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

241–250 of 257 posts

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

#241

Post by intopieces »

jimmywanger wrote: post #91
intopieces wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm no longer a Facebook user, but I can recall seeing several members of my family put all of that information on their profiles.

As well, zip code and phone number can be found on any people-finder wbesite: whitepages.com, etc.

I find it alarming too, but most people just aren't concerned with their personal data being out there in the world.

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

#242

Post by salmon30salmon »

Frondo wrote: post #240
salmon30salmon wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Port of Portland (Oregon) lost container service due in no small part to this exact type of fracas between unions. There was a work slowdown over who is allowed to plug and unplug refrigerated units. This slowdown eventually led to large container ships no longer calling the port. The economic impact that this has had on the local economy is huge. Now small businesses and farms need to truck or train their goods…

That article tells us that the plug/unplug stuff was a consequence of a bunch of other stuff (like mismanagement, working without a union contract, etc). According to that article, the problems didn't begin with the who's-allowed-to-plug/unplug. They were structural and systemic, and had to do with the port being mismanaged as much as the unions agitating for their workers. So, I'm not entirely sure why you're saying…

Right, Hanjin was the company whose exit prompted this article, but the Port has since also lost Hapag-Lloyd and a small company as well. Now there are zero container ships calling Portland.

Yes, it was an amalgamation of things. Management was not blameless but neither were the unions. And now, thousands of businesses are hurt. The work slowdown was a major contributing factor, and whether or not the slowdown was morally justified is outside the scope of this argument. The slowdown had a causal relationship with losing container service to Portland.

More recent article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/port-of-portland-loses-last-cont...

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

#243

Post by jahaja »

randomdata wrote: post #239
jahaja wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary. Answering this would inevitably leads us down a never ending philosophical discussion ("What is freedom? Is it an act of freedom to fire someone if it's made possible by an institution based on servitude?") that's subjective anyway. > Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro…

> You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false. Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. But within the context of my position that has held that a fair market is not desirable for employees, that would tell you that the first paragraph is very much pro…

> Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion.

I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I'm not saying that it's objective. My definition, whatever that may be formalized to, may well be an anti-business definition by your standards.

> What do you hope to take away from this discussion?

At this point I'm just trying to answer you. Maybe I'll get more replies to my question, albeit unlikely at this point.

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

#244

Post by randomdata »

jahaja wrote: post #243
randomdata wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false. Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. But within the context of my position that has held that a fair market is not desirable for employees, that would tell you that the first paragraph is very much pro…

> Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion. I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair. I'm not saying that it's objective. My definition, whatever that may be formalized to, may well be an anti-business definition by your standards. > What do you hop…

> I'm calling your definition of fair according to that first paragraph an anti-worker definition of fair.

I will point out that fair carries connotations in economics.

"Fair market value (FMV) is, in its simplest expression, the price that a person reasonable interested in buying a given asset would pay to a person reasonably interested in selling it for the purchase of the asset or asset would fetch in the marketplace. To establish FMV, it must be assumed that prospective buyers and sellers are reasonably knowledgeable about the asset, that they are behaving in their own best interests, that they are free of undue pressure to trade and that a reasonable time period is given for completing the transaction."

This point is interesting: "free of undue pressure to trade". If there is no undue pressure from a union, why are places like Walmart so afraid of them? No pressure.

> At this point I'm just trying to answer you.

But what do you take away from it?

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

ethbro wrote: post #194
nradov wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't unique to India but the British army did use what they called a "forlorn hope" as the first wave in attacking a fortress. Most were expected to die, but the survivors were often promoted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope

As exploitive as it sounds, given that someone had to attack in the first wave at least this seemed to match the rewards with the risk?

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by VLM »

anigbrowl wrote: post #121
VLM wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not in one giant queryable SQL table. I'd worry about parallelized spearfishing attacks across multiple stores, "Good Morning DEF, have I reached store number 12345 cash handling office? OK good to hear, this ABC at walmart corporate IT calling back about that trouble ticket your coworker XYZ entered about your store in Springfield, is XYZ at work now? Oh OK, well, anyway the ticket says XYZ is having trouble acc…

If you're that worried about it send an email to the union and claim an hour of pro-bono consultancy on your tax return. I don't know your motivations but this looks awfully like concern trolling. Incidentally I'm not a union member, nor have I ever been. I just find it really odd to see a firm like Walmart being so 'concerned' about the security of their employees while at the same time shoving all sorts of electron…

Its interesting that my concerns were very specifically in defense of walmart owned property, but you describe them very specifically as security of their employees. And then wander off in customer land.

Perhaps giving away large amounts of PII in this app or getting into the habit of giving away PII for the asking puts the employees at risk, but my theoretical examples only put walmart owned property at risk. Well, any employee involved would probably get fired as the fall guy or there's some obscure binder miles away with a written policy forbidding my scenarios, but ...

"sudden concern" Is it a sudden concern? I work at a very large corporation and every six months or so we get a refresher course in not being social engineered etc. Its a sudden concern of us, of some news organizations. Opposition to social engineering attacks is probably not a recent sudden concern of walmart infosec department, they've been around the block a bit and a company doesn't get that big entirely staffed by noobs.

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

#247

Post by matchagaucho »

harryh wrote: post #238
matchagaucho wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And their "research" is used by right-wing conservatives to justify fracking, and other environmentally damaging agendas. http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...

The paper I linked to wasn't done by NBER. They just host a database of research done by basically all academic economists. Your ad hominem attack isn't even aimed at the right people.

Like I said... follow the money. I choose to filter this out as false authority, not ad-hominem.

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

#248

Post by harryh »

matchagaucho wrote: post #247
harryh wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper I linked to wasn't done by NBER. They just host a database of research done by basically all academic economists. Your ad hominem attack isn't even aimed at the right people.

Like I said... follow the money. I choose to filter this out as false authority, not ad-hominem.

Everyone chooses which science they want to deny so they don't have to confront inaccuracies in their world view. I guess this is yours.

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

#249

Post by ebrenes »

rayiner wrote: post #129
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…

> massive profits. Wal-Mart's profit margin is about 5%.

But isn't much of that self-inflicted?

That is to say, Walmart purposely aims to undercut the competition on price and to save people money. If they deviated a bit from that mantra they could surely increase their profit margins. Especially in areas where they are now the main purveyor of goods after they've driven out the competition.

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

#250

Post by randomdata »

wpietri wrote: post #236
randomdata wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?

I am not. I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.

> I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.

You don't find it necessary, but you felt compelled to anyway? Weird. The problem here is that you haven't even addressed the topic at hand. You went on some tangent that was irrelevant. All I could do was grasp at one small part of your comment that seems like it may have been somewhat relevant to try and salvage the discussion.

I do blame myself for not articulating my point to you, but since you even seem unsure of what I was trying to convey, you'd think you'd ask questions to try and understand instead of just starting to push your own off-topic agenda down my throat.

But I understand how emotionally wrapped up people get in this which prompts them to throw all rational behaviour out the window. I'll forgive you.

Post reply on HN