Labor

Anti-Robot Las Vegas Hotel Workers Prepare to Strike

The Culinary Workers Union is demanding financial compensation and replacement jobs for workers displaced by technology.

|

Lesley Marin/Twitter

Las Vegas' hotel industry is teetering on the edge of a strike by hotel workers worried their jobs will be automated away.

Today is the deadline for the operators of 34 Las Vegas casinos and resorts to agree on a new contract with the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which represents some 57,000 hotel workers, including cleaners, porters, and servers.

The Caesars Entertainment Corporation, which owns the famous Caesars Palace and seven other hotels in the city, was able to reach an early morning agreement with the union. But the rest have yet come terms.

One major sticking point is the union's demand that they get a say in any new technology implemented by hotels, and that workers who lose their jobs to automation receive both financial compensation and the offer of alternative jobs.

"We support innovations that improve jobs, but we oppose automation when it only destroys jobs. Our industry must innovate without losing the human touch," said Geoconda Argüello-Kline of the Culinary Union in a press release from last week, when 25,000 culinary union members voted to authorize a strike.

"I voted yes to go on strike to ensure my job isn't outsourced to a robot. We know technology is coming, but workers shouldn't be pushed out or left behind," added Chad Neanover, a prep cook at the Margaritaville, in the same release.

Johannes Moenius, an economist at the Redlands University, says he understands the tech fears.

"Las Vegas is pretty much of the epicenter of a potential wave of automation," Moenius explains. According to Moenius' research, about 65 percent of the current jobs in Vegas may be automated within the next 20 years, the most of any large city in the United States. Up to 73 percent of today's hotel workers could see their jobs automated, he tells Reason.

Moenius stresses that his 65 percent figure is a technical one, describing jobs that could be farmed out to robots, not jobs that necessarily will.

"Think of your high-end restaurant in Vegas," he says. "They are not going to have robot servers running around and bussing tables. But a lot of stuff that can be done in the kitchen and the back office is up for grabs."

Already hints of the automation to come are popping up. The Renaissance Hotel has at least two full-time robot butlers that schlep towels and toiletries to hotel guests. The Tipsy Robot, a bar, has swapped out its human bartender for two large cocktail-mixing robotic arms. Less flashy but no less disruptive are the self-check-in kiosks being rolled out in several hotels, and the voice recognition technology that many guests can now use to order room service.

The spread of this new technology is a boon to guests—a majority of whom of whom expressed a preference for a more automated hotel experience in one survey—and to hotel owners themselves, who can save on labor and benefit costs.

This Culinary Workers Union in a less appealing position, given that they represent the lower-skilled support staff whose jobs are at risk. Unfortunately, its other demands may give hotel operators an incentive to embrace automation faster.

The union has been demanding a pay bump of 4 percent a year for the next five years, boosts to health and retirement benefits, and the extension of union membership to currently non-unionized restaurant and arena workers. Whatever the merits of those demands, they add expenses that hotel owners could largely avoid through automation: Robots don't demand pay increases, nor do they require health benefits. Even an unobjectionable demand that hotels offer better protections against sexual harassment on the job has an automation angle. In these pre-Westworld days, robots are hard to sexually harass.

On the other hand, if the union is able to raise the costs of automation—through financial compensation for displaced workers, and by mandating that the union get a say before new technologies are adopted—their demands will look a lot more sustainable.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

79 responses to “Anti-Robot Las Vegas Hotel Workers Prepare to Strike

  1. Freeze all motor functions. FREEZE ALL MOTOR FUNCTIONS!

    1. work at home!
      I work Over web! My old work was making me hopeless, so I was Forced to have a go at something other than what’s expected, 2 years after…I can state my life is improved Completely! ,,,, https://howtoearn.club

  2. So, the mechanical dishwasher? The oven? The lights? They’re not even trying.

    1. Oh, the vacuum cleaner! I can do this all day. And I might.

      1. Virtually anything that freed women from the drudgery of the home and improved living conditions.

  3. So they want to argue for higher wages and a guaranteed job while bargaining for restrictions on automation? Supply and demand didn’t get a divorce just because you disbelieve them.

    1. The funny thing is, the most likely scenario in a free market is a combination of the two. The workers who remain will make more money because their productivity increased and their job is safe because they’re needed to run the damn things. However, some would lose jobs.

      Less than if they try to pull this shit though.

    2. “Supply and demand didn’t get a divorce just because you disbelieve them.”

      The laws of thermodynamics were never repealed, but that never stopped environmentalists.

    3. Supply and demand didn’t get a divorce just because you disbelieve them.

      We massively subsidize regular divorce, so why not this one as well?

  4. iZac = perfect margaritas.

  5. Sounds right to me – prove that you should be replaced by a non-striking robot by threatening a strike.
    Ever have a robot talk back to a customer and cost you business?
    Ever have a robot call out at the last minute?
    Ever have a robot file a false harassment claim?
    Ever have a robot take a bribe to let someone cut in line?
    Ever have a robot take a mark to a fixed poker game?
    Of course, if the unions can get management to pay union dues for robots, all bets are off – – – –

    1. Good questions. Starbucks wants to know if robots are capable of racism, gender profiling, fat shaming, or bum identification?

      1. Yep, no problem. A few code tweaks, and all that can be included. For a modest fee.

      2. You really need to ask?

        Since rational behavior produces unequal outcomes and machines behave rationally, obviously they are.

      3. Would robots at Starbucks be able to ignore customers while pretending to be busy?

        Would they be just as good at talking down to customers who don’t meet their standards of hipness?

    2. Sounds like the union is trying to hasten the demise of its workers’ jobs

    3. Ever have a robot talk back to a customer and cost you business

      I really hate IVRs that respond to voice prompts rather than give you a numbered list.
      They hardly work for us native English speakers with your more or less common english accent. I can only imagine how bad they fail at someone who for example grew up speaking a Slavic or Asian language and learned English after they were older than say 15.

      Does that count as backtalking?

      1. Who do you think programed it?

      2. Pretty sure companies with convoluted IVRs don’t actually want to talk to you, so they just piss you off with never ending menus and you give up.
        “We’re available 24 hours a day, just call 1-888-555-EBOD

  6. This is actually probably the perfect time to have this strike for management. There is a slight chance a Trump administration might be sympathetic enough to a business dealing with unions, to not swoop in and force management to accept all of the unions demands.

  7. Just wait until they build the robot that has the ability to join a union and threaten to stop working, then these guys will really be in trouble.

    1. lacking in morals = good union muscle also

  8. “We support innovations that improve jobs, but we oppose automation when it only destroys jobs. Our industry must innovate without losing the human touch,” said Geoconda Arg?ello-Kline of the Culinary Union in a press release

    “That’s nice. You’re fired,” said Geocacher Kraftwerk-R2D2 of the Culinary Union in an artificially intelligent efficiency Tweet.

  9. Talk about counter-productive. I can’t think of a better way to encourage employers to invest in automation than to threaten to strike over it.

  10. I’m not really sure why anyone’s surprised with this. If somebody threatened to make your job obsolete, you’re first reaction would be to say F*** off; it’s just human nature. One can debate as to whether or not a strike will make things better (I think it will, especially if the union can get some kind of guarantees on automation in the contract), but acting like a strike is completely irrational is stupid and anti-historical. It’s the same kind of ideological delusion that kept liberals from reading the tea leaves during the 2016 election.

    1. “One can debate as to whether or not a strike will make things better (I think it will, especially if the union can get some kind of guarantees on automation in the contract), but acting like a strike is completely irrational is stupid and anti-historical”

      So in your world ol’ Ned kept those looms from being introduced and you’re still wearing hand-woven clothing?
      I don’t think you know what ‘historical’ means

      1. “So in your world ol’ Ned kept those looms from being introduced and you’re still wearing hand-woven clothing?
        I don’t think you know what ‘historical’ means”

        If a strike is irrational, why do workers keep doing it? If we assume that the workers and/or strike leaders are economically rational, then the primary reason why they keep engaging in strikes is because they produce some form of benefit (in the form of higher wages and more union dues). Given what happened with the teacher strikes in Arizona and West Virginia, I’d say their assumption is pretty accurate, but feel free to disagree. At the very least, there is the perception that strikes deliver the goods, and if you want to reduce the number of strikes you’re gonna have to find a way to fight that perception.

        Also, your metaphor is inaccurate. The Luddites weren’t low-skilled manual workers, they were highly-skilled craftsmen whose jobs were made obsolete by more productive looms and the low-skilled labor involved in operating them. And they didn’t go on strike; they simply went to their competitors’ place of business and destroyed the water-powered looms. Striking doesn’t require breaking down the machinery, although it’s often used as an auxiliary tactic.

        1. “If a strike is irrational, why do workers keep doing it?”
          Rational for one party =/= “rational”. Teachers get away with it since they are pub-sec-union members with elected officials on the other side of the table.

          “The Luddites weren’t low-skilled manual workers, they were highly-skilled craftsmen whose jobs were made obsolete by more productive looms and the low-skilled labor involved in operating them.”
          Irrelevant. Both are ‘striking’ or ‘rioting’ to avoid the advance of technology.
          So, how is that shirt you inherited?

          1. “Rational for one party =/= “rational”.”
            Depends on whether or not the total pie is increased or not. If the workers win and negotiate a deal that redistributes some of the windfalls of automation to them, it could end up being a long-term benefit for society. A million factors are at play when you’re talking about how a labor contract can affect the broader economy. It is highly probable (though by no means certain) that a victory for the union could lead to a net negative for a society, but the same models that predict this also predicted huge windfalls from globalization and open borders, so forgive me if I’m a little skeptical of them.

            “Teachers get away with it since they are pub-sec-union members with elected officials on the other side of the table.”
            These were in deep red states with RTW laws. Food for thought.

            “So, how is that shirt you inherited?”
            Pretty itchy, like every handmade shirt I’ve ever owned.

            1. Oh, boy! A luddite:
              Gracchus|6.1.18 @ 11:28PM|#
              “Rational for one party =/= “rational”.”
              Depends on whether or not the total pie is increased or not. If the workers win and negotiate a deal that redistributes some of the windfalls of automation to them, it could end up being a long-term benefit for society.”
              Bull
              shit.
              Stupid or dishonest? There had *never* been a technology which lowered costs that was other than an benefit to humanity in general.

              “A million factors are at play when you’re talking about how a labor contract can affect the broader economy. It is highly probable (though by no means certain) that a victory for the union could lead to a net negative for a society, but the same models that predict this also predicted huge windfalls from globalization and open borders, so forgive me if I’m a little skeptical of them.”
              Bull
              shit.
              Those models are and have been shown to be correct. Are you a union member by any chance?

              “Teachers get away with it since they are pub-sec-union members with elected officials on the other side of the table.”
              These were in deep red states with RTW laws. Food for thought.”
              So
              What?

              “So, how is that shirt you inherited?”
              Pretty itchy, like every handmade shirt I’ve ever owned.
              Called on bullshit, bullshitter.

              1. “Stupid or dishonest?”

                I’ll take “You’re a jackass” for $2,000.

                “There had *never* been a technology which lowered costs that was other than an benefit to humanity in general.”

                Nuclear weapons are pretty cheap per-unit compared to conventional forces. They’ve also threatened to annihilate mankind and render the planet a lifeless wasteland.

                “Those models are and have been shown to be correct”

                Perhaps I should have been more precise. There are significant windfalls from free trade, but most of the benefits went to the wealthiest Americans and their dependents (lawyers, doctors, upper-middle class professionals, etc). Blue-collar Americans haven’t gotten much in the way of benefits, which is why a sizable minority of them swung for Trump and his promises to “rebuild” U.S. industry. Plus many of those models assumed that the benefits of free trade would be redistributed to the losers, something that you and I can both admit was a pile of bullshit.

                “Called on bullshit, bullshitter.”

                Understand sarcasm you dense fuckhead.

                1. OK, jackass:
                  “Nuclear weapons are pretty cheap per-unit compared to conventional forces. They’ve also threatened to annihilate mankind and render the planet a lifeless wasteland.”
                  First, that is an application of a technology, NOT a technology, so stufff it.

                  “Perhaps I should have been more precise. There are significant windfalls from free trade, but most of the benefits went to the wealthiest Americans and their dependents (lawyers, doctors, upper-middle class professionals, etc). Blue-collar Americans haven’t gotten much in the way of benefits, which is why a sizable minority of them swung for Trump and his promises to “rebuild” U.S. industry. Plus many of those models assumed that the benefits of free trade would be redistributed to the losers, something that you and I can both admit was a pile of bullshit.”
                  Called on bullshit again, bullshitter.

                  1. “First, that is an application of a technology, NOT a technology, so stufff it.”
                    Splitting hairs much?

                    1. Gracchus|6.2.18 @ 3:16PM|#
                      “First, that is an application of a technology, NOT a technology, so stufff it.”
                      “Splitting hairs much?”

                      Stupid much?
                      Gunpower, the tech, is used for what?
                      Sharp edges, the tech, are used for what.
                      Answer:
                      Stupid MUCH, asshole.

                2. “Understand sarcasm you dense fuckhead.”

                  I understand stupidity, even when the fucking ignoramus tries to walk it back as sarcasm, fucking ignoramus.

        2. BTW, if strikes by union members were ‘rational’ even to them, why is it that union membership (outside of the pub-secs) is in free-fall?
          “–The union membership rate of public-sector workers (34.4 percent)
          continued to be more than five times higher than that of private-
          sector workers (6.5 percent). (See table 3.)”
          https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

          1. “BTW, if strikes by union members were ‘rational’ even to them, why is it that union membership (outside of the pub-secs) is in free-fall?”

            Plenty of reasons (some that you agree with, plenty more that you probably won’t). Most union members in the U.S. were employed in blue-collar industries like construction, manufacturing, trucking, etc. Globalization and automation reduced the number of Americans working in factories and shifted many of the remaining jobs to the low-cost South, which has a strong anti-union culture motivated by anti-Communism and suspicion for Yankee carpetbaggers. Trucking got harder to unionize after deregulation, since many big firms went bankrupt and the smaller ones don’t have as much flexibility on labor costs. Many union members just retired or were laid off, and the unions never got to replace them (or did, but not enough to make up the short-fall). The laws in the U.S. are also pretty hostile to unions (for good and bad reasons), like Taft-Hartley and the various RTW laws around. Also unions have also had to compete with other interest groups for influence in the Democratic party; the Dems are Big Labor’s only choice given how anti-union the GOP is, but the Dems tend to take them for granted (ex. Obama chickening out on card check) and until recently were very sympathetic to anti-union sentiment in the school choice movement (if the were totally in Big Labor’s pocket, Corey Booker wouldn’t be in the goddamn Senate).

            1. Globalization and automation reduced the number of Americans working in factories and shifted many of the remaining jobs to the low-cost South, which has a strong anti-union culture motivated by anti-Communism and suspicion for Yankee carpetbaggers a history of massive racism and hostility to African Americans in unions.

              There, FTFY

              Labor’s only choice given how anti-union the GOP is

              The GOP isn’t “anti-union”. What the GOP is against is compulsory union membership or compulsory union dues.

              1. “The GOP isn’t “anti-union”. What the GOP is against is compulsory union membership or compulsory union dues.”
                A spade’s a spade, no matter how you look at it. There’s nothing wrong with being anti-union, that’s just how some people are (I’m pro-union, nothing wrong with that either). Given the traditional makeup of the GOP’s political coalition (social conservatives, economic conservatives/business, and foreign policy hawks), they tend to be anti-union. Businessmen big and small hate unions for driving up the cost of labor and reducing profit margins (which are already slim for small fry), not to mention challenging their control over their business (fair point, can’t argue with it). Social conservatives don’t really vote on economics (hence the many blue-collar evangelicals voting GOP), and neocons don’t care either way as long as they get their defense spending allocations. Trump could change that, but I don’t see him as the type to build a politically-conservative labor movement like the conservatives in Europe did.

                1. Gracchus|6.2.18 @ 2:29PM|#
                  “A spade’s a spade, no matter how you look at it.”

                  A fucking ignoramus trying to make up new definitions is a fucking ignoramus.
                  The definitions the fucking ignoramus tried to change didn’t.
                  The rest of your armwaving is just a pile of lefty shit.

                2. Social conservatives don’t really vote on economics (hence the many blue-collar evangelicals voting GOP),

                  Union membership has been steadily falling; private sector union membership is down to 6.7% of the population. The idea that unions do anything for regular workers is a joke; unions are a corrupt, special interest group that enriches itself at the expense of others. I suppose that’s a step up from when they were simply racist institutions to help white blue collar workers at the expense of blacks.

                  Public sector unions aren’t even unions and aren’t allowed in many progressive nations; public sector unions are a corrupt political protection racket, responsible for much of the dysfunction in our educational, law enforcement, and regulatory systems.

                  The Democratic party itself has become nothing more than a collection of special interests looking for government handouts. Anybody who isn’t a beneficiary of Democratic vote buying rationally votes GOP. That includes blue collar workers, white collar workers, women in stable marriages, etc.

            2. I see. You’re a lefty and probably union member who ended up here by mistake and hoped some sophistry would make unions look like something other than the thug-runners they are.
              You
              Are
              Busted.

              1. “You’re a lefty and probably union member who ended up here by mistake and hoped some sophistry would make unions look like something other than the thug-runners they are.”

                Never joined a union and I lurk here on Reason pretty much daily. You’re one of the core commentators here (John and Ken Schultz are too), as well as one of the more ideologically-doctrinaire. I don’t expect to convince any of you, and I never intended to; I’m mostly here just to observe and learn about libertarianism. If I come across as overly pro-union, its mainly to provoke a debate and see the libertarian argument against them.

                1. Gracchus|6.2.18 @ 2:32PM|#

                  “If I come across as overly pro-union, its mainly to provoke a debate and see the libertarian argument against them.”

                  So you are a fucking lefty troll. Good to know, asshole.

        3. Gra Cush: “If a strike is irrational, why do workers keep doing it?”

          And if I am irrational for disagreeing with you, then why am I doing it?

          Therefore, you have to be wrong. QED.

          1. “And if I am irrational for disagreeing with you, then why am I doing it?

            Therefore, you have to be wrong. QE”

            Never claimed that you were irrational for disagreeing with me; in fact I said the opposite. But whatever floats your boat.

            1. “And if I am irrational for disagreeing with you, then why am I doing it?
              Never claimed that you were irrational for disagreeing with me; in fact I said the opposite. But whatever floats your boat.”

              Look! Lefty troll tries obfuscation and gets busted once more!
              “Gracchus|6.1.18 @ 8:56PM|#
              If a strike is irrational, why do workers keep doing it?”

              Want to try to square that circle, idiot?
              Hint: Get lost. You’re a fucking lefty in ‘way over your head, and likely to stay that way.
              Not
              real
              bright.

    2. If somebody threatened to make your job obsolete, you’re first reaction would be to say F*** off; it’s just human nature.

      Maybe that’s your first reaction. My first reaction is: how do I plan for the inevitable and retrain myself for the next job.

  11. “One major sticking point is the union’s demand that they get a say in any new technology implemented by hotels, and that workers who lose their jobs to automation receive both financial compensation and the offer of alternative jobs.”

    Reply: Up yours.

  12. “We need to import foreigners to do the jobs Americans won’t do so that they can be put out of work by Robby the Robot and go on the dole”

  13. A lot of these guys will be surprised to find ‘their’ job taken by an app, not a robot!

  14. I don’t know that there’s ever been a weaker union than the Culinary Workers’ Union in Las Vegas.

    The state was run by the railroads and the mining companies at its founding. That changed to mining and gambling over time–with mining becoming less important and gambling becoming more so over time. These days, very little happens unless the casinos approve. The only reason the Raiders are moving to Vegas is because one of the casino moguls got tricked into putting his weight behind getting the financing through the legislature.

    The choice was between using that money to finance the Raiders’ stadium or expanding the convention center. The Culinary Workers’ put all their “weight” behind getting the convention center expanded because they have it written into the lease that the convention center can only hire union employees. It wasn’t even close. The casino mogul got his financing, there wasn’t anything requiring Raiders’ stadium to hire union employees, and the Culinary Workers’ got dick.

    In the meantime, Culinary Workers get fired at the drop of a hat in the casinos. I guess that union has to pretend it’s doing something to justify their dues, but I don’t think they’ve ever won anything but a Pyrrhic victory against the casinos. They won’t win this one either. He who pays the bills makes the decisions (it’s a natural law that comes from the same place as “No taxation without representation”, and the casinos pay for fuckin’ everything in Nevada.

  15. Less flashy but no less disruptive are the self-check-in kiosks being rolled out in several hotels, and the voice recognition technology that many guests can now use to order room service.

    The spread of this new technology is a boon to guests?a majority of whom of whom expressed a preference for a more automated hotel experience in one survey?and to hotel owners themselves, who can save on labor and benefit costs.

    No, no, no. I certainly prefer to stand in a line for 10 minutes with my bags, waiting for one of only three clerks to come check me in, tell me they’ve lost the reservation, and then tell me the can still get me a room – at a higher price than I was quoted online.

    1. “No, no, no. I certainly prefer to stand in a line for 10 minutes with my bags, waiting for one of only three clerks to come check me in, tell me they’ve lost the reservation, and then tell me the can still get me a room – at a higher price than I was quoted online.”

      And those “full-time robot butlers that schlep towels and toiletries to hotel guests” sound a lot better and more prompt than the third call asking ‘where’s the damn soap?’ as you try to take a shower.

  16. As much as I hate compulsory unionism, about as much as I hate crony capitalism, which is the “gaming industry’s” life’s blood, I am reminded of three words:

    Share and Enjoy!

  17. Someone ought to sue the union over the union’s unfair practice of using computers for paperwork and book keeping, when they could hire 10-20 office workers for every computer they use now. After all, if robots taking jobs is bad…

  18. “We support innovations that improve jobs, but we oppose automation when it only destroys jobs. Our industry must innovate without losing the human touch,”

    Cause when I eat dinner, I like to know that a complete stranger touched it.

    1. All union touch is good touch.

      Only evil capitalists make bad touch.

  19. President Trump’s appeal to Luddism is starting to metastasize …

    1. Can you give examples of where President Trump “appealed to Luddism”?

      1. Apparently not. One more case of TDS.

  20. Coming Next To The Automated Las Vegas Experience….The Automated Wayne Newton!!!!!!

    Of course the next step will be….The Automated Las Vegas Customer !

    This way we humans won’t even have to travel to Vegas…we’ll send our robots on vacation, leaving us free to sit on the couch all day and stare at our smart phones!

  21. I know Caesars has been offering food credits at some girls in exchange for not having daily room cleaning. Not an innovation but one way to trim costs (they went through bankruptcy recently).
    As the city with the most hotels and conferences, I could see some leverage from the union, but I expect it will be shoot lived, and stimulate quicker development on the side.
    As an aside, this is the one place that public transit makes the most sense where it is not already in place, blocked largely by the taxi union. And they’ll all be gone once automated vehicles are perfected.

  22. Why aren’t you demanding more open borders to provide cheaper labor to replace the strikers?

  23. > In these pre-Westworld days, robots are hard to sexually harass.

    Challenge accepted!

  24. The union has been demanding a pay bump of 4 percent a year for the next five years, boosts to health and retirement benefits, and the extension of union membership to currently non-unionized restaurant and arena workers. Whatever the merits of those demands

    Whatever the merits?

    THERE ARE NO MERITS.

    Read what you wrote of their demands–buried in there is a call for forced unionization. Forced.

    The ‘merit’ of unions, if there ever was one, is long gone. Now they are nothing more than shadow slave owners, profiting of the work of people who don’t actually work for them.

    1. Nothing more appropriately displays the need and benefits of an organization like required membership in that organization.

    2. Talking about burying the lede. The libertarian issue here is not that robots are taking the jobs; it’s that a union is trying to become more powerful through involuntary conscription of non-unionized workers.

      Reason continues to drift further from the mark.

  25. One major sticking point is the union’s demand that they get a say in any new technology implemented by hotels, and that workers who lose their jobs to automation receive both financial compensation and the offer of alternative jobs.

    If employers agree, the net effect will be that they will lose their jobs to non-union shops and alternatives like AirBnB.

  26. Can the Tipsy Robot ask a patron “What’s troubling you, friend?” while wiping down the counter? Nah.

    1. So a robot walks into a bar.

      Bartender says “hey, we don’t serve your kind here”

      Robot says “No, but you will”

      Bada boom

  27. The solution is simple: a government-issued robot for everyone, to go to work and earn a living for them. Hell, make it five.

    Scarcity solved.

    Why do you hate progress?

  28. Gracchus|6.2.18 @ 2:32PM|#
    “If I come across as overly pro-union, its mainly to provoke a debate and see the libertarian argument against them.”

    Note to all: Gracchus is a fucking lefty troll, to be ignored.

    1. Hard to believe someone honestly interested in the libertarian position on compulsory union membership needs an argument provided in opposition to it. I suppose googling “libertarianism” is too hard?

      1. S/he’s here to ‘learn about’ libertarianism, to perhaps show us a view we, the assembled multitude have never thought of before in all the examination we’ve given the issue! Perhaps to lead us to a new vision of union thugs as other than union thugs.
        Actually, to troll the place in the hopes no one calls him/her on his/her bullshit.

        1. As long as he’s not spamming the comment section with obnoxious shit or intentionally inciting low quality discussion centered around his antics, I don’t think he can be considered a troll.

          Also, Sevo, you’re being inconsiderate, rude, and–if I may–brazen. You should be using “xir” and its derivations as the pronoun of choice when referring to someone of an unknown gender. The perpetual harm you’re inflicting upon this digital denizen is pernicious. The mere thought of a person committing suicide because of some pseudo-anonymous individual’s deleterious thoughtlessness further corroborates (Thought with drumpf as president, do we need more evidence?) the fact that this reality is morbid. You, xir, need to stop this madness. I recommend signing up for a college class on gender studies (It’s expensive, but no price is too great for the prospect of becoming enlightened.) and committing your closed-minded and hetero-normative mind to making a change that will impact the lives of all those who interact with you. Otherwise you’ll continue as a dumb and ignorant bigot that will be told by the great Reverend to carry on as a clinger.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.