1999
Amazon Contractors can't even sing in their cars now. Unions protect against this micromanagement.
(slrpnk.net)
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
1999 points (99.8% liked)
Work Reform
10146 readers
269 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you want a robot then hire a robot!
We're trying. We aren't quite there yet. Just keep suffering for a feeew more years, then you won't have to worry about our micromanaging.
Uber's (and all the rest of the Silicon Valley illegal taxi racket) entire business model is "exploit humans until we invent Johnnycabs"
I think the only thing keeping them from going full auto right now is that humans keep accepting shittier and shittier conditions in order to keep the robopocalypse at bay.
I don't really like automated cars because I don't think they're safe, either for the passengers (who have at least accepted what they're getting into) or pedestrians (who have not), but I don't think that's ever slowed the "march of progress" before now.
Self driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. Which is not the highest of bars.
And yet they aren't.
I would argue they are safe, in fact they are too safe, so safe that if their program gets confused it will just stop in the middle of an intersection and not move because it's 'not safe'.
They're safer than humans already. It's just you hear about every robocar crash because they're unusual, and every time one happens, the whole industry learns from it. With humans driving, it's doubtful the people involved learn from a crash, let alone anyone else, we just accept it as inevitable.
Don't forget about the people in all of the other cars on the road. For example, Tesla's have repeatedly plowed into stationary emergency vehicles.
Robot originally meaning "slave (free) labor"
They really do want them, humans are just still better at generalized tasks and finding new work for themselves but gosh darn are they gonna make us compete with to get as close to the first use of the word Robot and be unemotional perfect workers with no concept of self preservation until it can't be taken anymore.
Original Czech word "robota" refers to forced labor done by serfs. Not slaves per se. Here's a short read about the original play that introduced the term as we know it.
Oh yeah those serfs giving up 6 months of labor for free to the manor Lord was completely different. Thank you hyper specific pedantry.
Yes, it's different. No, it's not different.
It's not pedantry, and I found the etymological origin interesting. Plus it was more accurate than your quick definition. While what you said was acceptable and adequate for your point, and you made a good point, what they said was interesting too and added to the conversation. I don't see why you had to be so hostile and negative towards them.
I find there too often aggressive pedantry over the term "slave", "indentured servant", "serf", and so on, that has exhausted me in those concepts. Especially since it's often used to either excuse mistreatment or compete for who had it worse when they are all often in reality completely similar experiences.
So yeah. I was a bit snappy. It is being pedantic though (which Lemmy/Reddit communities thrive on so yeah I don't know what I was expecting) especially when the original use of Robot as a modern term is literally for a passive human-esque slave force made by science.
But I agreee it does add to the conversation to include the original use.
Sure I get that, I run into that a bit also when talking about how kids are basically a modern day slave class legally speaking in the US. I think that's probably because slave can mean 2 things, 1 being an umbrella term for "worker with freedoms removed and who is not earning capital or power," and 1 being a specific term for US antebellum slavery which looked quite different from other forms of slavery.
The second use of the term is why people are being really pedantic imo. Because a lot of minimizing has been done to say that black slaves back then didn't have it so bad, or that they had the same deal as the Irish who were indentured servants. It's a really common white supremacist talking point in the south that typically leads to their point that black people are actually inferior because every race has dealt with slavery but they are behind because they suck etc. Typical racist garbage, because they want black people to be slaves again and are openly advocating for it with their rhetoric.
So yes 'slave' has a charged meaning. Similar to how pitbull can mean "short-haired medium to large sized terriers including staffordshires, bullys, dogs argentinos, American pitbull terriers," or pitbull can just mean American Pitbull Terrier. I try to emphasize mean the general term when I say "a type of slave class," or "a form of slavery."
Fair enough. I grew up in an area with a heavy African, Italian, Irish and Polish immigrant population. So I literally had front row seats to that contention between the words that I couldn't understand how they didn't see the commonality in the group that set these conditions against them.
But words/language is such a complicated tool and I may not always be speaking to a global generalized audience.
I get it. I also get annoyed by the weight those words get assigned. Same with ourselves words on television or, God forbid, "nigger".... I'm probably sounding like a racist right now to soemone, just for that word.but it shouldn't be like that. They're just words.
I am not raised in that culture of "fear for words" and I cannot understand it,but I have learned to stay far away from it,because the people who do have an opinion on those words are very loud and very clear.
I have also learned that words do not mean the same to different people. Even words without that "weight". For instance a mental image of an "island". I think of a tropic island with a single palm tree. You might think of a rocky island. Someone else might think of Shetland. It depends a lot on you context, for instance if you grew up watching The Loveboat or Game Of Thrones.Or maybe you actually grew up on an island. That doesn't just happen for "island", but pretty much every word. Fortunately we have a very extensive common context in which we can find common ground to communicate meaning.
You can also see this in language. For instance how people speak regional dialects or how the Eskimo languages have so many words for snow or how calligraphy has influenced Japanese writing or Silbo Gomero
Thanks and I'm sorry I snapped.
Yeah language is confusing and uses itself as only a tool to convey some thought that only the speaker can truly know the intent of but yet we all can share.
Meanwhile I just realized I was being silly with words in another thread were I only used words ending in -ing to prove its all nonsensical, so your providing extra context does nothing to detract.
Again, sorry.