Submitted by WeakAndWeary t3_10ledsi in RhodeIsland
Coincel_pro t1_j5yakdt wrote
Collective action such as this is one of the best ways to get things done but Americans as a whole are terminally poisoned against it.
This is why shit like a 5% pay cut for like trash collectors gets half of Paris in the streets and shutting down a country until its reversed vs here where more horrible things happen all the time and you get downvoted and ridiculed for even suggesting that public protest / collective action even be attempted.
I'd like for things like this to occur but yeah in reality it'll be maybe 100 people round the state actually decide to do it and they just get cut off without any progress made at all.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j5ywlkv wrote
I think the fatal flaw in collective action here is that the people who advocate for it fail to realize how many people don't agree with them.
Coincel_pro t1_j5z7k5z wrote
Do you think the majority of people in RI do not want cheaper electricity?
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j5zc9ju wrote
Enough to risk having the electricity get shutoff, paying extra in fees, or their credit score taking a hit? No.
Coincel_pro t1_j5ztmip wrote
Yes it is a calculated risk, what other pressure can be provided to facilitate change? Elections haven't done so, regulations haven't prevented it. When it gets to the extent that enough people can barely afford the service anyway then the likelihood of it happening increases.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j5zzfhz wrote
It's not just the level of risk on the individual level, it's that the reward is such a low-percentage pipe dream that it feels like a waste of time and energy (pun intended) to even discuss it.
As for how to fix it? I'd maybe stop looking for short term solutions to long-term problems. The volatility of electricity pricing goes way deeper than corporate greed by any one company.
Coincel_pro t1_j60ao0e wrote
I don't disagree overall, but want to note that collective action is performed far far more often (for even lesser reasons) outside of the USA often to good result. I gave France as an example because they are particularly aggressive with it. It does absolutely get results but you need enough people to buy in. Americans by and large are too pacified (for lack of a better term).
​
Love the pun btw.
possiblecoin t1_j5zii8c wrote
I think the majority of people in RI recognize that collective action won't bring new, cheaper generation on line.
degggendorf t1_j5yhhh0 wrote
>they just get cut off
IDK if that's just hyperbole or you really don't know, but you might want to brush up on the consumer protection rules we have in place. They can't shut anyone off in the winter, Nov 1-Apr 15.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j5ynzfl wrote
And even then, you have to go a few months before you're at that stage. Even cable TV providers will need you to be 2+ months behind before they shut you off.
Coincel_pro t1_j5yooat wrote
And? The power company is going to let you keep the lights on indefinitely without paying? No, they'll come after the past due bills with collections and once you hit the cutoff date you'll be cut off.
The relevant point here is that will ultimately be the repercussion for collective action if its not done to an extent that massively impacts RIE.
​
​
Forest ---- trees
degggendorf t1_j5yq3xk wrote
> No, they'll come after the past due bills
Collections activities are suspended through March as well. It really seems like you'd be able to offer a more nuanced/relevant opinion if you understood more of the picture.
Coincel_pro t1_j5z7rr7 wrote
Suspended not waived. Do you really think that RIE will just let you not pay bills for the winter then go back to normal afterwards?
degggendorf t1_j5z9g9y wrote
> Suspended not waived.
Yes, I said suspended. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
People could do what OP is suggesting and just not pay their bills until March 31 with zero repercussions. That would crush RIE's cashflow for the next two months, and get their attention. What would happen after that? Idk, that's where the discussion should happen.
You misunderstanding/misrepresenting reality to shut down any notion of a boycott based on shutoffs and collections that legally cannot happen just seems foolish, if not blatantly pro-capitalist scaremongering.
WeakAndWeary OP t1_j5zbz5x wrote
I want to believe that RIE doesn"t have infinite power to organize and enforce collections on a huge chunk of the state going deliquinent on their bills. I mean, collections agencies only have finite staff. They can handle some some small fraction of the state's collections. But not 50%+. The courts couldn't handle it either. What, we'd have the police dragging people from their freezing homes en masse because RIE screwed the state over?
If we "all" don't pay and screw their cashflow and inundate them with collections issues they could maybe get a message that the situation is friggin bonkers and exploitive.
degggendorf t1_j5zdgel wrote
> I want to believe that RIE doesn"t have infinite power to organize and enforce collections on a huge chunk of the state going deliquinent on their bills.
Through March, they have zero power to enforce collections.
> we'd have the police dragging people from their freezing homes en masse because RIE screwed the state over?
First, not paying a bill is not a criminal offense, so the police won't get involved.
Second, your house won't be freezing because RIE cannot shut anyone off until April 15.
Third, how do you see RIE screwing the state over? That 2% increase to their ROE that the PUC approved? Otherwise, the energy supply costs are a straight passthrough.
Coincel_pro t1_j5zuckq wrote
Are you even reading my posts? The one at the top of this chain where I am arguing for collective action?
​
Instead you focus on the "power cut off" content, who gives a shit if its cut off now mid winter (thankfully not an option) or when its warmer. That's irrelevant to whether or not RIE would be impacted by enough people deciding at once not to pay.
degggendorf t1_j5zvmgj wrote
> who gives a shit if its cut off now mid winter (thankfully not an option) or when its warmer. That's irrelevant to whether or not RIE would be impacted by enough people deciding at once not to pay.
Those two are connected, don't you see it? The number of people who would be willing to skip a bill and immediately have their power shut off and account sent to collections is waaaaaaay smaller than the people who would be willing to skip a bill with zero repercussions for at least two months.
> Are you even reading my posts? The one at the top of this chain where I am arguing for collective action?
Yes, and I just read it again. It reads like you're trying to discourage people from even considering it. Here's a quick breakdown:
> Americans as a whole are terminally poisoned against it.
Peer pressure, saying no one does it so you shouldn't either.
> you get downvoted and ridiculed for even suggesting that public protest / collective action even be attempted.
A warning to not even talk about it
> they just get cut off without any progress made at all.
False info to further discourage it.
Look, I am sure you're not some undercover pro-corporate operative. BUT, if someone was one, I'd expect them to say very similar things. Start with a toothless word of support to appear to be on "the right" side, then dive into several reasons why no one should consider collective action.
Coincel_pro t1_j60ck54 wrote
This is literally the opposite of the argument I have made, not sure how you are so mixed up on this. Please try reading again without assuming I am speaking against collective action in any way (because holy shit am I not). As someone who donates an unhealthy amount of money to strike funds I am trying not to laugh ere.
I said people are poisoned against it because look at OP getting like -14 votes on just asking if collective action would be possible / a solution. As someone who has participated in strikes and protests numerous times the amount of vile rhetoric around them is eye opening, especially considering how often they are used elsewhere to good effect.
You yourself laid out your opinion of a realistic outcome which included "not many would participate" and "RIE would see non-debilitating loss of revenue".
​
I would love for it to happen, collective action is utilized far far too little in the USA because people are generally poisoned against it / too passive in regard to the status quo. I lay out that its not likely but just as you said for yourself, that does not mean either of us dont want it to occur.
degggendorf t1_j60dr71 wrote
> You yourself laid out your opinion of a realistic outcome which included "not many would participate" and "RIE would see non-debilitating loss of revenue".
Right, and you'll notice that I didn't include misinformation about shut offs like you did, and I gave my opinion from the factual starting point I laid out here a couple comments ago..."People could do what OP is suggesting and just not pay their bills until March 31 with zero repercussions. That would crush RIE's cashflow for the next two months, and get their attention. What would happen after that? Idk, that's where the discussion should happen."
It seems even more confusing that you'd spread anti-action misinformation if you so heartily support the action. Surely it would be in your interest to promote awareness of the limitations to RIE's power, to encourage more people to participate in some collective action rather than just reinforcing the reasons why everyone should be scared to.
Coincel_pro t1_j617yb9 wrote
Ok you’re clearly just reading what you want to
degggendorf t1_j61iwfx wrote
Except none of it is really what I want to see. I'd rather see fact-based support for collective action rather than dejected hyperbole.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments