Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by gridspy » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

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…

In your argument, you are assuming that the individual Walmart worker has the power to negotiate.

However, they do not. There are many potential (unskilled) workers, and Walmart has all the power. They are more than happy to present an offer and say "take it or leave it" to the individual worker.

Contrast that to the highly skilled market that most HN readers inhabit, and it is scary place to be.

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

#112

Post by briandear » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

darpa_escapee wrote: post #46

microcolonel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not interfering with the right to bargain collectively though. For all we know, they're genuinely warning their employees that they may be involved in a PII collection scam. They can't reprimand/dismiss you for using the app, but surely they can tell you it's unwise. I don't see why people are so quick to tie Wal-Mart to the pyre; for what they pay, their employees are satisfied to an outsized degree. Given t…

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…

Their duty to employees? Those employees have the right to quit. If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase.

Also not mentioned are the effects of Obamacare and the unintended consequences of companies cutting hours.

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

#113

Post by scandox » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #109

mannykannot wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 u…

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - Steinbeck

Thanks. That's made my day.

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

#114

Post by randomdata » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

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?

Which part of the original comment did you not understand?

Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part.

Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose. Collective bargaining locks some people out of operating in their own interests. This part should be obvious. A union cannot function when there is competition. The business would simply fire everyone and go hire those who are not part of the union otherwise. That is less freedom.

But, like I said, less freedom and fairness is a good thing here. There is no reason to shy away from it. Unions have done wonders for the public.

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

#115

Post by enraged_camel » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #88

danharaj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going over the same basic points over and over again might be a better conversation, but it's always the same comversation, which gets tiresome.

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.

>>The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made

The funny part is that if you're genuinely curious about the topic, you can do some introductory research yourself. The information you seek is a single Google search away. To demonstrate:

http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png

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

#116

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

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.…

I'll take your concerns seriously when you post that about every single app that gets mentioned on hn. If you only care* about it for this particular app, then you might want to re-examine your biases and motivations.

* and by 'care' I mean 'go to the trouble of writing a long comment on why it's such a bad thing.

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

#117

Post by briandear » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

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…

So industrial monopolies are illegal but apparently a labor monopoly is not. It's illogical. Labor is a product like any other.

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

#118

Post by pooper » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #88

danharaj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going over the same basic points over and over again might be a better conversation, but it's always the same comversation, which gets tiresome.

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.

> Fairness and freedom are what allow people to drive value towards zero, which is where the problems stem from.

I absolutely agree with you on this one but it just isn't practical. As we have seen time and again, this is not what happens in real life. Everyone wants to "add value" to the economy. Whether you own real estate in San Francisco or you own the only Internet cables to the home, history shows that you WILL use your position to demand a "fair price" for your "contribution" towards the society. In other words, everyone engages in rent-seeking even as we continue to say how it is horrible. We want perfect competition in the market for our suppliers and we want to be the sole provider with 100% discretion in pricing when it comes to our consumers. That is how the world works.

Is the management of labor unions a little inefficient? Absolutely but so is management of corporations. If management was efficient, we'd see close to 100% of economic gains of a corporation go to its investors. However, we see time and again that the "entrepreneurs" and the "hard working" and "risk-taking" executives will demand a very high price for their "work". It may not formally be a union but it sure feels like it when it comes to executive pay!

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

#119

Post by wpietri » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #88

danharaj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going over the same basic points over and over again might be a better conversation, but it's always the same comversation, which gets tiresome.

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.

Or it could be because they weren't very good points. At best, I read it as indulging in not-very-good word games, which is a distraction from a serious topic. Or if you're making a serious point, it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. If you're going to jump into a discussion that you know is emotional for people, then you should write with that in mind, rather than stirring people up and then blaming them for the response.

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

#120

Post by randomdata » Sun, Nov 20, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #115

randomdata wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made, which was entirely about definitions of terms, but rather continued with the same tired and emotionally fueled talking points every union discussion has. I have to wonder if anyone actually read my comment, or just saw the word union and started replying with their stock responses.

>>The funny part is that not a single reply to my comment (so far) touched on any of the points being made The funny part is that if you're genuinely curious about the topic, you can do some introductory research yourself. The information you seek is a single Google search away. To demonstrate: http://i.imgur.com/E6Prs3R.png

I tried your search. I did not find anything that relates to my comment.