At any moment some change outside my control could occur and my place in society would change. Right now I'm pretty self sufficient and don't really need the support of others in day to day life, but that can change, and there's nothing I can do about it. Seems like a good idea to use this opportunity to try and improve things for everyone, even if you don't care about others, just in case your place in society changes. (I actually think it's neat if we try to improve things for everyone for everyone's sake tbh but I get there are people that do not have such empathy)
In Western Europe workers are very protected so unless you are in a low end job or specific public sector job and might gain from collective wage bargaining there is often little actual benefits in being in a union, taking into account that membership isn't free.
The fact that unions played a big role in the past does not imply that they are as important now because of the changes in legal protection, types of jobs, and society.
If you believe the legal protections in place as a direct result of the labour movement (of which Unions are just one part) will remain in place in the face of constant well funded opposition by Capital then I have a case study for you in the UK, we call them Zero Hours Contracts.
Zero hours contracts were never banned in the UK and in fact have been restricted over the years and debate is still ongoing on whether to ban them altogether.
We have diverged significantly from my original point...
Another UK example, you effectively have very limited rights until you’ve worked for a company for 2 years. Before then they can fire you for any reason they care to.
Those legal protections are easily eroded without unions.
Just look at Finland. Here, the current government first made it illegal for unions to strike when the government takes action to weaken employment law, and then they significantly weakened employment law.
The only protection left is collective bargaining agreements, which can still uphold some of the old legal protections through contract law.
This was also only possible after decades of work by industry lobby groups to significantly weaken unions by targeting them with tax code changes, splitting up unemployment funds from unions (with the employers then founding their own unemployment fund, so that union membership is drained).
Unions are the only defense that workers have. If there are no unions, the employer can have their pick among desperate job seekers, and give them the lowest wage they can live on.
> Unions are the only defense that workers have. If there are no unions, the employer can have their pick among desperate job seekers, and give them the lowest wage they can live on.
The major other defense is competition. If there were infinitely many workers then unions would be useless to begin with, because employers would just let them walk out and hire someone else.
Individuals can likewise use the fact that labor is finite to make employers offer more by credibly threatening to work somewhere else. This is trivially shown by all the people who make an above-median wage despite not being in a union.
You do, however, need competition for that, and in turn to not have laws that prop up incumbents and create barriers to entry to new companies (i.e. new prospective employers).
> Those legal protections are easily eroded without unions.
That's very clearly not true based on the situation in Western Europe, in fact legal rights tend to keep increasing even when union membership is decreasing (e.g. UK, France).
As said, jobs and society as a whole have evolved and noone can be elected in government by promising to take away important protections, what they can be elected on is promising to curb union power but that the unions' fault when they abuse striking action.
My understanding is that workers are extremely well protected in Finland and what's happened is only some restrictions on political and solidarity strikes.
Edit: Unions are not the only defense that workers have. We have democracy with all sides represented and nowadays (in Europe at least) more is done through elections than through unions. That's why I said that society had changed compared to the early days of the labour movement.
Facts-aren't-True people make up a truth they like and then any inconvenient facts can be disregarded because facts-aren't-true.
It's a really popular ideology - it doesn't have any actual successes but since its followers don't believe facts are true the fact it's a dead end doesn't matter to them.
Paying into the legal pot makes sense, as does paying into a medical pot. But its not clear to me that mixing politics and unions is a good idea, especially as their typical support base have politically drifted from them.
I'm a director of my small company, and a member of UTAW. The union doesn't just help with employment disputes but also campaigns generally on improving working conditions for all, through things like health and safety and setting reasonable expectations for how work will be done.
When I read this through 25 years ago I learned more about networking than I think I knew in total up until that point, and that was nearing the end of an A level (English further education) Computing course. It's a really comprehensive guide that laid it out exactly the way I needed it for me to absorb it. I still recommend it to people that might be new to network programming as the sockets API really doesn't change that much whether you're using C or Python or some other language.
It's pretty upsetting that we've got India's UPI and China's UPI (UnionPay International) and they're both doing exactly the same thing and without geographical context you don't know which one it is.
That's nonsense. There are somewhere between 2 and 8 million users of Tor every day. The vast majority of Tor users are ordinary people that want a little more privacy. What a waste of resources it would be to try to identify and track each of them.
Yeah I'd like to think that too, but the article mentions in its first paragraph that this aid was announced by the 'Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian.'
So in this case it doesn't seem like they're different.
I know the title is the title on the actual article, but it's the Chinese Red Cross, not China itself. National Red Cross Societies are independent of the country's government. They may receive government funding but they decide what they do with the money themselves.
"The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement."
The current president of the Chinese Red Cross is currently vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and previously the Minister of Health.
Very hard to believe this is something that could happen without the CCP’s politburo approval
I think there is a distinction to be made here. It seems unlikely that the politburo would bother approving such a small item as 5m yuan (Less than a million dollar. If you see this as the action of China the country, then a million dollar is basically a symbolic gesture.). However he would not have dared do it if he thought it would have landed him consequences. He made the call that the CCP would let him get away with this.
This might or might not have been a line item in a meeting for the politburo, but it would have come across their desk in one way or another. Maybe in a form of item in a list for a bigger strategy (authorize those 10000 organizations to support Ukraine etc.). The foreign ministry spokeman is the one who announced it after all
I don't think you understand how detail oriented they are. Even things as small as international student nights get cancelled at Chinese universities because any form of organization might lead to potential opposition. They simply try to oppose any form of organizing.
Same here. China won't even allow local western politicians to meet with a local Taiwenese politician (yes they have such influence, Amsterdam Politicians are not allowed to be on photo with Taiwenese politicians). 100% sure they care about the actions of such a prestigious institute as the Chinese Red cross.
That reinforces the parent's point. If such a large gesture was approved, then it reflects the position of "China". Alternatively, it reflects that a single official thinks they can get away with it, which means someone in China thinks "China" is not against it.
Or the unfortunate larger truth, that China doesn't care.
Maybe they'll give the speeches. Lament the tragic loss of human life. Say whatever polite society expects them to say. But they really don't care when it comes down to it.
Someone tried to tell me that a long time ago about a potential war between Iran and Israel. China would make the speeches. Show up at all the meetings. But they really wouldn't care.
It wouldn't be a cultural misunderstanding leading it to appear to us that they don't care.
It wouldn't be a feigned indifference they act out to gain some negotiating advantage in some other area.
They Truly. Wouldn't. Care.
They may participate in memorial ceremonies. Perhaps contribute to the reconstruction of affected nations. But for the most part, yeah, they'll just keep marching off to Africa and extracting resources to build China.
In essence, maybe they're like us in the West, but with less pretense.
People think because China and Russia are both opposed to the USA, then they must be friends. They are not. Especially not if Russia tries to revive the Soviet Union as a concept which hurts China's independence worse than US-type globalism.
> I know the title is the title on the actual article, but it's the Chinese Red Cross, not China itself. National Red Cross Societies are independent of the country's government.
The Chinese government does not tolerate independent power centers. Civil society organizations are either tiny or work extremely closely with the Party-State. The same is true of private companies. If it’s a big company it follows government directives.
> have plausible deniability with their Russian allies perhaps
Russia is China's biggest permanent enemy, with its size and ambitions, together with the fact that it is the only foreign country that still occupy lands traditionally owned by China, you'd need a bullet in the brain to believe that Russia is China's ally. It is the single largest threat to China's security & future stability.
Seeing the poor performance of Russia troops in the last two weeks offered huge comfort to many Chinese like myself - a weak Russia & an incapable Russian armed forces is a solid foundation of the peace of our generation.
No disrespect but, isn't CCP the biggest enemy of Chinese as a people in the long run. I mean even if Russia occupies China, what can it do that CCP hasn't already done.
You have 2 facts: 1. the CCP made average Chinese citizens 30x richer in 30 years. 2. somehow everybody in the West thinks CCP is bad and believes Chinese people hate their government.
These 2 facts don't match, and you should think why, maybe some propaganda is at work.
Edit: crap I forgot I'm green, which looks so bad when I make this kind of arguments.
The party controls China’s Red Cross. We were highly encouraged to donate during certain events (eg the wenchuan earthquake), to the point that it didn’t really feel optional. And their is a lot of corruption in the Chinese Red Cross that is wrapped around party officials (eg the Guo Meimei incident during the just mentioned earthquake).
It is $700,000, which in 2022 is not really a significant amount of money. Why the last time I spent that much on something it didn't make the news? I am not China?
> Why the last time I spent that much on something it didn't make the news?
Humblebrag much?
And no, you're not China, whose government is actively supporting Russia; which means that any humanitarian support flowing from China to Ukraine is news.
I'm a little surprise that this is even a news. The amount is toot small, not proportional though.
The invasion of Russia put China in a dilemma
that China can not condemn Russia but on the other hand it does not support the invasion. There are a few reasons:
1.Ukraine has a very friendly relation with China . Not only this government but also earlier ones before the war (Now it might be different). Probably because Ukraine is not ideological. It's only hostile to Russia but not China as it's a "Regime". As a comparison there's another democratic country did the other way
2.The invasion is against China's historic position in UN so not condemning Russia is already a embarrassment.
3.The invasion is against China's interest.
Just a some facts:
* The trade and exchange of student between 2 countries are quite significant.
* The first negotiation between Russia and Ukraine was after a online meeting between Xi and Putin, along with phone call between Foreign ministers of China and Ukraine. There's a speculation but as history shows China like to do things quietly because It's often a more effective way.
