall income, and that it's distributed in a way that pays top performers more but also pays well enough at the bottom to keep the league an attractive place for marginal players.

> A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans very fast

On the other hand, the New York Yankees.

You have obviously never had to work in a unionized environment, here in Seattle Seattle Public Utilities will show union protected employees the door in a heartbeat if they cannot perform their duties or if management doesn't like them. I've seen & heard it repeatedly, here is a recent example [1]. The only people I've heard of being protected are the barely literate middle management at SPU and Oracle despite the tens of millions of dollars they have billed the city over what they quoted for a broken billing system to replace the maxed out billing system we currently have.

Get some facts & experience before commenting on things your unfamiliar with. Unionized employees nearly always vote for their interests, the number of unionized employees has collapsed under union busting tactics over the past few decades.

[1] - http://sheridanlawfirm.com/johnson-v-city-of-seattle-plainti...

[2] - http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-light...

I've worked and been a member of union and my experience was much worse.

I mean, you don't have to look any further than the big 3 automakers. I remember watching news reports of workers leaving mid-shift, going to the bar and doing cocaine. For months.

If it wasn't for the union they would have been fired years ago.

That is on the employer, they need to be written up if they do not perform their duties, then fired after repeated failures, just like any well run business would do.

The employee could easily sue and retain their job if there was no union and the company doesn't bother to document an employee failing to do their job.

I would invite you to read about some of the past issues with unions.

At the big 3 the unions practically took al firing capabilites away from the company. Unless the union agreed, the employee stayed.

And no, unless an employee has a case, they can't sue an employer to keep their job. Not unless they have the cash to keep paying lawyers.

> At the big 3 the unions practically took al firing capabilites away from the company. Unless the union agreed, the employee stayed.

That is 100% on the employer, if they can't be bothered to follow the firing process they have negotiated with the union, or fight for a better one, its their own damn fault. They deserve what they get and have to live with the outcomes of their actions, just like any other company or person.

> And no, unless an employee has a case, they can't sue an employer to keep their job. Not unless they have the cash to keep paying lawyers.

Sure, but you'd have a case if your employer can't be bothered to document your dereliction of your job, and employers in cases like the one I linked to often work for a cut of the judgment due to how clear cut a case like that is.

I tried to find a link to this so called leftist dysfunction and foot shooting incident but the only relevant article I could find through a quick search was this:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/senator-ericksens-anti-pro...

The initiative was I-732, CarbonWA (https://yeson732.org/). The torpedoing I was referring to: "recent comments by Bauman compelled us to publicly endorse the Alliance and voice our opposition to I-732" http://fusewashington.org/why_we_cant_support_carbon_washing...

You appear to be a model employee.

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that people getting hired and fired within 12 months "ensures" you only work with the best. After all, if we zoom out for a bit, we'll notice that there is not a continual influx of fresh talent (across the spectrum), and likewise there really isn't a continual exodus either (of, say, the poor performers). Instead, I'd argue that in software it's more like a drip feed going into a dish. A little comes in, a little spills over the sides, but there's still a lot in the pool. Someone who is working in software is not going to exit software because they got canned in 12 months. They won't be like "oh, clearly I'm one of the poor performers, time to turn in my badge." Nope, they'll go to work at another software company. Maybe they get fired again, or maybe they're exactly what that company needs and are perceived as "the best." As the saying goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure," so unequivocally saying you work with the best, or that only the best survive your workplace, or any workplace, is just asinine. As in most things there is a distribution of talent, and talent is a multifaceted thing. So "best" really is an imprecise way to put it. Perhaps where you work, the "best" which survive are all selected for their JavaScript coding skills. They may be douchebags to work with and for, but all that matters is the JS so that's what defines who stays and who goes.

I suppose I'm coming on strong here because I'm tired of the standard line of bull in San Francisco (especially) about how "we only hire the best and brightest, so if you're lucky enough to be invited to join the team you'll be one of the elite few." This mentality is what supports the myth of the unicorn (someone who is amazing at everything). I have worked with some amazing people, but none were "unicorns" because all had (as all humans do) their flaws. One of the brightest people I've ever worked with was also one of the biggest a--holes. It was very difficult for him to reign in his mouth. Was he the "best?" It depends on how you define it. But not to me. I don't care how brilliant you are if I can't stand to work with you.

Personally, I look for the sweet spot. My "best" is generally nice, good people who respect others, are resourceful and motivated to do good work, and who I can count on.

So anytime someone tells you they only hire the best and brightest, I recommend extreme caution. This likely means compensation will be lower (after all, you're being sold the "benefit" of only working with the best and brightest), and the environment is likely to be filled with lots of arrogant people who are oblivious to their own flaws. Ugh. No thanks.

So that turned into a tangent.

In spite of all that, I too don't support or like unions. As other commenters have stated, they end up catering to the lowest common denominator, and don't serve high performers (consciously using a very subjective descriptor here) well. They also may not even serve their members all that well as the union entity ultimately only cares about its own survival. Many years ago I interviewed for a union job as a package loader for UPS. I was surprised to find the wages offered were low, I would've been required to furnish my own equipment, etc. There was no observable benefit of union membership, yet if I had accepted the offer I'd have been required to pay dues. Furthermore, I had friends who worked for Delta as baggage handlers. Their experience was the same. Sure this is all anecdotal, but from where I'm sitting the only ones really helped by the union are the union leadership.

>One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.

Honestly, neither of the two major parties have looked out for their interests in decades.

Hence the revolt against both the major parties this year.

The major problem seems to have been that neither party had or has an effective answer to the systemic de-employment (i.e. substituting lower paying jobs) which affects manufacturing hubs post-free trade agreements.

The economist argument has always been (a) sign free trade deal, (b) some jobs lost as labor reallocates to cheaper locations, (c) prices for goods decrease enough that everyone is better off.

Based on the result from the Rust Belt (and the split, not just the winner), I'd say they felt neither party did enough about (b).

> everyone is better off

That's definitely not the argument. It's that on average most people are better off, or some sort of weighted average of people's well-being.

Your version is probably more accurate. They converge in the long term, but absolutely not immediately.

When my uncle worked in a logistics center as a person-who-lifts-and-moves-stuff, he complained about the labor union rules that imposed a bunch of inefficiencies.

Unions can be great, but firing non-performers is one of a managers most important jobs.

And its not for the company even, as much as the other employees who don't want to be burdened with someone lazy or who refuses to train. It's usually the others who have to cover for them and pick up the pieces.

When unions stop management from addressing performance it directly impacts the employees themselves, and yet unions too often try to 'stand strong together'.

If unions took a greater role here I think their membership support would increase drastically, they could play their role as employee advocate while maintaining the moral high ground.