A pro-union argument in a pro-worker community using an AI image just feels wrong for some reason.
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
674 points (96.2% liked)
Work Reform
10143 readers
281 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
Plus incorrect facts - it was 12 percent over two years, so 8 percent one year, then 4 percent the next, which, with inflation in the UK, is a 4 percent raise one year, and stagnant wages the next 😂
Better than nowt tho
Also the grammar and layout are terrible.
I have read this 5 times and I'm not 100% sure I'm reading it right
Seriously, is AI making memes now? How is this even up voted? It doesn't make any sense.
Took me a few rereads, but pretty sure it's saying that last month the drivers threatened to strike if they didn't get a pay raise. The threat was successful and the pay raise will go in affect by May 2024.
The bus drivers of the city of Warwickshire managed to secure a pay raise of 12.4% in September 2023, after threatening the city with a strike. The pay raise should should come into effect by May 2024. This is evidence that unions work.
Works 100% of the time 60% of the time.
It works for people that went to a good school.
This is not a grammatically complicated statement, or incorrect.
Y'all are just easily confused.
The original post is just a bad sentence. I'm about 12.4% sure it's a run on sentence. Good school or not the structure is all wrong. I'm still confused as to if the 12.4% raise was offered before or after the union threatened to strike. The sentence does a terrible job describing the cause and effect of the situation. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring up the union threat before the raise? And as others have pointed out 12.4% isn't even correct.
It's not a run-on sentence.
It's not even a notably long one.
The claimed details of the raise are not confusing, regardless of their accuracy.
It's fine to struggle with reading, you don't need to blame others for your lack of understanding.
I believe it is the responsibility of the writer to create a clear sentence.
It is not the fault of a writer operating on a 10th grade level that the average product of the American educational system is a barely literate monkey that assumes their blatant incompetence must be someone else's fault.
I'm not sure what the American education system is and what that has to do with this? You seem very condescending towards people who are confused by this clearly confusing sentence. "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Is a grammatically correct sentence but good luck understanding what it means without looking on Wikipedia.
This is such a better community than Antiwork.