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).
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.
Every few generations everyone seems to forget the existing social contracts exist for reason, and that reason is never the benevolence of the plutocrats.
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!
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 🤔
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
56 Comments
bigfish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 156 pts · 157d
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).
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 71 pts · 157d
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.
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz · 39 pts · 157d
Union is underselling their mafia racket.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 157d
Its a big gang, and youre not in it.
ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -12 pts · 157d
Mongostein@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 157d
No one has replied to this comment, yet you’ve edited it as though you’re having multiple conversations.
Are you ok?
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 156d
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.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 156d
We can only wish teachers unions were as powerful as police unions. The world would be very different
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 114 pts · 157d
Unions were the compromise between violence against the capital from the working class.
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social · 21 pts · 156d
Every few generations everyone seems to forget the existing social contracts exist for reason, and that reason is never the benevolence of the plutocrats.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 157d
Too bad companies spent decades demoting and crushing them. Paid money for it, even.
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 156d
The same Pinkertons that were hired over a century ago to bust unions, are still around today for a reason.
Chee_Koala@lemmy.world · 61 pts · 157d
Beacon@fedia.io · 56 pts · 157d
More like "Old school problems require old school solutions"
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 157d
✊
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 157d
Wooden shoes are so uncomfortable though
nocturne@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 157d
Toss em in something with gears to make them more comfortable.
hperrin@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 157d
Not a modern problem. Not a modern solution. Fuck Dave Chappelle.
Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 45 pts · 156d
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!
sober_monk@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 156d
FTFY.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 43 pts · 157d
Actually it's only a warehouse if it comes from the warehouse region of France. Anything else is just a "storage shed"
Stitch0815@feddit.org · 13 pts · 157d
sparkling storage shed
harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 34 pts · 157d
That's right, kids: try it at work!
hperrin@lemmy.ca · 30 pts · 157d
Hypothetically, I really hope this happens. Hypothetically, like once a week for the next year.
lena@gregtech.eu · 29 pts · 157d
Yeah! Try it at a factory
thenextguy@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 157d
If they used to be houses, then they are were-houses.
If it used to be a house, then it's a was-house.
inari@piefed.zip · 17 pts · 157d
Usually what the owner class does is push for tougher laws instead
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 14 pts · 157d
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 🤔
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 157d
So they run without insurance, lobby to mitigate their liability and the conditions of workplaces plummets.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 7 pts · 157d
Oh no how unfortunate.
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 6 pts · 156d
Finally, a sensible market solution /s
x0x7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 156d
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.
Headofthebored@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 153d
Warehouses can burn whether they have robots in them or not lmao
VAK@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 157d
The ESG that the right deserves
Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 156d
you'd be replaced with robots even sooner
DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 156d
I it seriously got to that point those robots would have to be fireproof.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 157d
Burn baby burn. Disco inferno! Burn baby burn!
IHeartBadCode@fedia.io · -14 pts · 157d
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.
rainwall@piefed.social · 29 pts · 157d
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.
Protoknuckles@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 157d
You can burn down an automated warehouse too.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 157d
"Hence the word...'sabotage.'"
(Note: this probably isn't true)
smeenz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 157d
History is replete with turning points....
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 156d
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.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 157d
For 200 years, workers have been told that automation will make their lives better...
Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org · 3 pts · 157d
If they could, they'd already have.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 156d
There's plenty of technology that could be, but isn't yet because the incentives aren't there.
If we turned all this wasted ingenuity towards the betterment of humankind, then everything could get much better very quickly.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 156d
Depending on which oligarch you believe, we’re just about there. General purpose humanoid robots are almost ready to take over warehouse work
Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org · 3 pts · 156d
I am sure they are as almost ready as the swasticar autopilot
MBech@feddit.dk · 2 pts · 157d
So better be a slave than unemployed?
1dalm@lemmy.today · -40 pts · 157d
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.
village604@adultswim.fan · 38 pts · 157d
What are you smoking? Insurance pays for damage caused by criminal activities
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 35 pts · 157d
This is only the case when one intentionally burns down their own property.
Zikeji@programming.dev · 34 pts · 157d
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.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 157d
New armchair expert topic just dropped
1dalm@lemmy.today · -13 pts · 157d
Yeah have someone burn down your house and then file an insurance claim.
See how that goes for you.
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 157d
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.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 156d
Am now millionaire, thanks for the advice