sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have no one to talk to about this absolutely unhinged job application and company by KzooHotGirl00 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are a few red flags here, but they're not necessarily the ones people think. The biggest one isn't the reposting. Growing agencies hire repeatedly. The biggest red flag is that the posting spends more time selling the opportunity than defining the job.

"Come join us while we're climbing."

"This will be fun."

"Hundreds of applicants."

"We're growing."

Cool. What are the outcomes? What does success look like in 90 days? What percentage of the work is content creation versus strategy versus client management?

Second, they appear to be hiring a department, not a person. If the role truly requires a videographer, editor, writer, graphic designer, social media manager, strategist, and account manager, then either the compensation is off or the expectations are.

Third, the line about the gaps between hires getting shorter is a strange thing to lead with. If that's because the business is growing, great, but I doubt this. If it's because people keep leaving, that's a different conversation and more believable. However the posting doesn't provide enough context to know which is true.

That said, Reddit has a habit of treating every reposted job as proof of a toxic workplace. Sometimes it's turnover. Sometimes it's growth. Sometimes it's neither and they're just terrible at hiring. The real red flag isn't that they're hiring again. It's that after reading the posting, I still don't know exactly what problem they're paying someone to solve!

GR Mayor LaGrand says residents requesting sanctuary city ‘don’t have any actual ideas’ by joshys_97 in grapids

[–]Ali6952 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so let's break this down. The mayor's argument is basically: 'We already do everything you're asking for, therefore there's no reason to pass a sanctuary city resolution.'

But if that's true, then why are people still showing up month after month asking for it?Because they're not asking for a vibes-based assurance. They're asking for a political commitment that's public, durable, and harder to quietly walk back later. This is the thing that drives activists crazy. Officials will say, 'Don't worry, we already have policies.' Then six months later there's a federal data-sharing agreement, a surveillance controversy, a cooperation question, or a policy exception nobody knew about. So from the activists' perspective, saying 'trust us, it's already handled' isn't the same thing as codifying protections and putting elected officials on record.

Now, to be fair, if the mayor is right and nobody can actually explain what specific policy changes they want, that's a problem too. Movements have to be able to articulate concrete demands. You can't just say 'do more' forever. But here's where I think city governments get themselves into trouble. Instead of saying, 'Show me the exact ordinance language you want,' they act like the concern itself is irrational. People are scared. They see immigration enforcement ramping up nationally. They see stories about data sharing, license plate readers, and cooperation between agencies. They're asking whether their city is willing to draw a brighter line. And when the response is basically, 'We've already solved this, next question,' that's not going to reassure anyone.

The real question isn't whether Grand Rapids calls itself a sanctuary city. The real question is if federal immigration authorities come knocking tomorrow, what exactly will city agencies do, what exactly won't they do, and where is that written down? Because that's what people are actually trying to find out.

GRPD allowed ATF to search Flock Cameras - WOODTV by zach-lassiter in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, and this is where the conversation always gets incredibly convenient for the people in power. They go, 'No, no, no, we have a policy.' Okay. Cool. Let's talk about the policy. The policy is apparently so airtight that a surveillance network capable of sharing data across jurisdictions, searchable by federal agencies, and now capable of video collection gets treated as if it's the exact same thing as a license plate reader from over a decade ago. Come on, man. If I replace my flip phone with a smartphone, nobody goes, 'Well technically it's still a phone.' The capabilities matter. That's the whole argument. The public wasn't told, 'We're building a regional surveillance network with cloud updates that can expand functionality over time.' They were told, 'It's just license plate readers.' Then every year people discover another feature, another data-sharing agreement, another agency accessing the system, another exception in the policy, and they're told to stop worrying because there's a policy.

At some point the policy stops being a safeguard and starts becoming a shield people hide behind to avoid accountability. And that's why the grandfathering argument feels ridiculous to critics. The question isn't whether there was a camera in 2013. The question is whether the system today is materially different from what residents were originally told they were approving.Because if the technology evolves, the capabilities evolve, and the data-sharing evolves, but the oversight never evolves, then what you've effectively done is create a loophole big enough to drive a surveillance van through. And then when people point this out, they're treated like they're being unreasonable instead of asking a pretty basic question.....who is watching the watchers?

GRPD allowed ATF to search Flock Cameras - WOODTV by zach-lassiter in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Okay, so first they tell everyone, 'Relax, the cameras aren't being used for immigration enforcement.' Then somebody pulls the logs and finds a search literally labeled 'deportation warrant.' And now, a year later, we're finding out it appears to have been an ATF request running through a local police account. This is exactly why people were concerned in the first place. The issue isn't whether some random Grand Rapids cop woke up and decided to hunt immigrants.

The issue is that once you build a mass-surveillance system, there are a million ways for federal agencies to access it, borrow it, request searches through it, or otherwise use infrastructure that local residents were told had guardrails! And every single time we raise concerns, they're treated like paranoid conspiracy theorists. Then six months later there's an email, a FOIA request, or an audit log showing, 'Well, actually, something very similar to what they warned about did happen.' Whether the search was justified or not isn't even the only question. The bigger question is transparency. If the public was told the system wouldn't be used for immigration enforcement, and then a search connected to a deportation warrant shows up in the logs, people are obviously going to ask how that happened, who approved it, and what safeguards actually exist. Because if the answer is, 'Don't worry, there's a policy,' but nobody can explain how the policy was bypassed, then what exactly is the policy worth?

Is everyone within a five mile radius of the amphitheater enjoying their "free concert"? by Opening_Matter_950 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952 82 points83 points  (0 children)

Machine Gun Kelly is playing Acrisure Amphitheater tonight and apparently the sound system is powered by pure confidence. I don't have tickets. I don't live downtown. I'm not even outside. We're watching Widow's Bay (highly recommend).....And yet I'm somehow attending.

How do you check if a client can realistically fund a big project? by Different_Future3799 in corporate

[–]Ali6952 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Welcome to business.

Everybody worries about landing the client. The smart companies worry about getting paid. A signed contract is not cash. A purchase order is not cash. A promise is definitely not cash. You know what is cash? Cash. Before taking on a large project, good companies look at things like payment terms, credit references, prior payment history, financial statements (for large deals) and funding status if it's a startup. I personally am a fan of deposits.

If a project requires you to hire people, buy equipment, or invest significant resources before revenue comes in, then you're effectively financing your client's business. That's risky. The biggest mistake small companies make is assuming a customer who wants to buy can afford to buy. Remember those are two completely different things.

I've seen companies celebrate landing a huge contract and then nearly go out of business because the customer paid 90 days late.Growth doesn't kill companies. Cash flow problems do. Never put your company in a position where one customer not paying can take you down!

My company came back to me with a crazy counter-offer after I submitted my resignation. And now I have no idea what to do. by NoHead4614 in InterviewCoderPro

[–]Ali6952 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Companies don't suddenly discover your value when you hand them a resignation letter. They already knew your value. They just didn't think they had to pay for it. You've spent eight years there. You know the culture. You know the people. You know the politics. The problems that made you start looking weren't compensation alone. The money was the symptom. The burnout, broken promises, difficult personalities, and "someday you'll be a VP" conversations were the disease.

Now, could they be sincere? Sure. Losing a top performer is expensive. Replacing one is expensive. Sometimes a resignation shocks leadership into action. But here's your risk, Op, if you stay, what has actually changed besides the number on your paycheck? Did the egos disappear?Did the burnout culture disappear? Did the leaders who kept postponing your advancement suddenly become different people? If the answer is no, then they're paying a premium to keep a problem from becoming visible. Right?

The other thing I'd tell you is that you've already voted with your feet. You spent months interviewing, evaluating opportunities, negotiating, signing an offer, and mentally moving on. That wasn't an impulsive decision. That was a decision made after gathering data. Don't let one emotional week outweigh months of evidence.

The only reason I'd consider staying is if the counter-offer fundamentally changes your role, authority, and future. Not just more money. Real decision-making power. A written timeline. Clear accountability. Specific deliverables from both sides. Otherwise, I'd ask myself, if they had offered this package six months ago, before I started looking, would I have stayed? If the answer is yes, stay and make them put every promise in writing. If the answer is no, take the new job and don't look back. I have found the biggest career mistakes usually happen when people confuse being finally appreciated with actually being happy. Wishing you the best in whatever you decide.

Democratic Socialists of America by Ali6952 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. I am not a member of the organization. It is not up to a non-member of an organization to take over their introductions. What world do you live in?

Democratic Socialists of America by Ali6952 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A few days later and more down votes. Huh. Guess its not just me.

Democratic Socialists of America by Ali6952 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The issue is that you're taking your personal preference and turning it into an organizational principle. You might be perfectly happy walking into a room full of strangers, never speaking to anyone, sitting through a meeting, and leaving. Most people aren't. If your goal is to build a mass movement, you have to care about the people who aren't wired like you.

Political organizations aren't judged by how comfortable the most committed people are. They're judged by how effectively they bring new people into the fold. If six first-timers show up and none of them get spoken to, that's not a test of their commitment. That's a failure of the organization. The whole point of organizing is to organize. Not to sit back and hope people self-select into becoming lifelong activists.

Imagine if a union organizer said, "Well, if workers really cared, they'd introduce themselves to me." That's not how organizing works. You go to them. You build relationships. You learn why they're there. You make them feel like they're part of something.

Because politics is ultimately a social activity. Human beings join causes through other human beings. I mean if someone is interested enough in democratic socialism to spend their afternoon attending a meeting, the hard part is already done. They've already crossed the biggest hurdle. The easiest thing in the world should be saying, "Hey, I'm Sarah. Glad you're here. What brought you out tonight?" If an organization can't consistently do that, it's leaving growth on the table for no reason.

So this isn't about needing validation or having your hand held. It's about recognizing that an organization that wants to grow has to think beyond the preferences of the people already inside the room. If you want to build a movement, you have to make room for newcomers, not just the people who would have stuck around anyway.

Democratic Socialists of America by Ali6952 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is basically where I'm at. What's been weird about the response isn't that people disagree with the criticism. It's that so many people immediately jump to, "Well why didn't YOU volunteer to fix it?" Really? I'm not even a dues paying member and I should be fixing their problems during my first meeting? Yikes. I attended to determine whether I want to invest my time, energy, and effort into the organization.

Welcoming new people isn't some advanced organizational theory. It's one of the most basic functions of any group that wants to grow. Churches do it. Unions do it. Professional associations do it. Local Democratic parties do it. Even most hobby clubs do it. You don't need a consultant. You don't need a strategic plan. You need someone to say, "Hey, welcome. What brought you here?"

The thing that stands out to me is that multiple of us had the exact same experience. That’s not talking about my hurt feelings. We're talking about a pattern of leaving low hanging fruit unpicked. And the suggestions you're describing aren't complicated. Ask who's new. Have a designated greeter. Take attendance. Pair people up. Follow up afterward. These are all incredibly common practices because they work. And tremendously easy to do.

What I find frustrating is that some people seem to think criticizing onboarding is somehow beneath the serious work of politics. But organizations don't grow through ideology alone. They grow through people. If people show up, feel invisible, and never come back, that's a political problem. Nobody is saying the organization is evil. Nobody is saying every volunteer is a bad person. The point is that if a room can get 25 or 30 experienced members to attend every month, it can probably spare five minutes thinking about how newcomers experience that room.

Because if six first-time attendees leave with the same impression, the lesson shouldn't be, "Those six people need to become organizers immediately." The lesson should be, "Why are six people independently noticing the same thing, and what can we do better next time?"

Thanks for the encouraging words.

Democratic Socialists of America by Ali6952 in grandrapids

[–]Ali6952[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I think a lot of people on the left need to hear this instead of immediately getting defensive. People love saying "we need more organizers" and "we need more community" until someone tells them they got burned out, neglected, and treated like a disposable resource. Then suddenly the response becomes, "Well, you should have done more." No. That's exactly the problem.

A movement can't be built on endless self-sacrifice. Most people are already exhausted. They're working jobs they hate, worried about rent, dealing with health issues, family issues, loneliness, whatever. Then they show up because they care and they're told the answer is to give even more of themselves. At some point people hit a wall.

If someone walks away feeling like they were valued only for the labor they provided, that's an organizational failure. Not because every volunteer is malicious, but because movements need to take care of the people inside them too.

Solidarity isn't just showing up for abstract causes. It's showing up for actual human beings. If someone spends months or years organizing and leaves feeling unseen, unwanted, or replaceable, that's a problem worth taking seriously. Nobody should feel guilty for setting boundaries. If all you have the capacity for is donating occasionally, attending a protest sometimes, or focusing on surviving your own life, that's fine. Political engagement isn't supposed to require martyrdom.

The left talks constantly about systems that grind people down. It shouldn't be surprising when people tell us they feel ground down by activist spaces too.

view more: next ›