Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 257 posts

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#91

Post by jimmywanger »

intopieces wrote: post #67
jimmywanger wrote: post #3

Just to play devil's advocate here, this is from the article: > The app, called WorkIt, invites users to register by providing a name, email, telephone number and ZIP Code. Users can also s hare (sic) their job title and Wal-Mart store number.... That is a bunch of personally identifying information. You can easily steal somebody's identity with those bits of information, or at least have a good idea of who they are.…

All of this information is probably readily available on these users' facebook profiles.

Really, your phone number, email address, zip code and full name are available on your facebook profile?

I don't know which profiles you're looking at, but that information is available on the profiles of none of my friends.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#92

Post by jahaja »

randomdata wrote: post #70
jahaja wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly exists between the US and Europe.

Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad. That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.

I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify?

Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact?

Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#93

Post by jrochkind1 »

Animats wrote: post #11

It's an illegal labor practice in the US for an employer to do that. It's interference with the right to bargain collectively. But WalMart probably doesn't have much to fear from the Labor Department. Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration. It's really tough to organize a union today, even though the law as written is pro-union.

> It's an illegal labor practice in the US for an employer to do that. It's interference with the right to bargain collectively.

Sounds like this particular organization is intentionally legally organized so as not to have those protections (or restrictions).

From the OP:

"OUR Walmart, which says it has thousands of paying members, isn’t a traditional union because members don’t have collective bargaining rights. It separated last year from the United Food and Commercial Workers International, which has tried unsuccessfully for years to organize workers at Wal-Mart’s U.S. stores."

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#94

Post by masklinn »

vacri wrote: post #80
chrissnell wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that people should give the Trump administration a chance. The GOP knows that blue collar whites were the force behind his election. He's going to have to deliver for these laborers if he wants to have a chance in 2020.

If Trump goes up against Walmart and actually makes life better for those blue-collar whites, I'll literally buy a hat and eat it. I doubt Trump will want a second term - he's made it now, and thumbed his nose at everyone. He'll find out that he can't just do what he wants as president and his days are ridiculously packed, and won't go for a second term.

> He'll find out that he can't just do what he wants as president and his days are ridiculously packed, and won't go for a second term.

Or he'll find out that he can leverage the position into making money and let his VP and cronies do the ruling work.

The former is how things seem to be shaping up, and the latter is how Kasich reported the VP pitch he got (also matches Trump's desire to keep doing big rallies, not move in the White House and keep going on twitter tiffs).

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#95

Post by tomcam »

Animats wrote: post #11

It's an illegal labor practice in the US for an employer to do that. It's interference with the right to bargain collectively. But WalMart probably doesn't have much to fear from the Labor Department. Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration. It's really tough to organize a union today, even though the law as written is pro-union.

Is Wal-Mart actually doing anything illegal? They are not preventing their employees from downloading anything. They are simply telling the employees that the app collects personal information and that it may be used in nefarious ways. I see no evidence at all that Walmart is stopping the employees from any kind of download of the app.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#96

Post by randomdata »

jacalata wrote: post #90
randomdata wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all. I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are fr…

yada yada yada rich and poor equally free to not sleep under a bridge?

The rich and the poor are equally free to make offers on places that prevent them from sleeping under the bridge, absolutely.

But since those with homes are just as free to say no to some (esp. the poor), they really might be left to live under a bridge. This is why freedom and fairness can be bad. If we take away freedom, we can allow those people under the bridge to have homes.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#97

Post by jimmywanger »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #49
r00fus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not PII [1]. That's an actual legal term. Workit apparently wants worker identifying information, and Walmart, like other employers are free to tell their workers not to provide it, but there's no ethical or legal reason they can give to workers not to use it. It's not unlike GlassDoor - lots of companies would prefer you didn't use it, but at the employee level, the advantage/disadvantage ratio is pretty in you…

I've noticed a trend where companies encourage employees to leave positive reviews on GlassDoor, artificially inflating the score, positive feedback and salary information on the site.

An even scarier trend (hasn't happened to me but a friend of mine) is that a lot of companies want you to give linkedin permissions to post on your behalf for the company's recruiters.

I don't know how prevalent that is, but there apparently was a lot of soft pressure applied. "We're a startup and we're having a hard time recruiting. Don't you want this company to succeed? We need to recruit more people, and these linked in campaigns will help."

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#98

Post by anigbrowl »

randomdata wrote: post #64
darpa_escapee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same company that shows employees videos that are equivalent to "Unions = bad, yuck, gross, not even once" during training. They have every incentive to prevent unionization. If workers have room to negotiate, that means they could negotiate for fair compensation. Reminder that our country's labor history is rife with straight up mass murder of workers because they demanded fair pay, safe working conditio…

> they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all. I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are fr…

Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are free to move on when it doesn't work.

This is self-evidently untrue. You are confusing basic economic models with empirical conditions. While simple models of things like supply and demand are essential to understanding economic conditions, over-reliance on them is like thinking that being able to work simple problems of gravitation is all you need to know about aeronautics.

You are assuming a particular kind of bargaining relationship, the closed shop, that is actually illegal in many jurisdictions. You're also way overestimating the negotiating power of of the individual employee, or (put another way) ignoring the vast economic disparity between the parties and the resulting lack of leverage for the non-specialist employee.

When shareholders pool their capital and hire managers to run the business, is it a loss of freedom for them? Hardly, they can choose to sell their interest in the business if they no longer want to own it, or take a more active role if they are unhappy with the performance of their economic agents. Why are you so averse to low-level employees doing the same thing with their wages - essentially hiring the union to negotiate on their behalf?

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#99

Post by [deleted] »

jahaja wrote: post #92
randomdata wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad. That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.

I'm not sure what you actually mean here, could you please clarify? Do you by fairness strictly mean the initial compensation being offered, but not what the workers believe is a fair compensation after-the-fact? Do you by freedom strictly mean individual freedom to bargain, but not the freedom to organise and bargain collectively?

[deleted]

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#100

Post by mannykannot »

Animats wrote: post #11

It's an illegal labor practice in the US for an employer to do that. It's interference with the right to bargain collectively. But WalMart probably doesn't have much to fear from the Labor Department. Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration. It's really tough to organize a union today, even though the law as written is pro-union.

> Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration.

One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.

Whether the unions could have made a difference - and whether that difference would have been to the long-term benefit of their members - in the face of global industrialization and automation, is another issue altogether (unless it was the issue that got the ball of disillusionment rolling in the first place.)

Post reply on HN