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

#41

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:53 AM UTC

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.

They're still deadly: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-al...

People are still being taken advantage of. In some ways it's worse because 75 years ago if you managed to struggle through a shitty assembly line job for enough years you could afford to own a home, retire comfortably, send your kids through college, and hopefully ensure a better future for them. Today these jobs don't pay as well comparatively, and a lot of key expenses needed to get ahead are much, much more expensive. So instead of getting ahead working these dangerous jobs is like being on a treadmill.

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

#42

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 2:56 AM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #22

mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why collective bargain is expected on the employer side and reviled on the employee side. If employers can band together to form a company and present a unified front to the people they pay, why can't the people they pay band together to form a union and also present a unified front? Why do we trash the very concept of unions because bad ones want to tax robots and such, but don't apply the same st…

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…

That's not how unions work in the US.

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

#43

Post by chronic940 » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:01 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #21

I think a union is something you earn - not something foisted upon you. If you dont want workers to join a union, treat them well, pay them significantly above market rates, give good benefits.

Or just replace them with robots? That is what's happening across various industries today. Nurses will be replaced soon too (in the next 10 years). No union can stop that.

Not everyone is entitled to a job. If you complain, then get out. Automation will help enforce this.

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

#44

Post by pdonis » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:10 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #39

altstar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hopef…

> As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests

If that were actually true, it would be nice. But I doubt it's true for very many unions. Certainly my past experience in the auto industry indicated that it was not the case for the UAW, which is the union involved in this particular case.

> If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so?

My personal belief is that unions should take this to its logical conclusion. If they really believe they can manage working conditions better than the employers, they should back that claim up by becoming full-fledged for-profit corporations, employing the workers they represent and negotiating contracts with the companies that want the services of those workers. If union claims are true, this arrangement should be a win-win: employees now work directly for the organization that represents them, and companies that want those services get them cheaper because the union can provide them more efficiently since they now employ the workers directly instead of being an inefficient middleman.

If this were actually done and worked, it would be great. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

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

#45

Post by ythn » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:11 AM UTC

verbify wrote: post #16

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…

You could say the same about many other public institutions. To demonstrate: The media seems more interested in sensationalist irrelevant news than informing the public (it pays better). Until the media can once again demonstrate openly and conclusively that their primary concern is informing the public rather than just being another power player jockeying to get their share of the pie, scrapping them would be a very…

> Until the media can once again demonstrate openly and conclusively that their primary concern is informing the public rather than just being another power player jockeying to get their share of the pie, scrapping them would be a very good idea.

I... I agree with that statement...

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

#46

Post by thephyber » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:12 AM UTC

thatswrong0 wrote: post #33

an_account wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

unfunded (sp) liabilities.

And be careful where you wave your wand. Illinois pensions are very underfunded while California pensions are not even close to as bad, we just have a much larger denominator.

Also, the rate of funding in California is set by the employer (the city / county, etc) and not the state, the union, or the unionized employee. The pension organizations (CalPERS and CalSTERS) have unreasonable rates of return projected in the system (7.5% annual last I heard) and the employers, not the state, are on the hook if those pensions are underfunded due to that high rate of anticipated compounded interest.

Stockton went bankrupt soon after the 1999 bubble burst because there was no possible way they could make that level of anticipated returns in 2000-2001 (in addition to other bad investments the city made).

> I don't like the idea of public unions because they can essentially bleed taxpayers dry. Private sector unions can bleed companies dry just the same. GM had negotiated itself into a corner pre-2008 and was less than 60 days from bankruptcy if not for US Government intervention (which helped them renegotiate their labor contracts). You can argue that a city in bankruptcy can't shed its pension liabilities the same way a company in bankruptcy can, but it's heavily dependent on the state law and the contracts.

The problem isn't that "they can essentially bleed taxpayers dry". They problems are that government jobs are largely undesirable for high-performing employees (with a few notable exceptions) and that government union jobs in the states you named mandate union dues by law. The latter was challenged at the SCOTUS during the Scalia absence[1].

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-cali...

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

#47

Post by mikeash » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:24 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #44

mikeash wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hopef…

> As an employee, the union is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests If that were actually true, it would be nice. But I doubt it's true for very many unions. Certainly my past experience in the auto industry indicated that it was not the case for the UAW, which is the union involved in this particular case. > If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so? My perso…

Your "logical conclusion" sounds like the proliferation of third-party suppliers which I understand is now a huge part of the auto industry. Sure, they're companies rather than unions, but my underlying point is that the two aren't particularly different: they're both ways for people to band together and get better deals collectively than they would individually.

In any case, I'm not saying unions should do this or that, or that we should necessarily cheer them on. I just want the same standards applied to both sides. It looks to me like people decry unions based on things that are not unique to them, but give companies a free pass.

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

#48

Post by freehunter » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:27 AM UTC

ythn wrote: post #45

verbify wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say the same about many other public institutions. To demonstrate: The media seems more interested in sensationalist irrelevant news than informing the public (it pays better). Until the media can once again demonstrate openly and conclusively that their primary concern is informing the public rather than just being another power player jockeying to get their share of the pie, scrapping them would be a very…

> Until the media can once again demonstrate openly and conclusively that their primary concern is informing the public rather than just being another power player jockeying to get their share of the pie, scrapping them would be a very good idea. I... I agree with that statement...

Good, let's just throw away the first amendment. Only government-sanctioned news can be broadcast from now on, and the sitting administration gets to appoint who heads up the department that determines what real news is.

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

#49

Post by metaphor » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:33 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #20

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.

I don't understand why collective bargain is expected on the employer side and reviled on the employee side. If employers can band together to form a company and present a unified front to the people they pay, why can't the people they pay band together to form a union and also present a unified front? Why do we trash the very concept of unions because bad ones want to tax robots and such, but don't apply the same st…

>> If employers can band together to form a company and present a unified front to the people they pay...

How does this statement even make any sense?

IANAL, but I'm interpretting this as deliberately conflating the term employers with people within a company whose duties include making hiring decisions--themselves employees.

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

#50

Post by almostApatriot1 » Sat, Jun 03, 2017, 3:44 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #21

I think a union is something you earn - not something foisted upon you. If you dont want workers to join a union, treat them well, pay them significantly above market rates, give good benefits.

the major appeal of the union is that you can't get fired or laid off. This type of job security is crucial because it gives you massive leverage when it comes to fighting for those other things. No matter how good the pay is, you can probably get better via striking, etc.