• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No guarantees, just overwhelming historic precedent, and common sense conjecture.

      No guarantees though, because unions are too weak and pathetic to provide the same unequivocal guarantees that we expect in every other aspect of our lives.

    • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well yeah, without unions you are guaranteed to be paid less, less benefits and more restrictive rules.

      With unions there’s a negotiation.

    • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the same way that your lease doesn’t “guarantee” that your landlord will fix the leaking kitchen sink, this is technically true. Which is how they get away with spreading this nonsense.

      Nevermind that having that legal contract gives you the only leverage you could possibly hope to have when you take the landlord to court. Same leverage that a union contract gives you over the corporation you work for.

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here in Sweden we have a tenants union. If your landlord is being obstinate, submitting a form with the tenants union’s logo on it as well as a case number will generally get the landlord’s arse in gear. Should that fail, the union will provide legal counsel and even representation, free of charge.

        I pay $7USD a month to be part of the tenant union, and $20USD a month for my workers union.

        My previous landlord was scum, and I made ample use of the tenant union in that period. At one point my landlord reimbursed me $950, in addition to finally getting around and fixing various issues they had to fix. I definitely feel like I’ve gotten my money’s worth from it.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Swedes are lucky to have such effective systems for protecting the population.

          Now, if you really became organized, then landlords would no longer exist.

          • Dojan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Gods I wish.

            I don’t mind the public landlords that much, since they’re publicly owned and funded, the goal is to provide housing, not profits. However, in the past few decades a lot of it has been privatised. To get a contract with a public landlord can take literal decades of queuing. The up-side of public housing though is that the rent tends to be lower than private contracts. In my last area my contract cost 10500 a month, whereas the public housing of same quality in the same area went in the ballpark of 7000-7800 a month.

            Thus you end up in scenarios like mine; I make enough to be able to afford a mortgage, but since I still need someplace to live I have to rent from a private landlord, meaning I get inflated rents, meaning I have less money left over for the by law required down payment for a mortgage.

            That law, as far as I know, wasn’t a thing before the bubble popped back in the mid/late 00s, and now the bar for owning a home is much higher so the younger generations can’t reach it as easily. Having a supporting family helps of course, but those of us that lack that privilege are shit out of luck. If you want to buy an apartment or a house you’ll also be competing against flippers and wannabe hotels that buy it for AirBNB. It’s all honestly just a load of bullshit.

            We could use another million programme. Boggles the mind to think that the boomers got money handed to them from the government, just so they could build houses. Yet we’re the spoiled ones.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have understood that much of the public in Sweden is unaware of how deeply its own country has been affected by austerity and other erosion of policies that support workers. Whereas in other countries, such the US, UK, and Germany, elites have propagated the narrative that austerity is benevolent or necessary, in countries such as Sweden, they have simply denied it has been occurring.

              The populations of Nordic states are extremely proud of their systems, but seem unaware of how fragile they remain, as long as power is concentrated toward the interests of the few.

              • Dojan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I can’t speak for the nation as a whole, but I don’t agree on a personal level. The erosion of systems is felt rather keenly. It’s also not attributable to any single political coalition, rather both coalitions are guilty of it. They hamstring systems, point to them as flawed, and when time comes, they’re replaced or supplemented with private alternatives.

                Then they start over on square one again.

                What this serves to do is slowly funnel money out of the public system into private pockets. It’s working great too. We have private schools that are publicly funded. Private clinics that are publicly funded. Private elderly care that’s publicly funded.

                It’s all rubbish.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am certain the effects are felt in lived experience, but I was giving a view that much of the population is not consciously aware that the systems are being degraded in favor of elite interests.