• Sharlot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Classic misdirection: compare dues to a toy instead of the extra pay, healthcare, and protections.

  • hateisreality@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Haha my Union Dues… 240/yr.

    Pay in the five years before the union…no increase. 20 years of union, pay up 100%.

  • Broadfern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s like one month of US health insurance next year. Way more than worth it over being at the whims of some fuckhead corporation

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Many years ago I had to explain to a coworker how progressive taxation works. He was like “that’s a great idea! We should do that! It’s stupid that now your pay goes up but you take home less because you get taxed more”

        I had to tell him, yes it is a good idea. It’s how it works now. You don’t get more pay and suddenly your whole income is taxed more.

        He’d had no idea

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I had an outright argument with one of my own coworkers about this very subject less than six months ago. Even with all of the insane bullshit going on outside today people still just refuse to look up and read any sort of information for themselves.

        • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’ve literally heard coworkers mention the whole “I actually don’t want a raise because my taxes would go up and I’d make less” bullshit before. I do what I can to redirect them when I hear it, but some people are extremely dug into their worldview and don’t want to be helped. Like acknowledging a progressive tax rate would require acknowledging that their entire concept of income and taxation is built on a lie.

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve seen several from this campaign and they’re so dumb I feel like someone was maliciously compliant in making these so that Delta’s opposition to the union would actually encourage more people to vote to join. Like, management came to someone in marketing, but that person actually wanted to support the union effort.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      In a lot of countries it would be illegal.

      In a lot of countries the unions became powerful enough to be governments, and implemented anti-union busting laws.

      For some reason the United States seems to have skipped a bunch of the social development that went on in other countries. Unfortunately this is probably because of the American psyche and their obsession with the idea that rags to riches is possible, despite all the evidence. So nobody wants to limit their own potential wealth by giving away money to the workers, just in case one day they become the wealthy. The end result is that a bunch of people have to work for Amazon.

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      We have a husk of a shell that we once called the Supreme Court that decided that corporations have a right to free speech.

      Toe that with all the benefits of a corporate entity and we end up where corporation speech is more free than that of a person.

        • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes but that was also before propaganda was a class in college. Now they don’t need to set things on fire, just convince a chunk of workers to vote against unions. The cost to suppress unions has never been cheaper.

        • Kirp123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The US government literally sent in their military to fight coal miners that were trying to unionize. They backed the coal mining companies. It’s not a new thing.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        While true, this shit was going on just as much back when they were “legitimate”. Anti-Union mind games are an American tradition.

        • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes and now we have no tools to fight it. There were rules against anti-union activities; union workers died for those rights.

          That’s all null and void and without a change at the highest levels, it will stay that way.

  • walden@wetshav.ing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is a meme community, so it’s time to get serious!

    This happened around 6 or 7 years ago. The company in question only has two work groups that are unionized – Pilots and Dispatchers. Mechanics, Flight Attendants, Ground Service, etc. are not unionized.

    Flight Attendants have attempted to unionize many times, but the vote always fails.

    The poster included in this post was for Ramp workers – the people who load baggage, marshal the planes into the gate, fill the potable water, etc. That vote ultimately failed, but these posters were only a small reason why. In my opinion, the biggest reason that other work groups don’t want to unionize (they absolutely can, nothing is stopping them) is profit sharing.

    Years ago the pilot union negotiated an extremely excellent profit sharing agreement, and it was negotiated for pilots only. Depending on the amount of profit for the year, employees can expect 10%-%20 of their yearly income paid in a lump sum. The company in question is typically very profitable (I can already see the “profit should be illegal” type of comments coming, but please spare me. I’m just trying to explain how it works).

    Over time, other work groups started to catch wind of how much profit sharing pilots were getting. Naturally this sparked talk of unionizing in other work groups, so in order to calm things down the company extended the same profit sharing to all workers, not just the pilots.

    This sort of reversed the desire to unionize for a lot of people (I disagree with them, but this is their thinking)… Now if the ramp personnel do unionize, they’d have to negotiate their own profit sharing as they would be excluded from the company wide payout. That’s not to say they couldn’t negotiate to keep the profit sharing, but the fear is real and people don’t want to lose the big fat checks that come almost every year.

    In summary, the workers aren’t unionized but the company pays a lot of money to them to keep it that way. Would they be better off long term if they unionized? Yes, of course. But this poster, as ridiculous as it is, is not the only reason that work groups aren’t voting in unions.

    Here’s a link to the AFA page talking about it a little bit https://deltaafa.org/news/profit-sharing-2025

    • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Its crazy to me how short term so many people think.

      I mean basic logic dictates that the companies clearly know the union is the better option for you and worse option for them when they’re willing to give up concessions, and it should be similarly obvious that inherently, the concessions will never be equivalent to what you are losing in increased wages and protections from if you had made a union.

      • walden@wetshav.ing
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s also no accountability for companies and it has been like that for way too long. Look at Starbucks… some stores unionized so they just closed the stores and fired everyone. Completely illegal, but no consequences for the company. They succeeded in scaring the rest of the baristas, though, so mission accomplished.

        • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          We are so far from this when people choose to vote in a literal pedo fascist over boring neoliberal.

          There isn’t a chance in hell you get a pro workers president any time soon when the general population can’t tell the difference above, and somehow think the only rational choice is a “”““far left””“” socialist such as famously very socialist former DA Harris.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    When I worked at Best buy over 10 years ago they had the exact same propaganda. You know instead of union dues you could buy an Xbox! (From us no less!)

    …okay I added that last bit but it was implied

  • ms.lane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    In Australia, Union fees are tax deductible.

    They don’t cost you anything in the end.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know if tax deductible means the same thing in Australia, but they’re also deductible in Canada. That means that you don’t pay tax on the money you paid in dues, but you don’t get it back.

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That just means you’re not paying taxes on the income. It’s not like you get the entire $700 back in taxes, because your tax rate probably isn’t 100%. If you pay 30% in taxes, (no clue what you actually pay), writing off the $700 would simply mean you pay $210 less on your taxes.

        • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          You are allowed to deduct the money you spent on union dues from your income, thereby lowering your taxable income. So on that portion of income that you deducted, you don’t pay taxes. That’s how all deductions work.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The tax deduction is deducted from your taxable income, is what he said. His math checks out.

          Explained differently: A union membership costing 700 only costs you 490, assuming your tax is 30% and that it is deductible where you live.

          Meanwhile, the game console still costs 700.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If they could do that they wouldn’t try to get people to avoid unionizing. They still need people to work for them, regulations or no regulations.

  • saarth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    With all the layoffs right now, it’s a great opportunity for unions to make people aware about them and how they can be beneficial.

    I wish unions were more active on LinkedIn, so that we could like and share their posts. Recent layoffs at Omnicom/IPG have led to people discussing unions in the advertising subreddit…