Totally totally unintentional.
post
Clock in and steal time. Shit on the clock. Check your local job postings. Use social media. Ask for clarification on that last email. Walk over for clarification. Just sit there.
Here’s a reminder that wage theft accounts for nearly 75% of all theft. It’s literally larger than every other form of theft combined, and then multiplied by almost three.
If you walked into a convenience store and blatantly stole a $2 candy bar at the same time every single day, they’d have a cop waiting for you by the end of the week. But if that same convenience store chain steals $2 in wages from each of their 5000 employees every single day, then that is just good business.
Part of the issue is that lots of people seem to think “my employer didn’t pay my check” is the only form of wage theft. In reality, wage theft typically happens via a thousand tiny things. Things like unpaid breaks that still require work. Unfair time clock rounding that shaves a fraction of an hour off of every employee’s clock in/clock out times. Managers requiring employees to show up early, and then not allowing them to clock in until their shift is scheduled to begin. Employers automatically deducting an hour of time for meal breaks, (for “convenience”) even if the employee was working during that time and got a shorter break. Employers requiring employees to clock out at the scheduled end of their shift to avoid overtime, then requiring those employees to finish their closing tasks while clocked out. Requiring employees to “always be on-call” but refusing to pay them an on-call fee when they take work calls while clocked out.
And those are just a few examples. All of those minor things quickly add up to massive amounts of stolen wages. For the employees, it is death by a thousand cuts. No single infraction is large enough to sue over, and no individual employee is going to bother going to court over $2 in unpaid wages. But when the company is doing it at scale, it means every employee is being paid less, which leads to massive illegal profits for the employer.
We should be at the point where RTO orders for positions that could be remote should also be considered a form of wage theft. Instead, we're at a point where every hour, your employer steals what you get paid per day.
If employers had to pay employees for their commute time, that would be the end of RTO.
Maybe. I still don't understand the economics of making people come in to work when the companies have to pay rent on the spaces where employees work.
Especially when gas is $6 a gallon, that steals $80 a week that I could keep by doing my job from home where it can 100% be done
Bang on Carl. Did you see Shweddy's comment above? Thats what I do from time to time to combat the bullshit. I am fortunate to have a job in this economy I'm told. So I do what I must and try to do stuff for myself at work too
"We take full responsibility"*
*Only after being threatened with something worse by Chad Mamdamni
They say this after they lost a court battle. They didn't say shit while the issue was ongoing. They even spent $1.4 mill to avoid it by trying to keep mamdani from getting elected. Now they want to go "oh dear me! I'm so sorry!"
Why do they not 'accidentally' overpay them for once?
Old but still relevant and true. “But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners, the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That's against their interests. Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that! You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what colour shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you. They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it. George Carlin
Hard truth 👍 Good news is we can solve the media problem by using fediverse and disconnecting ourselves from corpo media.
Doorddash will take full responsibility when they return the money and stop doing it.
Claiming whoopsidaisy on social media only flaunt the position of power and the contrived desperation that keeps drivers in their place.
I'd suggest unionize but union-busting practices are very effective and the courts are against you.
Fuck responsibility put people in prison for fuck sake they are criminals.
They hide behind intent, which does matter, but the judicial system only gives them the benefit of the doubt
Poor single mom gets busted for not scanning all her groceries at self check out? She can say it’s a mistake all she wants but the law will proceed as if she acted intentionally, and it’s her burden to prove otherwise (which is basically impossible in a legal sense, your strategy is trust me bro)
Door dash does this? All of a sudden trust me bro works as a strategy. Even if we took them at that and said sure, it’s not intentional, it’s still easily argued as negligence, but that doesn’t happen. A penalty of obviously paying back the funds, plus interest, to impacted employees should be a minimum as well as regulatory changes to mandate increased oversight and simplify employee reporting of when this does occur (at doordashes expense). And obviously if intentionality is show jail time/criminal charges for the architects. But this doesn’t happen because we live in a failed state
Full responsibility would mean payback in full and then some. The impact of being under-paid is much worse then the benefit DD got in having that cash collecting interest for years.
"You see there are people who believe the function of the police is to fight crime, and that's not true, the function of the police is social control and protection of property."
Michael Parenti
Look at farmers saying how much we need them because they make food. Yet they own all the fucking land and we are not allowed to grow food there! Most of the ones complaining are in the top few % and exploit cheap labour - those cheap workers are actually the ones making all the food.
Power is about taking everything for yourself. Its a sickness. An illness. A maladapted ego. Ambition is a mental illness.
Those with power shit on those who have little. Might makes right.
Much like liberals oppose every war but the current one, they support every rebellion against injustice . . .except the current one.
True, but that's how any legal system protects anything.
No, capital has the means to enact the legal system. If, for arguments sake, we had perfect legal systems where legal representation was free, everyone would be protected equally. To be clear, I'm not proposing any particular solution, just being nitpicky in that "that's how any legal system protects anything" isn't correct - there clearly are possible systems that aren't imbalanced.
possible systems that aren’t imbalanced
...such as in the many countries where capitalism operates but doesn't dominate politics like it does in the US.
I mean... I've never even heard of legal systems that allow you to protect yourself without forking over a shitload of cash, and I've been fucked over by corporations in NZ, UK, GE and FR. Every time I tried to follow the free legal help I was met with "no-one is going to help you with this for free" or "it'd cost you 20k to pursue this and you'll only win 20k at most, so it's not worth pursuing" despite the law clearly being on my side.
Not saying there aren't things you CAN get help with in these countries, nor saying that other countries don't help poor people in this way. Just my experience.
I'm perfectly fine with sufficiently regulated capitalism. I've certainly not seen any working alternatives that have worked at a nation-wide scale.
The emphasis should really be "sufficiently regulated". I can't see any capitalist country at the moment where the regulation is as stringent as needed and as punishing for violations as deserved.
The best countries that I can point to (Scandanavia) seem to have the highest regulated capitalism.
I don't see any examples of countries that are not some form of capitalism, but in general, the less regulations, the worse they're doing.
Also, I'd like to note that I said "sufficiently regulated" as the only qualifiers to capitalism, meaning I consider them pretty damn important. lol
Crazy that nowhere in the world had functional societies until the past couple of centuries. Just wild.
You want to go back to feudalism?
Nope, and that’s not what I said. The claim was that capitalism is the only system that has ever worked at a nationwide scale. The fact you brought up feudalism as an alternative shows it clearly wasn’t the only system that ever worked. And just like the divine right of kings was eventually found distasteful and overthrown throughout most of the world, so too can people come to find the capitalist system distasteful and replace it. It’s not a law of nature that people must operate under capitalism.
Capitalism is fundamentally unjust. Someone who doesn't even work keeps the profits generated by the people who do. Fuck that.
Capitalism doesn't mean "people trade money for goods and services"
Why isn't communism scalable in your mind? "Well regulated capitalism" is still by definition exploitation.
I think a lot of people think capitalism literally means commerce. The sanctions usually imposed on socialist/ communist countries fuels this idea by directly restricting commerce in those countries and sabotaging them.
Would you want this administration to own the means of production?
Psst: workers own the means of production under communism.
How do they own it?
Presumably the same way worker owned businesses work now.
So market capitalism but all businesses are publicly traded or coops?
Capitalism requires private, profit based ownership of the means of production. Not all worker owned businesses are profit seeking, or any profit they obtain beyond operating/wage costs is redistributed to the workers/voted on for how to use it. Without a profit motive and private ownership you’re cutting out a huge portion of what makes capitalism so destructive.
So capitalism but every company of a certain size operates as a not for profit coop? (Is that still capitalism?) I'm being serious here. I would like more collective ownership of capital but I don't know what it looks like and I don't trust the government to do it centrally. We'd need to nail down details like how big a company has to grow before it must distribute and how the original owners or investors are compensated for that loss of control. We wouldn't want a system where no one tries to do anything cool because it would ultimately be taken away as soon as it succeeded.
Not 'every company of a certain size', all of the means of production would be worker owned. In practice what this would mean is that if you run a business you can't continue to extract profit from workers without compensating them or allowing them a collective voice in what the profits are used for. Whether they want to run that as a co-op (which can include consumers and not just workers, eg REI) is up to them. There isn't a central government directing this under communism, as the eventual goal is for the state to no longer be necessary. I think that part is unlikely to happen naturally and communists are pretty vague about it IME, I'm more of the opinion that capitalism needs to be legislated out of existence and kept that way with a strong government. But implementing more widespread adoption of worker-owned companies is going to be necessary if we want to get out of this goddamned mess, because letting one guy (or a board of guys) decide what quality of life tens of thousands of people have clearly isn't working.
I don't believe the owners of a company should be compensated, because they've already been vastly overcompensated by the wealth they extracted from the workers and they should count themselves lucky if they're not in an Ayn Rand situation afterwards. Because the thing is, if you're actually wanting to do something cool, you don't care if it's going to make you rich as long as it's not tanking the company. Think about how many scientists, engineers, artists, etc have been held back or had incredible projects canceled because some CEO decided that x% profit on it wasn't a good enough return. Do you imagine that would happen with nearly as much frequency if, say, the organization was entirely owned and run by the highly skilled professionals actually doing the work and interested in it?
i think markets do provide signals about local preferences and efficencies that centralized economies lose. personally i think socialism > comunism because of that, in which the workers own the factories but markets still operate on competition;
i am also open to something like georgism which is capitalism but all rent-seeking activities are 100% taxed and give back in form of services and UBI to the population
Communism (not DemSoc) is an economic system where a government essentially owns the population ruled by an autocrat, under the veil of a single union. The ML way of democratic centralism completely fails when the opposition is blocked from voting which assures total enforced hegemony.
Independent unions are illegal in China with only the All-China Federation of Trade Unions(ACFTU) permitted by the Chinese state and the Chinese Communist Party to operate.
This doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Communism (not DemSoc) is an economic system where a government essentially owns the population ruled by an autocrat, under the veil of a single union.
No it's not.
Every single piece of information Marx Lenin Mao Stalin points to: the replacement of power of any method a worker has, in a capitalist democracy and migrate it after the revolution to a state held apparatus above which the flawed democratic-centralism takes grasp to hold absolute power. At which point strengthening a secret police is all that’s needed to let fascism in from the back door. At least Mussolini stated his intentions from the beginning.
The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise, socialism will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals.
— Rosa Luxemburg
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm
essentially
This word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, lmao.
Sorry I should have used effectively, being ideological about democratic centralism is nice until you find yourself organising a workers demonstration against one.
You shouldn't have commented at all, lol.
I’ve certainly not seen any working alternatives that have worked at a nation-wide scale.
Yep, never worked before, ever... except for all the places it has.
And where do you think it has worked?
The entire globe since prehistory until capitalist colonialism started spreading around the world in the late 1600s from the Dutch East India company
Oh, so you guys are doing the stupid thing where you redefine words.
Okay, whatever, have fun with that.
If you’re using capitalism to mean monetary trade, you’re the one redefining words. See the generally accepted meaning here on Wikipedia; it specifically revolves around private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of profit. Maybe you could name a capitalist society in existence prior to the 1600s, if you think everyone else is just defining capitalist wrong?
Capitalism has only existed for 400 years. Nothing has been redefined.
caitlyn johnstone has the typical .ml takes on russia, voting, etc and only the most standard one week old propaganda accounts and standard .ml megaposters get mad about having this pointed out
If Caitlyn Johnstone was running for office as a Democrat, you’d vote for them, right? Blue no matter who?
If only libs applied the same level of purity testing to their politicians that they do to anonymous internet commenters, we might have a functioning electoral system.
Almost, its about protecting OLIGARCHY not capitalism.
Capitalism would encourage new ideas and replace old outdated ones.
Can't have that. We get status quo because every member of the investment/ownership class needs to pass along their ill gotten gains to prevent their spawn falling into the wage slavery class.
None of the world leader children actually work, yet all are millionaires. How is that capitalism?
Same with family empires. One generation founds the company during windfall times and the next few don't have to work or innovate.
(...) not capitalism. (...) the investment/ownership class (...) the wage slavery class. None of the world leader children actually work, yet all are millionaires. How is that capitalism?
How is it anything but capitalism? What do you call the production mode that allows one class to live off the surplus (labour) value of another?
Maybe read a book?
You can call that feudalism, among other things.
But that's because it's intentionally hard to tell if it's feudalism in a capitalist hat or capitalism in a feudalism hat. That's what oligarchy is.
Capitalism in itself is private enterprise, which is where capitalism defenders usually start trumpeting that capitalism isn't actually evil. I think you can maybe make an argument that totally unregulated capitalism isn't evil, because it's basically anarchy. But the reality of human greed hits hard and always leads to self-regulation (collusion) and external regulation (coersion), which muddy the waters and lead to oligarchy and feudalism regardless as politicians and businessmen consolidate power.
But that’s because it’s intentionally hard to tell if it’s feudalism in a capitalist hat or capitalism in a feudalism hat. That’s what oligarchy is.
No, (modern) oligarchy is a term we may use for the political structure that is supported by capitalism, which is the mode of production. In feudal society, oligarchs were nobles with landed power. In capitalist society, they are just a small subset of the capitalists.
It is not feudalism because the economic surplus is not extracted (primarily) through land ownership and tribute, but through the property relations of wage labour.
Yes, we can see neo-feudal structures within a late stage capitalist economy.
No, that does not preclude capitalism as the mode of production enabling those structures.
Which book describes a real society that didn’t have an upper class feeding on a lower class? Like which society was that again?
It is a classification of the mode of production. However, you are quite right in saying that property relations for the proletariat are not fundamentally different under capitalism than, say, feudal society.
One can as such absolutely draw a parallel between a serf and a wage labourer in this regard, but equivocating the two, like you do, is utter nonsense.
Similarly, using this parallel to conclude that we are not living under a predominantly capital mode of production is rubbish, justifying the recommendation of reading.
No i was genuinely asking to point out a formation of society that reflected your stated values, and the book which i can read about it in. Im saying every society that i am aware of, no matter the title, had a ruling class leaching off the working class. We as humans have yet to develop that classless society despite 100 years of people drooling and killing over communist theory. I just thought you it was odd you said to read a book, like you've already read them all for me and still seem pretty impotent when it comes to forming that society. Maybe Marx failed to grasp the human condition idk. Seems like every attempt leaves a murderous upperclass in-charge of a lower class. I can point you to some interesting books on the topic.
The read a book part was probably overly dismissive, but was a pointer to marxist theory that is materialist and not idealist.
Im saying every society that i am aware of, no matter the title, had a ruling class leaching off the working class.
This is why workers need their own revolution. Capitalism and most western states, particularly the US, came to be through bourgeoise revolutions. Causality wise, this followed due to technological advancements improving the productionary forces.
We as humans have yet to develop that classless society despite 100 years of people drooling and killing over communist theory.
No state has yet made it past the intermediary stage of this development. That does not mean they were not on the right track. The killing part is horrible, but follows from the armed resistance of capital. Violence is a part of every political system, it is just happening in ways not usually recognized.
I agree workers and labor need to take back power. Like Marx where he makes sense, like him less because his followers. There is absolutely no book to read about how humans created an idealistic society and we just kinda forgot about it. We're constantly striving and building for it. And yes! we all agree there should be a balance of power in society, labor has let itself die while being occupied by cheap tricks and novelties. Labor likes capitalism, you can see these mother fuckers killing themselves to own an F-350. That person is not going to change, nor are they going to operate well in your idealistic system. So you're playing the long game, an ideological game. It will happen when you stop telling people to read marx. As if a couple more million theory loving communists had the will to bring billions of people into their ill thought out society. Long game man its going to take generations and all you can really do is lead by example and build the steps.
You mostly just described serfdom.
yes capitalism ALSO requires oversight and competition, not just ownership of the means of production. otherwise its mob rule. We have neither, ergo it's not capitalism.
ive read plenty of books and not all are reliable.
This is an idealist understanding of what capitalism ought to be, not what it is. This different view is the reason for the contention between us. Most leftists will see capitalism for what it is, not the pipe dream sold to the masses to justify the exploitation of them.
In marxist terms, the lack of oversight and competition is an inherent trait, a contradiction, within capitalism. The solutions anyone can present are faulty remedies that do not solve the underlying issue at play, which is the property relations with regard to labour.
What strikes me is the presence of corporate bailout and subsidies with tax dollars and the pre eminence of nepotism, while at the same time the public faces austerity. How can this be said to be Capitalism?
True Capitalism would allow these obsolete systems to fail and new ones would replace them (laissez faire). This would also include investing tax dollars into education, healthcare and infrastructure projects, including robust economic oversight (Strong and independent FBI and SEC).
I do not believe the current system is Capitalistic, not since at least 2008, sooner if you include military intervention as a form of subsidy.
i believe ours is a difference of opinion.
What you refer to as true capitalism, I am arguing is an idealist view. Idealist in this sense means not part of nor representing material reality. Marxists will claim the ideal form to not only not be present right now, but impossible to achieve due to the mechanics of capitalism itself.
We look at the process of capital accumulation through extraction of surplus labour power as self reinforcing. That means also that the contradictions within the system will reinforce unil reaching a break point.
As an example one could look at how capital consolidation leads to monopolies, how workers are impoverished to the point of not being able to buy the product of their own labour, or how the development of productionary forces lead to the developers, i.e. labourers, manufacture their own replacements.
These are the internal byproducts of capitalist mode of production itself. I have not even touched on the external contradictions happening through imperialism.
To make an analogy: If anyone were to claim that a drug was not actually medicine because it had negative side effects, we might both agree they were wrong. In my view, in the case of your idealist and my materialist view of capitalism, we disagree on the cause and effect in a similar manner.


top 96 comments