all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 38 points 3 months ago (14 children)

Fuck me, I either need to join a better union or move to NYC and become a housekeeper.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    100k in NYC is a basic living necessity. Unless you are frugal, anything less and you will be going in the red most months trying to pay all your bills and rent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yep this is correct. About the same in Toronto.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Well, what would you expect from being in the capital of Canada?

    (I never ever tire of making this stupid little joke because it is a stupid little joke and intend it to express my love for you guys up there <3 )

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    https://www.zillow.com/manhattan-new-york-ny/apartments-1-bedrooms/2_p/

    1 bedroom, from what I saw at a quick glance, $2900-7000 / month.

    Edit: I searched "1br apartment nyc" and posted the results here. I did not pick manhattan. I know very little about NYC. I was not trying to pick the most expensive.

    Here is Brooklyn, and the first result is $3,400.

    The Bronx, first result is $2,600.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Accurate. But to soften the blow a bit, two things often left out of the story that are sort of particular to this city:

    1. When you’re surrounded by third spaces and cheap food, studios can be more livable than elsewhere.
    2. Roommate living is way more common here since it’s the only reliable way to score sub-sub-market rent (like well below studio prices) which means a lot more options to choose from than in most cities. Also a useful hack for new arrivals who want a few months to scope out different neighborhoods before settling.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, Manhattan you're not living in on 100k unless you want to live in a shoebox studio or in Harlem.

    That being said there's a lot more to the city than Manhattan, and the other boroughs are a lot more affordable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Cost of living is a big factor here. 100k in NYC is comparable to 50k in the Midwest. Stepping outside in NYC feels like it costs 100 dollars every time you do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Stepping outside in NYC feels like it costs 100 dollars every time you do it.

    I feel the opposite, because I just walk places instead of driving. Not having a car is a big savings!

    I got my monthly food budget around $100/month for a bit when I was unemployed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, no car is huge. Also, while there's obviously very expensive restaurants, there's also a lot of very inexpensive street food options all over the place that other "less expensive cities" don't have. One can get extremely reasonably priced groceries in Chinatown. It's not all bad in NYC.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The statement is true. You have to create your own job.

    After unionizing I have noticed that there aren't really many jobs worth applying to. Most jobs advertised are worse than what I already have.

    It's not just about the pay. To me it's more about the company "growing up" and acknowledging the need to balance the relationship between management and the qualified personnel, instead of viewing employees as unskilled servants.

    The reason I couldn't find a job like that before is pretty clear. We also don't post job openings on the web anymore. First of all we don't have a lot of people quitting, but we also have plenty of qualified union members to choose from when we do have vacancies.

    The way I see it, unionization is primarily an upgrade for the company. It's not just access to qualified personnel. It also cuts out a lot of the bullshit conflicts between management and employees, because there are general agreements on a lot more things.

    If they want employees to take the company serious, they need to treat their employees seriously.

    Throwing pizza parties and threatening low paid unskilled workers with arbitrary management decisions or making random bonuses and shit doesn't achieve anything like this. It's a complete waste of time in comparison to having a proper clear union agreement.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Unionisation as a company upgrade is exactly how we in Australia achieved a huge productivity boom in the 90s without wages growing too fast or stagnating. Howard fucked that up in the 2000s in the name of business and both wages and productivity growth stalled.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    And is there anything particularly unique about the labor environment in NYC?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Mostly the cost of living there. 100k in NYC is closer to what 60k would be like in a cheaper part of the country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    Maybe that describes the amount, but not the ability to organize. If this is true, there's something unique about the organizing environment in NYC that would be good to know about, both to learn from, and so we don't Children's Crusade workers into homelessness.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago

    A fanciful guess: the mass transit over car culture means less ambient isolation. You see and interact with more people from more walks of life. You can walk places after work together, have long talks on the train. It's less soul sucking than just driving to work and home by yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago*

    "Don't unionize, just get a better job."

    What an ass statement fitting the appropriate snark reply: "Thanks, I'm fucking cured."

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    How do we get this for the tech sector? We have all the tools to organize.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Unions can be a problem if it's just another set of bosses who are seeking to profit from the system. So like being in a HOA where you let the dipshit homebodies with nothing better to do get in charge and start fining everyone.

    You have to stand up and be involved. It's not easy, but it means that instead of being you against HR by yourself, it's you and all your buddies against HR on your behalf.

    In the best case scenario, it provides a way for the company managerment to hear ideas from the employees - because a good company listens. Treat your people right and they will look for ways to make things work better and increase your profits. So it's in your best interest. Treat your employees like shit and that is what you'll get out of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It takes a long time and a concerted effort to morph a healthy union into what's basically organized crime (see: police "unions").

    Otherwise, unions are just groups of people. People can be corrupt, and healthy unions have mechanisms and safeguards for excising that corruption.

    The F.O.P. isn't created overnight. It's built on generation upon generation of corrupt cops covering for each other. That is not a union, that's a gang.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It is not just corruption. It's laziness. Every union I have worked with (2 I worked in, 1 I managed union workers) has been in favor of the lowest common denominator. They spend time squabbling about the worker that barely get by doing the bare minimum but knows the rules. Meanwhile the really hard workers get fired for one time mistakes and the really good workers don't make as much as they should because of the guys that are barely skating by.

    Unions don't do what they used to. They used to make management know that they needed to cooperate. Now it is not how they work together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    They spend time squabbling about the worker that barely get by doing the bare minimum but knows the rules. Meanwhile the really hard workers get fired for one time mistakes

    I don't believe you that this is a thing that you have personally experienced in a union.

    Meanwhile the really hard workers get fired for one time mistakes

    Usually literally contractually impossible based on the contract that was negotiated by the union's collective bargaining bloc.

    Unions are ultimately groups of people. If you don't like the priorities and direction of the leadership, then you vote for new leadership.

    Everyone gets paid more, including the ones who work really hard. They just don't get to steal their coworkers job because they had a rough month at home and didn't meet some bullshit made up quota. No, you support that coworker, because they deserve a living wage too, even if they're going through something.

    Even if that thing is opaque and is appears to others as "laziness". Shit ain't your business beyond ”i hope things get better for them, and I am so glad that the leave they need to take will not permanently ruin them financially and force their family to move back with their inlaws in goddamn India" or wherever.

    Like Jesus, have some common fucking decency for your coworkers.

    News flash: working harder than you need to does not get your more money in non-union positions either. You just end up with more responsibility and less free time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    So I'm lying for fancy Internet points? How fucking dumb are you?

    I speak my experience. Take it or don't. I don't care if you want to hear it or not. Union reps are just employees with different departments. They do not represent the workers. They represent the companies and only posture with egregious abuses of powers.

    They hold zero weight in leverage. Simply because they cannot effect change. They no longer can intimidate or change management's goals. It's an archaic use of power. Management can find reasons and hire someone cheaper.

    I absolutely don't think it's right. But it's what the unions are in any capacity that I have experienced.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    This just plays into the myth that there are workers and jobs that don't deserve a living wage and job security.

  • source