antiwork started off good but quickly went downhill.

I abandoned it some time ago because it is now a "pro-union eco-chamber".

I once advocated serious changes to the labour laws are what is needed, and was inundated with "join a union" posts.

It really speaks to just how out-of-touch these people are.

Unions only care about large corporations because they can get a lot of members and union dues. The issue with this logic is that small businesses are often totally out of the unions reach and laws benefit EVERYONE. The other issue they overlook is Union contracts only apply to those in the union and can change greatly from one union to the next.

I'm not unionized (I cannot because none of them are purely work focused here and I deeply disagree with their other views), but here is an observation from Norway, 20 years ago:

AFAIK, unionized companies in Norway statistically were more profitable than ununionized ones.

This might of course be because it is more tempting to unionize when there is a lot of money to be had, but I remember one extra detail:

In between (friendly) ribbing I also remember the union people here being focused on working efficient so that our bonus would increase :-)

> I once advocated serious changes to the labour laws are what is needed, and was inundated with "join a union" posts.

Strong unions are the way to get changes in labor laws and how to get collective action.

If we could all just magically come together without any organizational structure in order to effect change in the government and laws we would have already gotten it done.

There isn't a way out that doesn't involve organized collective action and something that looks very much like unions. Individualism doesn't work to effect the kinds of changes that are necessary.

People were inundating you telling you that you needed a Union because what you want is a magical pony, and unfortunately you're the one that is out-of-touch (although in another sense you're not at all out-of-touch since most people believe that there simply MUST be some way to effect change without collective action--which continues to fail but nobody will give up on the dream).

You want everyone to join in unison for a collective effort to change the laws for everyone, right?

I just don’t get why you wouldn’t choose someone a little… brighter to represent you.

IIRC most users and moderators or /r/antiwork were opposed to anyone doing interviews on behalf of them. The person who did just unilaterally decided to do it anyway.

I did not take a position on unions one way or the other on my post there.

As i said, i just found it shocking that "join a union" was their only response.

Labour laws impact everyone, union contracts don't.

Unions have bloc power to influence laws.

I think part of the issue is that it had its reputation destroyed destroyed almost as quickly as it was built. It was fascinating to watch it unfold.

I do not believe for one second that the person selected for this interview was a good representative for the cause ( although I am sure there are some goofballs, who can't seem to present a coherent case even on hostile territory that is Fox News ). I did not follow story that closely, but I believe the person that took the interview got serious blowback from its reddit friends.

The sad thing is a lot of people will form their entire opinion of it based on this one interview. To me it is OWS all over again ( I do not count BLM as that since it had Democrat political machine, and later business machine, backing ).