Remember, kids: don't try this at home!

all 51 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 155 points 7 months ago (6 children)

It's like the best way to prevent police brutality and murder: simply make them individually liable for damages and require them to carry insurance for it. Bad actions make you uninsurable, and the rest of your department more risky (expensive).

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Ironically the reason we have this problem is because the armed guards of capital are one of the only jobs that still have strong unions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago*

    Most government employees are not elected. Needing the entire state to vote on a ballot initiative to get a raise would make it even harder than it already is for teachers...

    This comment was made after the half dozen edits you made clarifying to no one.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 109 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Unions were the compromise between violence against the capital from the working class.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 7 months ago

    Actually it's only a warehouse if it comes from the warehouse region of France. Anything else is just a "storage shed"

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago

    That's right, kids: try it at work!

  • source
  • [–] 59 points 7 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 54 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    More like "Old school problems require old school solutions"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago

    Remember, kids: don't try this at home!

    Yeah! Try it at a factory

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago

    If they used to be houses, then they are were-houses.

    If it used to be a house, then it's a was-house.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I’ve said that on Reddit and people got mad at me.

    A single warehouse burning because of low wages is like a single healthcare CEO getting shot: Funny to read about, but ultimately not going to change much.

    Turn it into a monthly thing, and it becomes a revolutionary act that will change things!

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

    Usually what the owner class does is push for tougher laws instead

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago

    Hypothetically, I really hope this happens. Hypothetically, like once a week for the next year.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds perfectly feasible to me. So insurance companies simply choose to not treat low wages as a risk factor. I wonder why 🤔

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    Oh no how unfortunate.

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

    Finally, a sensible market solution /s

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Right. A more likely one is that having staff in a building at all are a liability and so all these warehouses are moving to robots. There will be an oversaturation of warehouse workers vs sites still using them, and so these fires are just going to bring wages lower.

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

    The ESG that the right deserves

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    you'd be replaced with robots even sooner

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

    Burn baby burn. Disco inferno! Burn baby burn!

  • source
  • [+] -14 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    If the cost of keeping humans is higher than the cost of automating, they'll just automate the process. Or have the place ran by wire, where humans pilot lifts remotely.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago*

    There were only 8 people in that whole warehouse when it burned. It clear they already cut staff to an insanely low level. If they could have automated those 8 jobs away, they already would have.

    Stop preemptively giving up your power by assuming you have none.

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

    You can burn down an automated warehouse too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Honestly probably easier as there are less eyes. Just walk in with a clip board and say your from XYZ company and you have a contract to service the robots. If they seem hesitant at first, immediately get irate and say the contract is hourly and your technically already on the clock. In 98% of circumstances this will be your ticket in, if not try again on a different day of the week two weeks later.

    Then just leave behind some incendiary devices as your "servicing the robots" and now not only did you burn the warehouse down, they also have no clue who you even are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -36 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Ironically, arson is a felony and it's unlikely that insurers cover such events that are due to criminal acts.

    Insurers are likely not paying out anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago

    What? No. Arson usually covered on standard policies. Most likely what would happen in the scenario portrayed here is that insurance would go up and future insurance contracts would specifically exclude arson / vandalism.

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

    New armchair expert topic just dropped

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah have someone burn down your house and then file an insurance claim.

    See how that goes for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago

    If you set a fire or otherwise intentionally cause your home to be burned down, then no insurance would not cover that. However in this case it is arson committed against the owner of the property, which is absolutely covered by insurance.

  • source
  • parent