You take the negative you bear the burden of evidence.

Correct! I asked a question, you said no, therefore you bear the burden of evidence.

I did literally none of that but ok.

You’ve made about 7 dude, why lie about what is clearly evident.

I have no idea why you would lie when it’s clearly evident that you’re wrong, both about that claim and in general. Other than that you’re a troll who lies as easily as they breathe.

Look it up, is like 8% of college graduates in unions.

Oh really? Where did you find that number? How deep in there was it, and did you wash your hands afterwards?

I’ve provided it several times at this point

No you haven’t. What you’ve done is provide random links that don’t provide the relevant information and lied claiming that they do, repeatedly.

which you’ve actually admitted multiple times at this point

No, I definitely haven’t. I’ve been abundantly clear, extremely consistently, that you’re lying and that the links don’t contain the relevant evidence.

stop with the crybaby affectation.

At no point have I exhibited a “crybaby affectation.” What I’ve done is correctly called you out for being a liar and a troll, while you lob a bunch of random, baseless accusations out of completely unnecessary hostility provoked entirely by the fact that you have a grudge against my instance.

Maybe not, rest assured if it were anyone else I would just provide the pdf but you, no no trolls gotta do their own work.

Mhm.

Jesus Christ stop crying about that single pdf.

I made literally one single comment addressing the contents of the pdf, after reading it as you asked, and finding that you were, like with every other “source” you’d provided, lying about what it said.

You’ve been offered more than a dozen

I have been offered 4 links, none of which contained the relevant information, despite you lying and claiming that they did each time.

but you can’t stop crying about that one single page that says something in a way you in particular don’t understand.

Again, one comment saying I couldn’t access it, and one comment after accessing it and reading it addressing the contents. You are clearly trolling and being randomly hostile for no reason. If I didn’t address it, you’d attack me for ignoring it instead.

I’ll take your inability to provide the information (which you claim is trivially easy to find) as further confirmation of my position.

It’s hilarious for you to accuse me of “obstinate” or “ignorance.” You’ve provided zero evidence of anything you’ve claimed and randomly choose to start fighting and insulting me for literally no reason except that I have an .ml in my username.

You could’ve used any of the resources you mentioned to accesses the relevant statistics. Your laziness or inability to do research isn’t my concern, I’m not your teacher. You apparently can’t or didn’t want to find the information and instead want everyone to do the leg work for you so all you have to do is find some increasingly idiotic reason to say “Nuh uh” and provide no counter evidence.

Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it’s not a negotiation, and “why wouldn’t the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut” is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn’t know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn’t know how bargaining worked.

But that’s not how bargaining works. What unions are able to negotiate is a function of how large, powerful, and organized they are. Rejecting what the company offers can mean going on strike, and if they aren’t powerful enough for that to be a credible threat (because people left the union for higher pay rates), then that means they have very little power to negotiate or say no to what’s offered.

So it’s more like, you don’t understand how bargaining works, so you jumped to the completely absurd conclusion that I didn’t know unions negotiated contracts? What?

Learn to use the Internet and cry less.

Yes, I’m sure everyone understood that when you posted the link, it needed to be copy-pasted into google, since that’s what everyone does with links. You know you can just say things without hurling random insults, right?

The pdf breaks it down by race, age, gender, full-time vs part-time, and by state - but notably, not by education level. Which you would know if you actually read it before posting.

The answer is no.

Then provide literally any single source that actually says that.

I didn’t at first, then I went back and did.

How do you think I got screenshots of the page without visiting the page, exactly? Please tell me, I’m fascinated to hear your explanation.

It does break it down by student but sure, try that plus math instead. I know you won’t but at least you have less to cry about.

No, it doesn’t.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjd7PT3hZeMAxW97skDHWKZNKkQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0HaIZ1pdWDSMkqF6FkilVr

Dead link.

Compared to people without higher educations, yes, they are more likely to end up in a union. Most career paths, whether they require a degree or not, are not unionized.

Why don’t you call Nina Turner, she’ll tell you I’m right and you’re full of shit. Might be more polite about it.

Do you love Adolf Hitler? Talk about edits instead of answering if yes, otherwise say no.

You’re lying (as always), and also haven’t read it yourself. I know, because I did read it, and it doesn’t contain the information you claim it does.

You could prove that I’m wrong/lying (for the first time this conversation, compared to the many times I’ve proved the same of you) by simply linking the part where it says it.

Smart of you to find something with more text than last time so I can’t demonstrate that you’re lying with screenshots, you’re getting so much better at bad faith trolling and gish galloping.

Unions loosing membership causing them to be weaker in negotiations is entirely irrelevant to why companies don’t just lower union pay outside of negotiations.

OK, here’s the source of the confusion.

What the fuck did I say that made anyone think I was talking about cutting union pay outside of negotiations? Literally where is anyone getting this from??

There’s no faster way to get downvoted than to complain about being downvoted, particularly if you’re weirdly smug about it.

Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.

Thank you, this is exactly what I said, but since you don’t have a .ml next to your name people might not just randomly attack you over it.

You edited your comment to add demographic information of any kind for the first time, however, that document does not break down union membership demographics by college education, so it is completely irrelevant to the point being discussed.

Moreover, even if the majority of members in a union, or even in unions in general, are not college educated, that’s still not the claim being discussed. The question is whether college educated people are more likely to belong to a union than non-college educated people are. Since there are more people without college educations, most unions are probably primarily people without college educations, despite people with college educations being overrepresented relative to their size in the general population.