It's seems like you just dislike him, said his plans doesn't work and just searched google and posted links, without ever explaining why they don't work....
Bernie Sanders pushes for gaming industry unionization
- Thread starter Chindogg
- Start date
"Bernie doesn't care about labor laws" is the strangest take I've seen all day.
I don't like Bernie because his plans are impossible, okay impossible was a strong word, but also his plans are impossible.
What are you doing, man.
So if you have no faith in anything getting done regardless of who wins then why not at least go with someone promising that peoples lives will get better. If it doesn't matter, why fight at all.
And no, not "every economist" thinks that
Bernie has been campaigning for workers' rights for literal decades be it labor laws or unions. You are on some shit
Unionized workers earn more money(take home pay!) and get more benefits than non-union workers.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure you have a choice to be in a union....at least in my state.
In the glorious United Peoples Republic, all union membership is enforced strictly by the state.
There's a thing called solidarity. It's not my fight either, however I support their fight.
Yeah, but it's their choice to start a union in the first place.
I support their right as well, but I'm not going to force them to choose one way or another. It's their fight, they can figure it out and I'll support what they choose.
Who is forcing them to make a choice... other than the companies because they threaten people's livelihoods if they talk about unionizing?
Spoken like someone who doesn't give a fuck about people who are suffering until they are the ones suffering.
Yes and how do people unionize when they have a home and family and fear for their job. I seriously don't get your point, it's not easy to do this.
How can you force someone to be apart of something if they have the choice to not be in it......
I love that Bernie is shining a light on the problem. He has my support for the presidency. Let's go Bernie!
Other countries have game unions. And yes, there's always some risk starting a new union, that's why you need solidarity within the industry. If you can't get solidarity then perhaps others don't see the worth in the trade off. If you think better working hours and pay is something to fight for then you should be willing to fight and possibly risk your job for it.
Have you seen what's been happening over at buzzfeed. These companies definitely don't want their workers to be unionized and sometimes, they'd rather close doors and shut down their business than let it happen. That puts a lot of pressure on the employees that I think you're ignoring.
EA isn't shutting down their entire business because developers want to unionize in the U.S. especially when they have studios across the globe many of which have gaming unions.
That's not how real life works I'm sorry, we are living under the boot of capitalism. People have families to take care of, and will take shit for that. The more people in support of unionized labor the easier it is for people in the industry to speak out.
Go watch this, from people in the industry about the work culture.
Yeah but you might have to pay dues that come out to less than the increases in wage of working with a union. So uh... fuck 'em.?
It's the workers who make the value. If the bosses shut it down, the workers can continue making the product. This time without a parasitic board of directors keeping the profit for themselves.
This is how Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago became the New Era Windows Cooperative.
It's really not that black and white. If "bosses" had no value they wouldn't exist. Getting a large scale organization to run smoothly with millions of moving pieces is no easy task, and the vast majority of people who attempt to do so fail.
Taking on Walmart, speaking up about Lula, and now unionizing games - while running for president. Bernie is putting in work.
It's not *that* black and white in reality. But a real commitment to democracy demands it.
The great fortunes accumulated by wealthy people rarely start with a genius who had a great idea and turned it into a successful business. Very often it's passed through family lineage. But even ignoring that, it's exceedingly rare that the top brass, the CEO, the President, board members, etc are the most competent workers in the organization. These people got there because they had money to start with. They are able to leverage connections to other wealthy people in their social circle and so on. None of that is crucial to the useful social value of whatever the organization produces, yet they make all the final decisions about what to do with the collectively-produced profits.
Beneath them are middle managers, supervisors, team leaders. Some of these people legitimately are the most skilled people, and some of them are bureaucratic supervisors whose main job is to make sure everyone is working hard. These people often identify more with the owners, but in reality most of them are workers. They are the ones most responsible for "getting a large scale organization to run smoothly with millions of moving pieces".
Practically speaking, we could get rid of the top of this structure and virtually everyone would be better off. There could be a lot more sharing in the profits, with a competent leadership ensuring the smooth functioning of the organization. Also society wouldn't endlessly reproduce an oligarchy with individual power that rivals the state. That would be a move in the right direction.
But that is not a strong commitment to democracy. That is technocratic leadership. Arguably meritocratic, but still authoritarian in structure. A real commitment to democracy means individual workers have a say in how they spend the majority of their waking hours. At minimum it means elected leadership, but even better would be self-governance: democratic administration of the workplace.
Right now, it can be argued that individual workers don't have the training or perspective necessary to make informed decisions about the administration of the workplace. But we shouldn't accept this for all time. We need to extend high quality, progressive education to all people. People should not simply be trained in a core specialization. A real education trains you to participate in society. In a liberal democracy, we expect people to have an understanding of civics to participate in the political process, and the same should be true of the workplace.
Albert Einstein emphasizes an expanded social role of education in his essay "Why Socialism":
Last edited:
Not directly video game related, but another article that helps communicate why unions can be important for workers, beyond just better wages:
Beautiful, I love Bernie.Always looking for an excuse to post these
I always find it ridiculous when I hear americans say his plans are impossible. In Scandinavia we have free college and healthcare without any issues, theres already proof that it works.
"Hey, you dont have those pesky black people so it works for you!"
Exactly this. He's attempting to appeal to the same unreliable demographic as before.
Ehhhhhhhh. he's obviously not talking about some coinless stateless utopian socialist society here. A social democratic / democratic socialist government can have growth, a balanced budget, and provide what you stated.
Problem is that you have a system where you pay very low taxes, in return for very few services from your government. It's hard to switch that around and make people see that they're actually not earning less in the end.
I've seen some suggest that unions are radical and, may I suggest this: they're not radical enough!
Here's a better quote, from your own source there:
"The typical American family of four covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan paid $24,671 last year on health care costs alone, according to the non-partisan Milliman Medical Index.
"The typical family of four making $50,000 a year would pay less than $46 a month under Bernie's plan for three months of paid family and medical leave and universal health care," he said.
"This is not a tax hike," he added. "It's a major cost savings."
It's not sarcasm or being sarcastic. Different things.
Saying "the worst ever" is the indicator that its hyperbolic.
Anyway, dont see how this matters or why the thread needed to be dug up a bit for this.