[RD] Berkeley Riots

[zxcvbob]

Are you serious? Nobody forced them to participate. This hardly qualifies as "exploitation." Do you even know what the term means?

Given the harsh response in the community, I suspect the restaurant may rethink the firings.

Yes I'm serious. Nobody forced them to participate, but do you think they (the immigrants who didn't show up for work) all thought of this on their own? No, some coastal liberal elite (borrowing your phrase) community organizer who has nothing to lose here encouraged them to do it.

PS, i subvocalize all your posts in Moe Szyslak's voice.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you actually know who organised the protest, or are you just assuming it was a liberal coastal et cetera because there's reds under your bed?

 

[caketastydelish]

'coastal liberal elites' How would you like some of this warm Seattle coffee poured up your cold Minnesota ass

 

[metalhead]

Yes I'm serious. Nobody forced them to participate, but do you think they (the immigrants who didn't show up for work) all thought of this on their own? No, some coastal liberal elite (borrowing your phrase) community organizer who has nothing to lose here encouraged them to do it.

PS, i subvocalize all your posts in Moe Szyslak's voice.

As you should!

The protest in question was nationwide. The workers who protested knew full well they ran the risk of being fired, even though they probably didn't think it was a likely outcome. Encouraged or not, the people who didn't show up for work had the agency to decide on their own to do it, and accept the repercussions at work. They probably surmise they will find other employment in other kitchens or other work from people who hear their story, and their a-hole boss will be outed as an a-hole.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If there's an English literature class and they're studying the Faerie Queen and students are triggered by the rape in the book are they supposed to be given an alternate text?

Ha! Or, Syllabus for Renaissance Literature
Tue, Feb 14: Faerie Queene 3.12 (Trigger warning: excoriation)

 

[Farm Boy]

Far be it for me to judge CTD, but if you're to that point you may need to revisit your caffiene intake.

 

[NovaKart]

It seems a bit strange to me that a cafe is able to fire that many workers at a time. They must be confident they can quickly find other people.

 

[Farm Boy]

Having workers that don't call in can be worse than not having them. You can't let your other employees know they'll be getting overtime and plan someone to watch their kids/siblings/deal with classes, you can't budget properly, etc.

 

[Bamspeedy]

It seems a bit strange to me that a cafe is able to fire that many workers at a time. They must be confident they can quickly find other people.

Or it knows it can re-hire most of those people it just fired, perhaps even at a lower pay. I would say it also has them lose their benefits, or time before earning them is reset, but a local bar and grill is unlikely to offer any such benefits.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes I'm serious. Nobody forced them to participate, but do you think they (the immigrants who didn't show up for work) all thought of this on their own? No, some coastal liberal elite (borrowing your phrase) community organizer who has nothing to lose here encouraged them to do it.

Because... immigrants are too stupid to come up with any ideas on their own without smart educated folks to lead them?

Or... simple-minded immigrants are quite content and happy with their station in life... but for the agitation of a bunch of self-righteous liberal agitators, coming down here and stirring up the good immigrant folk, filling their heads with a bunch of uppity ideas?

 

[zxcvbob]

Because... immigrants are too stupid to come up with any ideas on their own without smart educated folks to lead them?

Or... simple-minded immigrants are quite content and happy with their station in life... but for the agitation of a bunch of self-righteous liberal agitators, coming down here and stirring up the good immigrant folk, filling their heads with a bunch of uppity ideas?

You're projecting. I'm saying the self-righteous agitators, whomever they were, did not assume any of the risk; they assigned all that to the immigrant workers.

People get fired all the time for not showing up to work; why would this case be special? If they are otherwise good workers, they shouldn't have too much trouble finding another job.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You're projecting. I'm saying the self-righteous agitators, whomever they were, did not assume any of the risk; they assigned all that to the immigrant workers.

People get fired all the time for not showing up to work; why would this case be special? If they are otherwise good workers, they shouldn't have too much trouble finding another job.

So you agree that they (the hypothetical "whoever-they-are"s behind the protests) are "self-righteous" and you agree that they are "agitators"... then you repeat/stress that they "did not take the risk", but instead "assigned all the risk to the immigrants"... If its so clear to you that this is what happened, then why couldn't the immigrants see this? Why couldn't they figure out something that is so obvious to you?

So your point then is that the liberal elites tricked/manipulated them into doing their liberal elite bidding...right? The liberal elites fooled these immigrants into putting themselves at risk in service of the goals of the liberal elites, right? In other words, the liberal elites outsmarted them, used them because the liberal elites are smarter than them. These simple people got sold a bill of goods by the slick talking liberal elites, because they are too simple to see through the liberal tricks... right?

What am I projecting? It sounds to me like you embrace my characterization of your comment 100%.

 

[zxcvbob]

I don't think many of them are simple-minded. Anybody can be tricked or manipulated.

 

[metalhead]

Where is the trick? This brings us right back to the presumption that the immigrants weren't capable of understanding that no-call no-show at work could get them fired. I have a feeling they knew this risk when they decided to skip work. They were neither tricked nor manipulated.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Where is the trick? This brings us right back to the presumption that the immigrants weren't capable of understanding that no-call no-show at work could get them fired. I have a feeling they knew this risk when they decided to skip work. They were neither tricked nor manipulated.

Half of the fired workers were interviewed, they said they didn't think they would be fired. Whether that means they thought the risk of being fired was 1% and they took the risk thinking they would likely not be fired, but that there was still a risk; or they thought the risk was 0% and the firing came as a complete shock is not clear.

Six of the fired Hispanic immigrant workers told CNN affiliate KTUL they felt they had been unfairly terminated. They wanted to stand in solidarity with other immigrants, they said through a translator. They didn't think it would cost them their jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/us/workers-fired-day-without-immigrants/

He says he would have closed the restaurant for the day had he been told about the protest. These were all/most? of the line cooks.

"They just forgot about the 50 other people who work here," he said. "If the cooks don't show up, then servers don't have jobs, and customers can't eat."

So he's paying for the servers and dishwashers to be there, customers are waiting for their food, yet the cooks aren't showing up to cook. Better off closing for the day for 'remodeling' than to go through this.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think many of them are simple-minded. Anybody can be tricked or manipulated.

OK so to recap... You confirm that you think the protests are the result of "self-righteous agitators" who are "tricking and manipulating" the immigrants into doing something that the immigrants themselves ordinarily would not do or even come up with the idea of doing... is that right?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Half of the fired workers were interviewed, they said they didn't think they would be fired. Whether that means they thought the risk of being fired was 1% and they took the risk thinking they would likely not be fired, but that there was still a risk; or they thought the risk was 0% and the firing came as a complete shock is not clear.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/us/workers-fired-day-without-immigrants/

Now this point is a big part of why I posted the article in the first place... I feel like there is an expectation developing around protest, particularly political/institutional protest whereby the protesters and those sympathetic to the cause feel that protest should be painless, as in there should be no negative consequence whatsoever, and the point is just to "have your voice heard" to persuade change to occur... whereas the anti-protesters, those folks who are hostile or skeptical towards the cause, feel that protest should be painless, as in the protest should be pre-approved, scheduled, orderly, clean, quiet, respectful, with little or no disruption whatsoever to the lives of everybody else, and the point is... well there is no point, just have your whine and cheese, get it off your chest and then suck it up and go the hell home.

I tend to think that a view along ether of these lines misses the mark. Protests are supposed to be disruptive and uncomfortable and provoke harsh, painful responses. Everyone (in this country at least) is so in love with the image of MLK calmly walking hand in hand singing, that they just gloss over all the quite literal blood-in-the-streets that it took to get the Civil Rights Law passed.

 

[BvBPL]

Half of the fired workers were interviewed, they said they didn't think they would be fired. Whether that means they thought the risk of being fired was 1% and they took the risk thinking they would likely not be fired, but that there was still a risk; or they thought the risk was 0% and the firing came as a complete shock is not clear.

I can easily understand why an intelligent immigrant might believe her job was protected if she took a day away from the workplace to protest. The United States has significantly fewer job protections than many other nations. I can imagine a that an immigrant might believe her absence would not cause her to be fired based upon how she understands the laws and customs around termination of employment, only to find out that the rules are different in the States.

 

[Lexicus]

I tend to think that a view along ether of these lines misses the mark. Protests are supposed to be disruptive and uncomfortable and provoke harsh, painful responses. Everyone (in this country at least) is so in love with the image of MLK calmly walking hand in hand singing, that they just gloss over all the quite literal blood-in-the-streets that it took to get the Civil Rights Law passed.

I'm starting to think that the concern trolling of the form "oh well your tactics are hindering your goals by alienating people" really means "your tactics are alienating ME"

 

[Gori the Grey]

Protests are supposed to be disruptive and uncomfortable and provoke harsh, painful responses.

Particularly protests like this, which are designed precisely to demonstrate what "a day without an immigrant" would be like. What would it be like? Well, in some cases, it would be like this . . .

So he's paying for the servers and dishwashers to be there, customers are waiting for their food, yet the cooks aren't showing up to cook. Better off closing for the day for 'remodeling' than to go through this.