memefrog
If you cannot see that unions are price-fixing conspiracies then you can only be described as wilfully blind. Where you claim that it is just the same as multiple hiring managers working for the same firm.. It just boggles the mind.
Maybe it needs to be spelt out really simply for you: a union is not a firm. You don't hire a union. You hire employees. Unions do not want you to hire non-union employees and would make doing so illegal if they could. Unions want to "represent" an entire industry. They do not want competition.
So don't go round claiming it is just like a firm with multiple employees. That is nonsense.
If they had "good infra people" then their program wouldn't sit and spin for seconds, ever.
So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist, who "acquire capital" and in doing so "acquire power" as opposed to the (noble and virtuous) workers who are actually the ones that generate all the value, but who suffer at the hands of the evil greedy capitalists who exploit them and steal all that value.
Somehow we're meant to believe that despite these noble and virtuous workers generating all the value and far-outnumbering the evil, greedy capitalists, that the fact they haven't revolted and changed the system is because they're so oppressed and powerless (even though apparently they generate all value? what?).
It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories. Everyone with retirement savings (vast majority of people) is a "capitalist" and everyone with a job (vast majority of people) is a "worker".
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-fe...
In New Zealand, about 12% of individuals pay about 50% of personal income tax, and the top 3% pay about a quarter. That doesn't take into account the amount they are taxed indirectly through GST or through company tax on companies they own shares in.
If employers refuse to negotiate with employees individually, and set a fixed maximum price for labour, that is clearly unlawful, collusive, cartel behaviour. If they enforced this by refusing to honour their contracts and refusing to pay employees or give them work, this would also be unlawful.
If employees do the same then the left pretends it is normal.
Note that unions had to be made legal by legislative fiat. At common law, unions were illegal associations in restraint of trade.
Employers are, contrary to what you have implied, not permitted to band together to negotiate as a group. That is called wage fixing.
There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said.
No! Stop diluting this word.
You are simply wrong.
Use your fucking brain before you comment again
It's not "up to the discretion of private employers". It is up to the contractual arrangement between an employee and his employer.
The USA is a huge place. It isn't obvious to me that there should be national laws for things like this. This is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to be set on a state-by-state basis.
Followed by a link to a post which conflates very obviously-good policy positions with some kind of genocide campaign. It is not genocide to refuse to allow confused children to be irreversibly drugged up and sterilised. It is not genocide to say that gender ideology should be eradicated. It is not genocide to not allow burlesque performances in front of children in public libraries (or anywhere else, for that matter.)
Transgenderism is a sexual fetish. Children should not be exposed or subjected to it, and forcing it on them is much closer to genocide than forbidding that exposure is.
>If you are trying to draw a distinction between murder and using rhetoric to encourage stochastic terrorism,
There is no such thing as 'stochastic terrorism'. Even 101-level philosophy or law courses will teach you enough about the way we attribute acts to people to put this concept entirely to bed. Nobody is responsible for the actions of someone else simply because he has pointed out an evil act or an injustice. Nobody is responsible, to pick a totally random example not at all based on reality, for a bomb threat being called in on a hospital because he pointed out that that hospital mutilates children.
>criminalizing existing in public,
Nobody is doing this.
>destroying social support systems,
The government should not be funding your transgender ideology.
>blocking access to health care,
Medicine should not be used to harm people.
>and in some cases forcible detransition,
Citation very much needed. The post you linked to says "Concurrently, new laws are coming into effect, mandating the forced detransition of any incarcerated transgender individual." where "new laws are coming into effect" hyperlinks to this page:
https://www.senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionTy...
That page says the following: "This act establishes the "Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act". Under this act, no health care provider shall perform gender transition surgeries on any minor. Until August 28, 2027, no health care provider shall prescribe or administer cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to a minor for a gender transition, unless such minor was receiving such treatment prior to August 28, 2023."
In no way is this "forcible detransition" and it has nothing to do with "incarcerated transgender individuals". It has nothing to do with transgender individuals as well. A child is incapable of being a transgender individual, in the same way that a child is incapable of being in a consensual sexual relationship: there is simply no capacity.
>IMHO you're drawing a distinction without a difference.
If you can't see a difference between murder and [list of things that are not murder] then you are truly insane.
If you bundle DLLs with your program then you have a stable ABI automatically, because it's constant: something you bundle will never change its ABI, because it won't change in any way, because it's bundled. It's constant. Windows developers bundle all their dependencies with their programs. The result is that they don't have issues with their programs not working because the libraries they depend on have changed since they released the program. They might as well be statically linked.
There is nothing Windows-specific about doing this. You can statically link libraries on Linux and you can dynamically link to libraries that you bundle with your program. There's nothing stopping you from doing exactly the same thing that people do on Windows, and it will be just as stable.
The difference between the platforms is that Windows people do this and Linux people don't, I think mostly because they don't properly understand what a platform is in the Linux world. "Linux" as a platform is the kernel, and nothing else. You can't rely on any userspace libraries existing, not even libc. Or you could target glibc+Linux. That's a different platform, where you can assume that libpthread.so, libm.so, libdl.so and libc.so all exist, and some others. But you can't assume GTK+ will exist. Or you can target a particular distribution at a particular version. Then you are reliant on the particular distribution's stability guarantees. You can't expect it to run elsewhere, but you get access to a much wider array of libraries that you can expect to exist (by making non-base libraries dependencies of your RPM).
In all cases, ABI stability (the ability to update dependencies without rebuilding) is a property of the platform you target. To rely on a stable ABI, everything you target needs to provide that ABI stability. If you target a distribution like RedHat Enterprise Linux, then you get 10 years of ABI stability guaranteed. If you target Arch Linux, you don't: as far I understand, every package that depends on a library is expected to be rebuilt when the library is updated, if necessary. If you target Linux itself, or glibc + Linux, then you get ABI stability forever, and they go to extremes to give you that. But in turn you need to bundle any dependencies yourself, by whatever means you like. That doesn't mean you can't update those bundled dependencies when you update the program, of course.