this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1920 points (98.7% liked)
Work Reform
9827 readers
1532 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you all have the Congress app installed on your phone?
Can you name your House of Representative member?
Can you name your Senators?
This will go nowhere the same way that smart gun control went nowhere, despite the vast majority of the citizenship wanting it, despite even after a room full of elementary school kids were killed. Lobbying stops what the vast majority of the citizenry want.
The only way to affect change is to lobby Congress, that's what the corporations do. Corporations lobby Congress, so you have to as well.
You need to get involved, you have to let your Representative and your Senators know that you want a four-day work week. You should even throw some donation money their way for their next election cycle.
Just commenting about it on an Internet forum isn't enough. Just waiting for somebody else to do the work isn't enough.
You are the citizen.
Don't want to be pedantic, but not American and don't really have much else to add here.
This is one of the few times when the correct word is "effect", not "affect". "Affect (v.)" means to alter, or have an impact on. "Effect (v.)" means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.
Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.
I wrote it as wanting to affect how Congress does things, to change what Congress does, to have an impact on Congress, which is what lobbying does.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
It's a transitive verb. "Affect change" places "change" as the object. You're not saying you're altering the political situation or you're altering Congress; You're saying the change is already happening, and you're merely slightly altering its direction. "Effect change" means "Make a change", which is what you're trying to say. "Affect change" means "change the change", which is probably nonsensical in most cases you'd use it.
Also, "effect change" specifically is a standard idiom. "Effect change" shows up in the English language around 8X more commonly than "affect change" between 1800 and 2000, because "affect change" is a semantically incorrect misspelling of "effect change". [1] "Effect a change" is also either explicitly defined in or given as an example usage in many major dictionaries, while the same isn't true of "affect change", because, again "affect change" is a generally incorrect usage that doesn't actually make sense or mean anything outside of potentially very specific scenarios that don't apply here. [2]
1: Google Books Ngram Viewer.
2: Defined in Collins. Used in example sentences by: Cambridge, Webster, American Heritage
I mean. Feel free to, I guess?
If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said 'affectED' past tense, which I did not.
I'm advocating for something to cause change, I'm not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
Oh my god. You're using "change" as an object noun after a transitive verb which itself has no connotation or denotation of creation or causation. That implicitly means you're saying that the thing it's referring to must already exist.
Yes! That is what "effect" means.
Yes you are! "Affect (v.)" already means "change (v.)". "Affect (v.) change (n.)" means "change (v.) the change (n.)". That implies that the "change (n.)" must already exist.
It's like if I said "This salt will really affect my spaghetti". That implicitly says/presumes that "my spaghetti" already exists, or else it wouldn't be able to be affected.
🙄
FFS, I explained the grammatical reasoning, and linked to historical usage data, and linked to four different dictionaries to back that up.
You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned "effect" vs. "affect" because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you're going to just be obtuse about it I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…
"The Congress app" should not have a definite article because the app you linked to is, per the app ID, developer info, and first line of its description, unofficial and unaffiliated with the U.S. Congress. "Representative" should be plural, though that's probably just a typo. The second "despite" should have a conjunction such as "and" immediately before it. "Want" should be conjugated as "wants" after "citizenry", because the noun it applies to in this case is the singular "majority". "Affect" should be "effect", because "affect change" isn't a thing and is actually nonsense. The clause right after that, beginning with "that's what the corporations", is a run-on sentence and should probably be fixed with a conjunction denoting causality or reasoning. The clause after "involved" is also a run-on sentence, and should probably either be its own declarative statement or be semicolon-delimited. The third "to" on the second sentence of your next reply needs a listing conjunction right before it. And in your latest reply, the clause after "cause change" is also a run-on sentence and should probably be delimited by either a full stop or a semicolon instead of a comma.
Now I suppose I'll wait for you to explain why you "stand by" these other plainly incorrect (and, frankly, inconsequential) errors as well.
It's funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously "commenting about it on an Internet forum". … I should know better.
I'm not being obtuse, I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation of the words. I feel you're ignoring the temporal aspect of when each word should be used, per how I learned to use those words in school.
Honestly not trying to upset you, you're just telling me something different that I've learned my whole life about. And you spewing out ChatGPT levels of text doesn't convince me, it just makes me feel like you're trying to obscure and be intellectually dishonest about the conversation.
Honestly, why?
Are you so offended with someone who would disagree with you that you have to go to such extreme measures in a public forum in an attempt to shame them?
Would you act this way with somebody at a party who disagreed with you on something?
Does your life have so little meaning to it that this is the only way you could gain satisfaction out of it?
Honestly not meaning this as a snarky comeback, but, 'touch grass', sincerely. It's just voice-to-text dictation of opinions, not written prose in the style of the great writers.
And yes, I still stand by how I'm using the word affect, versus effect. Oh wait, sorry: I still stand by how I used the word affect, versus effect.
Bruh. I offered a polite correction on an ultimately inconsequential grammatical error you made. You're the one who doubled down on the error, and then continued doubling down while ignoring everything I said except for specific sentences which you clearly didn't understand.
"Spewing out ChatGPT levels of text"? WTF is that even supposed to mean? I just quickly explained the grammar at first. Then, when you didn't get that, I elaborated on the reasoning for it, and linked to like, five different independent sources, instead of just making blanket assertions. You didn't understand, so I explained— Jeez, but that's the real issue, isn't it? You don't seem to like that very much.
This is so stupid. Does it even matter? Do you do anything other than moralize down at Internet strangers about petty and incorrect semantics while repeating yourself?
Working within the system will never give us what we need. The system is made for them. All we get are concessions that then get taken away when we're no longer a threat. No company, no matter how much popular support, is ever going to allow this. You'd have far bigger chances of making far bigger changes if you joined an org. Any org.
Louis Rossman on YouTube hired a lobbying firm to help farmers to be able to repair their own tractors and won, so there's proof right there it can be done.
If there's grassroots lobbying of politicians by regular people, change can happen.
That's what corpos are really afraid of, being out lobbied.
As I said, the things you don't get by fighting are purely concessions so you shut up. When you do shut up, they get taken away. Every single fundamental working right we have was fought for with blood, not votes.
What corpos are really afraid of is us organizing. They have always been. That's all we have to do. Advocating for people to send emails (since none of them are going to have the money to hire lobbying firms) will just feed them back into the system, the same way voting does. Makes you feel realized when it never fundamentally changes anything for good.
Why would you 'shut up'?
That seems like a nonsensical sentence / opinion.
Passed laws just don't evaporate into thin air after they're done being passed, they continue to exist.
That's not true, at all. Not everything was about slavery. I'm sure you can find some that were, and some that were not.
Our society wouldn't exist if everything was anarchy 24/7.
Concessions are given, the radicalization stops as the standards of living improve. People are satisfied and don't pursue the deeper systemic issues. Once the radicalism has died down, efforts are made to remove those concessions. Sometimes it does not work, a lot of the times it does. The rise of neoliberalism was one of these efforts, the most succesful so far.
They don't evaporate, they get repealed. Tons of things do. Roe v Wade, police defunding, literal underage labour laws got repealed this year. The Paris Agreement almost worked, but thankfully protesting brought it back.
I'm not talking about slavery. Every fundamental working right we have comes from fighting. The 40-hour work week and 8-hour work day, the abolition of child labour, the minimum wage, pensions, sick leave, paid overtime, the right to strike... even weekends are thanks to fighting. Look it up if you don't believe me.
You may notice some of these things have been dissapearing recently, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. They were concessions given to us so we stopped being a threat. They don't perceive us as one anymore, and so they're trying to gain more power for themselves by stripping us of the things we earned. And part of this threat reduction is precisely the insisting on working within this "democratic" system, which will never meaningfully challenge them, because it is for them, by them, and controlled by them.
Will change is a constant, and there's always going to be some people who want to gain power for themselves for their own sakes to the detriment of others, and you have to fight back against that.
It sounds like you're so cynical about things that you're saying it's not even trying, not worth fighting for. Sincerely if you're not just someone trying to reshape the narrative away from activism, I would suggest, as the Internet likes to say, to go outside and 'touch grass'.
For the record I'm not saying you get to utopia and then you stop, the job is done. You got to fight for what you have to keep it.
But to not fight that's just defeatist, and not something I'll never do, and no one else should either.
I'm not being defeatist at all. Quite on the contrary, I'm telling you to fight.
My point is that fighting within the system never works. Everything we achieve that way eventually gets taken away from us. As long as the ruling class is still in power, they simply benefit the most from granting us as little as possible, and so they will always search for ways to do just that, and to take away things they previously granted us if they think we wont be threatening enough to take them back.
That's why I am saying, do not hire lobbyists or email politicians or something. Or if you do, make sure it's not the only thing you do. Join an org. Join an union, a party, a syndicate, organize. That is what has brought, brings and will bring real change. Fight against the system.
You know, there is a range of options available, between doing nothing, and full out anarchy/war.
And I've given you a real example of when it has worked. You've just ignored it, twice.
Louis Rossman on YouTube, go look him up, and watch his videos about helping farmers with the right to repair by hiring a lobbyist.
I didn't ignore it. I said what we achieve working within the system is a temporal concession and thus it's not actually a reliable and deep change. It's good, but it shouldn't be the only thing we do.
But don't you think that's the first step, to start in the system? To not ignore that option?
We have proof that it works (nothing is forever), that it's doable, so wouldn't that be the first step, instead of outside of the system extremism?
I've seen countless times of things we need being completely ignored by the system. When it's inconvenient enough it will simply never get passed. We can fight for it, and win, but if the same system remains in place, once again, what we won was a concession that can and will be taken away at the nearest chance. You showing me an example of a rich youtuber followed by millions of people being able to do it doesn't change what the situation is like for regular people like you and me. You can do both if you want to, just don't think emailing a bunch of rich aristocrats is going to ever have a reasonable chance of being meaningful. Seriously, if you want to make real change, join an org.
Also, "extremism" just means things that go against the status quo. It's not a synonym for "bad".
But for the love of god, don't not vote. Us not voting is a major part of that system that's made for them.
Congress app?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sunlightlabs.android.congress
If that link doesn't work, just search for the word Congress in the Google Play store.
If you're using an iPhone I'm sure there's an iPhone app equivalent. Basically any app that lets you monitor the votes that your representative and Senators do.
For me it says that the app was developed for an earlier version of Android and is incompatible with one I own (mine is 10)
I'm currently on Android 12. I've also used the app on Android 10 and Android 11 phones in the past, all from different companies.
It's a simple app, not using any complex features of a phone, so it should be working fine.
I believe they're talking about 5calls? https://5calls.org/
As a quick follow-up, I wish Lemmy and other online services had a bot where you can type in a one-line command that takes your zip code and then it replies with the contact information for your Senators and your Representative.
They have this on the official House website, but it only shows your house representative.
Be nice if it was able to look up from within the online forums that people work with directly; one less step.
Wow, didn't expect down voting on this one. Would that be such a bad thing to have?
When I'm suggesting is not something that that article tracks.
I'm talking about fight fire with fire, just like how Louis Rossman on YouTube did, to win farmers the right to be able to repair their own tractors, by hiring a lobbyist.
Ignore them. Lazy people will find ways to justify their being lazy. A healthy democracy takes work from everyone. If they refuse to own that on a personal level that falls on them and they have no right to complain when their lives fall in the shitter.
Ontario in Canada is being dismantled right now and it's because the vast majority didn't vote. They can make any excuse they want and it's still an excuse. Any option but the current one was a good option. Fuck each and every lazy person
I appreciate the advice, but you have to push back against laziness and people who are so cynical that they don't see any way of affecting change.
If there's more of them than us with that kind of mindset then society falls apart.
You're equating real life with Lemmy. Nothing waves hands here matters. We are on an online forum. I wish more people understood this.
Then what the fuck are you doing here. Go away
Well if you can prove that the comment I'm replying to is AI generated then I would agree with you.
It's a great way for those in power to dilute the conversation by throwing up so much junk into the conversations so that no one can take any meaning out of them, but we're not there yet.
Otherwise I'm assuming it's a real live human being who live on the planet with me, and will respond accordingly.
Also those in power who would want others not the gain power would do their best to redirect people away from community town square conversations, where people can get together and discuss issues that's affecting them all, to try to keep them from advocating for change that would be detrimental to their power.
You shouldn't be discouraging the use of online public community town square conversations. You should never ever discourage intellectually honest conversations.
Nah, the vast majority don't want gun control. All you city slicking fools who don't value personal self defense and think someone else will save you.
You can piss your rights away I'll keep mine.
100%
You've already pissed enough of my rights away thanks.
You're not the majority.
K friend. Surround yourself with liberal echo chambers and so that groupthink really reitineeates your point. Fucking retard.
They don't need someone to save them, because cities have less gun violence per capita then rural areas. All those guns don't save you. And I say this as someone from a small town.
Why is the USA so dangerous that you need to be walking around armed to the teeth?
Because basically anyone can get their hands on any gun they can afford with minimal difficulty, and the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
…Though to be honest, guns don't really help that much.