That's entirely possible, and very likely. However, that does not do away with rationality completely. For some given situations, with data on the situation and a set of options, we can deduce pretty quickly what is rational to do, what is right to do, and what is in one's interest to do. This is how we (and that includes me and you) are able to criticize people on those grounds all the time. If someone is poor and has a choice between buying a stereo system and saving the money in a high-interest bank account, I doubt you'd have any problem saying that it's in their self interest to do one of those options and not the other. Economists talk about the principles of economic rationality all the time.
So yeah, you can have your own opinion. That doesn't mean that the opinion is beyond criticism, nor does it mean it's a rational thought out opinion from all points of view, considering all the facts.
> If someone is poor and has a choice between buying a stereo system and saving the money in a high-interest bank account, I doubt you'd have any problem saying that it's in their self interest to do one of those options and not the other
Curious, what would you say is better to do? I could see either one of those choices as being equally rational and justifiable. I honestly lean a little more towards the stereo. Your answer depends on your outlook in life and your interests and wants/needs in the moment. It's not so simple as objective 'data on the situation'. Furthermore, claiming that you can deduce quickly what is rational and right for someone else is a little condescending.
You mean like all those inner city women who constantly vote for gun control despite easy access to hot lead being the best way they can protect themselves from violence?
Or are we talking about the hicks that vote against government healthcare and social safety nets despite the fact that they would themselves benefit?
"Voting against their interest" is just how the ivory tower crowd derides the poor for sticking to their ideological guns even when it doesn't benefit them. The poor have opinions and beliefs and making sacrifices in the name of their beliefs does not make them stupid.
The scope of what you're considering to be their "ideological guns" is very historically recent. Before the Southern Strategy [0], the things that people typically associate with these "hicks" in rural parts of the US were not politicized; most of these hot-button ideological issues were considered to not be the domain of politics (e.g. abortion).
In fact, the people who were the first "rednecks" would most likely reject all of the fascist bootlicking that goes on for most conservatives (not that neoliberal bootlicking is better, just less prevalent; I don't see hordes of foaming-at-the-mouth Biden supporters screaming adoration about Biden with some goofy flags and apparel on the street corners, while I still see the Trump folks doing the same cult worship of their new "god"). The original rednecks were miners who violently opposed capitalist exploitation [1]. This culminated in the battle of Blair Mountain [2], in which miners living in exploitative conditions violently rebelled against the authoritarian private police (the "Pinkertons") in their attempt to form a union. This is also the first time that aerial bombardment is used on American soil (preceding Pearl Harbor).
Needless to say, I think the original "rednecks" have nothing in common with those who pretend to espouse some sort of "rural identity"; the original rednecks would not have looked to the state to force their own restrictive ideas of living on other people.
It's fine for people to have their own opinions about these things, but when these people who stick to their ideological guns do so in the face of facts (e.g. all of the cult-of-trump people who intellectually contort themselves to see him as some skilled businessman when he has a history littered with business failures, including losing money on a casino!), it's a little difficult to respect their opinions; this is especially true when their opinions are incoherent (e.g. the GOP celebrating Goya and that my pillow guy for "getting involved in politics" when it benefits them, while deriding companies looking to boycott states that plan to impose Draconian voter suppressing laws to "stay out of politics") and involve restricting the liberties of other people to comport with their own strict world view (e.g. restricting the right of other people to get same-sex married, as though that is somehow an "attack" on hetero marriage).
Ultimately it's about being able to accept new evidence and change one's mind, which I think these people who vote against their own interest (hicks or not) are not wont to do. Just as not all people in the GOP are fascists, but all fascists vote for GOP candidates, not all people towards the liberal end of the political spectrum are open to new ideas and changing their mind, but all people who are open to learning and change are on the liberal side of the political spectrum.
I live in deep deep Trump country and know a good number of the Maga hat, Trump flag flying folk. None of them “look[ed] to the state to force their own restrictive ideas of living on other people.”
I mean there are plenty of people alive today that lived through a time when interracial marriage was illegal, too [0].
Even if the path they use for their goal appears to be deregulatory, they're more than happy to call in the cavalry when that same deregulation allows actors with whom they disagree to also partake in the newfound "freedom":
* Whenever some state capitol puts up the commandments in the state house because "wE'Re a ChRiSTIaN NaTiON" under the guise of freedom of religion, then gets upset when the church of satan wants to put one of their own symbols right next to it [1]
* They were more than happy to stand on the ground of "A company is a private business and should be able to operate as it pleases" when it was about a bakery and a gay wedding cake, but now that Twitter is kicking off right-wing wackos, all of a sudden they pull a complete 180. Not to mention that this was the same mindset of the Jim Crow "separate but equal" disaster in the US's history.
I prefer indoctrination that improves people's wages and working conditions as opposed to the present anti-union indoctrination that only serves to empower bosses at workers' expense.
Is it beyond your imagination that perhaps those workers have a better idea of their own self-interest than you do? I understand that you're well intentioned but you need to consider that someone can be an informed, intelligent person of goodwill and come to a conclusion that is different than yours.
And while I don't know you, I'm gonna assume that you don't work for Amazon in Bessemer. Neither do I. So our responses to the situation might just be more about us and our baggage, than the actual facts on the ground in Alabama.
Anyone who doesn't want higher wages or better working conditions isn't defining their self-interest very rationally. And anyone who doesn't believe the union is the best way to get there is probably being persuaded by anti-union propaganda rather than sound arguments.
Perhaps if higher wages and better working conditions are the only items that define your self-interest. I suspect while those two items may be important or helpful, they are by far not the only factors that define my self interest. I have given up both willingly and much happier for it. Perhaps my happiness is not rational but it’s damn sure more important than money and whether or not I have a 1” or 2” standing mat under my feet.
Condescending is opposing giving low income people more money and better working conditions because of some abstract philosophical argument used to justify redefining self-interest in a totally bizarre way.
People in this thread are all like, "Don't tell me giving someone food is in their self-interest! What if they want to starve?"
You are framing the argument disingenuously. This isn't a simple formula where union = better. There are reasons why people don't think a union is in their self interest. Contrary to whatever you're parroting, there are actually people who have good reasons why they don't want a union--including things they have actually experienced. The fact that you can't possibly see the other side of it and can't even fathom an argument against it just shows how biased you are. The fact that you don't even think other people can make their own rational choice shows how condescending you are.
I’m pretty sure that if labor costs in Bessemer AL == Labor costs in another location, say.... Seattle? Bessemer, AL wouldn’t have the worry about the anti union indoctrination and would have to worry about starving again.
For these communities, these are well paid jobs with great benefits compared to what they would otherwise have.
Saying you don't need a union because your wages are good is like saying you don't need democracy because the king is nice to you. All that can change very quickly, and when it does, you're going to want the power that collective bargaining gives you in those negotiations.
Not disagreeing with you - if you have a mortgage and kids keeping you somewhere and a king that will abandon you and leave you to starve if you vote for Democracy - you can die on that hill if you want to, and the King probably won’t care. He’ll move next Area over, have the same or better deal, and you and your kids will starve.
At that point the question is - why should you starve so someone else can be happy about Unions?
These issues only get solved with society wide action. The poor sap casting their single vote here can’t afford to make this call on their own, and they’re just happy their particular king is generous enough to grace them and not more abusive. Because there are a LOT of more abusive ones , and they’ve probably seen that first hand unlike most of the posters here.
Unions outside the US are "society-wide". We have per-company union organizing because of quick hacks applied to the legal system, the same way our healthcare system was created. Sectoral bargaining systems like Europe are less antagonistic and the employer has less motivation to fight against them. It can make the company more efficient since the execs don't only hear what middle management tells them.
There are a whole ton of asterisks on that kind of statement. Most European unions are at most national (which geographically is more equivalent to a specific US State than pan-EU). Many of them are regional, which is even scoped more like a city.
Conditions for a laborer in Bulgaria, Romania, and the UK are on a completely different level. This is not that dissimilar.
Things can also change when rising costs of manufacturing due to a unionized, aging, and over-paid workforce cause the company to decide to shut the factory down. It works both ways.
I'm wondering what sort of education exactly would prepare someone to decide if they should vote for a union or not. I'm assuming the would-be union would have made its case beforehand and Amazon hasnt been idle with their PR. So again, what education helps in making the decision?
Generally unionization of an organization fails when the union does not make a sound benefit case for their presence or the company already provides wages and benefits that meet or exceed the local market.
Contrary to what folks seem to think, unionization is not always a “no brainer”. Been through two orgs that went through the process, considered joining one because they presented a good case, rejected one because there was no value to the $50 the wanted to pull from my paycheck.
One of the things we discovered in the 20th century was that people do not always act rationally, even when it's in their own best interests. This cuts across political ideologies, education levels, income levels, race, religion; whatever. It's a feature of human beings.
Often when I hear that people need to be educated about some issue, what I understand the speaker to be implying is that the reason a person disagrees with them is due to ignorance, when that's often not the case. We may think we arrive at our opinions based on cold logic and inarguable facts, but in reality there are many more factors that influence all of us.
