Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing • Hacker News Board

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#21

Post by briandear » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:20 AM UTC

2bitmachine wrote: post #6

zdragnar wrote: post #2

There was a very small detail that was almost overlooked in the article- it seemed like they were planning on keeping their more senior engineers and fire their junior ones. > The tipping point came in January, when management offered additional stock to a handful of high-level male engineers, including Westergard. Employees suspected Lanetix planned to fire lower-level female engineers, ... On the one hand, this sou…

>There was a very small detail that was almost overlooked in the article- it seemed like they were planning on keeping their more senior engineers and fire their junior ones. This seemed pretty clear in the article? They tried to buy off senior male employees with extra stock options last minute. >Maybe that really is the story, but so many details were left out to focus on the narrative that we won't know without be…

Were junior male engineers also fired? We’re female senior engineers retained? It seems like seniority was the issue.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#22

Post by dan0- » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #9

You've got to be stupid to retaliate against workers unionizing. They're going to get screwed. I don't think unionizing was going to save their jobs though. Looks like the business wasn't doing too well, and they were trying to jettison their juniormost engineers. The whole thing was probably going to go under.

Wal-Mart and ilk have been union busting for decades, this company likely thought they could get away with union busting just fine.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#23

Post by 2bitmachine » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #17

2bitmachine wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There was a very small detail that was almost overlooked in the article- it seemed like they were planning on keeping their more senior engineers and fire their junior ones. This seemed pretty clear in the article? They tried to buy off senior male employees with extra stock options last minute. >Maybe that really is the story, but so many details were left out to focus on the narrative that we won't know without be…

My point was that, without knowing the management's perspective, it's entirely possible that gender was merely a coincidence of having senior males available, and hiring junior females either because they were the best available or the company wanted to look diverse. Perhaps they were flagging and needed to cut the junior developers so the senior developers could focus on getting back on track. Either way, it's impos…

I guess I’m not sure why we’re to believe that your perspective on the situation is somehow more valid or absent a similar “agenda” you ascribe to the journalist. The journalist spoke to the people involved who described their motivations (which sure seems to be at least partially informed by perceived sexism), while you’re just making speculative assertions about “management’s perspective.” And because management seemingly handled the situation so poorly and in violation of labor laws, it’s not like they’re going to go on the record anyway...

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#24

Post by 2bitmachine » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:30 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #16

geofft wrote: post #11

A little bit of a tangent, but, > Earlier this month, after five years of organizing, security officers for companies including Facebook, Google, and Genentech, many of whom were making between $12 and $14 an hour, ratified their first union contract. They won wage increases of up to $1.20 per hour, better health care, and, for the first time, paid holidays. How is this rational? Do Facebook and Google believe they a…

Those folks do physical security. Aside from access to buildings and stuff they have access to little else, plus they have supervisors and people at the company who supervise them, plus doing weird things will trigger alerts and stuff, so I don't think they can do a lot beside ignore alarms for an intruder who would not have access to digital assets. Plus, NDAs are pretty powerful tools. I mean, if a guard lets you i…

If they can’t do basic, physical security correctly, it kind of calls into question their broader approach? For example, I imagine it’s much easier to socially engineer yourself into other access once your inside the campus than from without.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#25

Post by mirimir » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:31 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #12

mirimir wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The following quote makes it clear: > “It became increasingly clear that their strategy was divide and conquer—flatter a handful of us in the hopes that we would go along with their plans, and not put up a fight when they fired half of our co-workers,” Westergard adds. But seriously, what were they thinking? How could they have been so blatant? > In mid-January, after most of the unit signed authorization cards to be…

That the firing of the whole staff was stupid and illegal was not in doubt, which is why I didn't really bother addressing it. Rather, I wish the article had bothered to answer your question. I can hypothesize all day that they were in financial trouble and making rash decisions as a result, but the author didn't bother trying to find the truth, only present a narrative.

OK, maybe they were desperate. But couldn't they have admitted that, and tried to negotiate deals with their engineers? Although I guess it's arguable that they were trying, with the offers to senior staff. But still, it was poorly done.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#26

Post by danharaj » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:33 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #18

geofft wrote: post #11

A little bit of a tangent, but, > Earlier this month, after five years of organizing, security officers for companies including Facebook, Google, and Genentech, many of whom were making between $12 and $14 an hour, ratified their first union contract. They won wage increases of up to $1.20 per hour, better health care, and, for the first time, paid holidays. How is this rational? Do Facebook and Google believe they a…

What’s rational is that people are accepting positions at those pay rates. If you don’t want $12 per hour, go somewhere willing to pay more — even fast food pays more than that in the Bay Area. Entry level at Target pays over $15. They don’t need a union, they just need to quit and go work somewhere else. No shortages of jobs in the Bay Area— essentially everyone is hiring right now. Why should the company be blamed…

Considering your comments on this point, you seem really annoyed that the bananas formed a union.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#27

Post by zdragnar » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:34 AM UTC

2bitmachine wrote: post #23

zdragnar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that, without knowing the management's perspective, it's entirely possible that gender was merely a coincidence of having senior males available, and hiring junior females either because they were the best available or the company wanted to look diverse. Perhaps they were flagging and needed to cut the junior developers so the senior developers could focus on getting back on track. Either way, it's impos…

I guess I’m not sure why we’re to believe that your perspective on the situation is somehow more valid or absent a similar “agenda” you ascribe to the journalist. The journalist spoke to the people involved who described their motivations (which sure seems to be at least partially informed by perceived sexism), while you’re just making speculative assertions about “management’s perspective.” And because management se…

that's the point; it isn't at all. It is, in fact, pure speculation based on information that is missing from the article.

The fact that the article is missing such important information could be because it's not available, or it might not fit the author's agenda.

The company is very clearly in the wrong here; I'm taking issue with the heavy handedness of forcing gender into a story that, based on the evidence presented, could easily be a clear cut labor issue.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#28

Post by Centigonal » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:38 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #19

fogetti wrote: post #8

> Despite their futuristic sheen, tech companies “actually operate like traditional industrialists and will go through old fashioned methods of suppressing workers,” he says. Spot on.

And workers can quit. There are jobs everywhere.

and workers can also form unions if they want to. Why do you want to limit their freedoms?

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#29

Post by 2bitmachine » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:40 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #27

2bitmachine wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I’m not sure why we’re to believe that your perspective on the situation is somehow more valid or absent a similar “agenda” you ascribe to the journalist. The journalist spoke to the people involved who described their motivations (which sure seems to be at least partially informed by perceived sexism), while you’re just making speculative assertions about “management’s perspective.” And because management se…

that's the point; it isn't at all. It is, in fact, pure speculation based on information that is missing from the article. The fact that the article is missing such important information could be because it's not available, or it might not fit the author's agenda. The company is very clearly in the wrong here; I'm taking issue with the heavy handedness of forcing gender into a story that, based on the evidence presen…

It’s not pure speculation- it’s the worker’s side of the story. You can’t discredit their experience because the other side behaved in such a brazenly stupid fashion that they’re probably being advised to not speak to the press at all. Even if management’s perspective was included in the article, corresponded to your framing, the same would hold true. Your skepticism isn’t really skepticism when it leans consistently in favor of one party or the other.

Re: Labor Board Backs Startup Engineers Fired for Unionizing

#30

Post by eigenvector » Sat, Sep 01, 2018, 3:48 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #11

A little bit of a tangent, but, > Earlier this month, after five years of organizing, security officers for companies including Facebook, Google, and Genentech, many of whom were making between $12 and $14 an hour, ratified their first union contract. They won wage increases of up to $1.20 per hour, better health care, and, for the first time, paid holidays. How is this rational? Do Facebook and Google believe they a…

The sad thing is that while I sort of understand from a business perspective why Google et al don't want to end up with a massive low-skill workforce that isn't directly relevant to their business, the number of security guards you need is directly proportional to your office footprint (i.e. you aren't going to wake up one day and find you've suddenly got more of them than you have tech workers). And I'll say the same for maintenance / custodial staff and food workers. Honestly, just pay all these people a decent wage - the impact on the company's bottom line will be a rounding error.