Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them • Hacker News Board

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#31

Post by emodendroket » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

jxf wrote: post #11

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do unions have problems? Yes, absolutely, and we shouldn't neglect those either. At the same time, scrapping them would be a very bad idea. Existing unions are not taking much in the way of steps to address those problems or clean up their image in the eyes of the public. Until unions can once again demonstrate openly and conclusively that their primary concern is the welfare of the worker rather than just being an…

> Until unions can once again demonstrate openly and conclusively that their primary concern is the welfare of the worker rather than just being another power player jockeying to get their share of the pie, scrapping them would be a very good idea. As I said, their presence is an inhibitor to regressions in employee rights. If you scrap them, the inhibition is removed, so you'd have to replace it with stronger employ…

Realistically that would not happen because the only significant advocacy group for better labor laws for employees is... well, guess.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#32

Post by altstar » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:07 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #26

Jabanga wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective bargaining is never mandatory on the employee side. The employee is not forced to work for a particular collective. The employer on the otherhand is forced, by law, to only hire people who are part of some government-recognized collective, known as a bargaining unit. In other words, employees can monopolize the employer's hiring options, using anti-free-market laws inspired by the 'labour' movement and soc…

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particula…

The relationship between you as an employee and employer is totally different than you and a (potential) union. The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions. You are absolutely making no sense at all.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#33

Post by thatswrong0 » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:12 AM UTC

an_account wrote: post #13

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty ambivalent about this. In some sectors you hear the story "he got paid $40 an hour to change light bulbs" but in other sectors (teachers?) workers are still chronically underpaid and mistreated. In short: you can't make black and white generalizations about these things. In some cases a union still makes sense, in others they've become dead weight or obsolete.

The teachers unions keeps terrible teachers employed. In California some school districts have pulled teachers from classrooms because they are unfit to teach, but they can't fire them because of union rules. They are literally paid to do nothing [1]. Many of the teachers I've talked to hate the union, but it's a very strong union and not much can be done about it. [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/local/me…

Public unions and private unions are entirely different beasts IMO. I don't like the idea of public unions because they can essentially bleed taxpayers dry. See California or Illinois unfounded liabilities for the result of that. Not to mention the atrocity that is police unions.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#34

Post by chimeracoder » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:14 AM UTC

gnu8 wrote: post #24

Jabanga wrote: post #23

If collective bargaining wasn't mandatory, and employers were free to decide who to hire and fire, the manufacturing sector in the US would be vastly larger, and offer millions more jobs to Americans. There is very little that does more damage to society than the so-called labour movement.

Without the labour movement we'd have Triangle Shirtwaist fires and Ludlow massacres every week. I don't blame you for not knowing that, because our educational system is designed to produce obedient workers, not class agitators. You might want to pick up a history book though.

> Without the labour movement we'd have Triangle Shirtwaist fires and Ludlow massacres every week

It's a little disingenuous to conflate the labor movement with NLRA-regulated unions, especially in the context of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the response to it. They're not one and the same, although modern unions have done their best to erase that distinction from the historical narrative.

You might also want to consider the other things unions of the time were involved with. Early 20th century unions passed bylaws excluding non-white members from their ranks, and then (successfully) lobbied for federal laws excluding them from the country altogether.

Without the AFL, we may not have had the Chinese Exclusion Act, and we might not have stripped Americans of Chinese and Indian descent of their naturalized citizenship, seized the homes they legally bought with the money they earned, and then given the land to white Americans.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#35

Post by jgrowl » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:16 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #26

Jabanga wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective bargaining is never mandatory on the employee side. The employee is not forced to work for a particular collective. The employer on the otherhand is forced, by law, to only hire people who are part of some government-recognized collective, known as a bargaining unit. In other words, employees can monopolize the employer's hiring options, using anti-free-market laws inspired by the 'labour' movement and soc…

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particula…

So if someone should either be forced to join a union that they don't want to be apart of or just find another job. Doesn't this kinda provide an argument against unionizing in the first place? If you are joining a company that isn't part of a union you accepting that fact... why should employees be allowed to unionize when that it is against the wishes of the pre-existing wishes of the company?

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#36

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:22 AM UTC

aanm1988 wrote: post #19

friedman23 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why can't people organize themselves if they want to? That's fine, don't force people to organize and pay "dues".

If you don't like it then vote with your feet.

This is like saying if you don't like company parties leave the company, instead of just 'don't go to the parties', which is what OP is asking for.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#37

Post by chimeracoder » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:23 AM UTC

altstar wrote: post #32

mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particula…

The relationship between you as an employee and employer is totally different than you and a (potential) union. The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions. You are absolutely making no sense at all.

> The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions

That's like saying that the role of elected officials is to represent their constituents and serve their interests, treating them all with full equality under the law.

It's a nice statement, but it's completely idealistic and doesn't accurately describe what actually happens in practice.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#38

Post by mikeash » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:38 AM UTC

jgrowl wrote: post #35

mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particula…

So if someone should either be forced to join a union that they don't want to be apart of or just find another job . Doesn't this kinda provide an argument against unionizing in the first place? If you are joining a company that isn't part of a union you accepting that fact... why should employees be allowed to unionize when that it is against the wishes of the pre-existing wishes of the company?

I agree that this is an argument against unions, but only to the extent that it is also an argument against companies. Swap union/company and employee/employer in your argument and it remains just as valid.

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#39

Post by mikeash » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:42 AM UTC

altstar wrote: post #32

mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being forced to join a union looks like equality to me. If I want to work at a particular place, I have to join that company. I can't come in on my own, expect to get paid, but not be a part of the company that runs the place. Why should the union be any different? If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particula…

The relationship between you as an employee and employer is totally different than you and a (potential) union. The one is paying you a salary for certain work done. The other is to (potentially) help you to negotiate better working conditions. You are absolutely making no sense at all.

As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the company is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want.

As an employer, the company is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the union is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want.

I am not saying that an employee has the same relationship with their union and their company. I'm saying that when you break it down into employee/employer and company/union, it becomes fairly symmetrical. Look at the individuals on both sides, and then at the organizations on both sides. If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so?

Re: Workers involved in union activities say Tesla is illegally intimidating them

#40

Post by steanne » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:51 AM UTC

aanm1988 wrote: post #18

exabrial wrote: post #2

Unions annoy me. Working conditions 75 years ago were truly deadly, and unions served a major purpose to humanize the work force. Nowadays we have "tax the robots" bills being sponsored by Unions and people somehow think it's "ok" to force someone to join a union to feed their family. When I see articles like this, I know what the right answer is but it's hard to empathetic at the same time.

Comments like this annoy me. A few decades ago unions were powerful forces for worker rights, and served a major purpose by allowing collective bargaining. Nowadays we have "right to work" laws being sponsored by companies and people somehow think it's "wrong" to join unions and bargain collectively. When I see posts like this, I shake my head and wonder where we went wrong.

oh, that's easy, the unions fought for what was fair, and when they got it they KEPT GOING. we need a good balance, not for the side who happens to have the power at the moment taking all they can get.