This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The NLRB has a basic guide you might find informative.
The NLRB has two primary functions. First is to hear and adjudicate complaints about unfair labor practices by unions and employers. Second is to oversee union elections as a kind of third party arbitrator.
In the United States the relevant verbiage is a "collective bargaining unit." What makes up a collective bargaining unit is at the NLRB's discretion, subject to some statutory constraints. Generally the idea is that it involves a group of individuals with the same or similar economic interest who are sensible to group together for the purpose of collective bargaining. In the United States you probably often hear about the "UAW" or "Teamsters." These groups are not collective bargaining units as such but are made up of many groups (often called local unions) who are. From the perspective of US labor law the local unions are the "real" unions, with rights and obligations with respect to employers and others.
It is not really the NLRB as such but the National Labor Relations Act that imposes obligations on employers to negotiate in good faith with recognized unions of their employees.
Correct, there is no particular requirement that employees be "skilled" (whatever that means) for them to constitute a collective bargaining unit under US law.
Yes. The NLRB found that Starbucks closed those stores because the employees at those stores had voted to unionize, which is an unfair labor practice. One of the examples they give in the basic guide is an employer threatening to shut down a plant as a way of discouraging plant workers from organizing.
This is kind of like anti-discrimination law. It's not that businesses can't shit down locations without NLRB approval, it's that they cannot shut down a location because its employees decided to unionize. I agree ordering the business to re-open a location is not great, but I'm open to hearing what other remedy would be appropriate.
More options
Context Copy link