Aren’t people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don’t want to hire “overqualified” people is because they’re afraid of unionization.
No, people with higher education tend to end up in career paths that aren’t commonly unionized, regulated yes. Unionized no.
You should read what you say or say less crazy shit.
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.
Aren’t people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don’t want to hire “overqualified” people is because they’re afraid of unionization.
The answer is no. You’re now adding context and nuance that did not appear in your original question.
I have no reason to be tolerant of the intolerant or willfully ignorant like yourself, cry somewhere else or at least be quieter about it.
I’m not your teacher, you have three immense resources, use them. Show us that you can inform yourself instead of taking positions based on ignorance only to obstinately defend them with more ignorance.
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.
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.
That’s not the claim that’s in dispute. The claim was that higher education people are more likely to be in unions.
No, people with higher education tend to end up in career paths that aren’t commonly unionized, regulated yes. Unionized no.
You should read what you say or say less crazy shit.
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.
What’s not what you asked.
Aren’t people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don’t want to hire “overqualified” people is because they’re afraid of unionization.
The answer is no. You’re now adding context and nuance that did not appear in your original question.
I have no reason to be tolerant of the intolerant or willfully ignorant like yourself, cry somewhere else or at least be quieter about it.
Then provide literally any single source that actually says that.
I’m not your teacher, you have three immense resources, use them. Show us that you can inform yourself instead of taking positions based on ignorance only to obstinately defend them with more ignorance.
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.
I’ve provided it several times at this point which you’ve actually admitted multiple times at this point, stop with the crybaby affectation.
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.
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.
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.