Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 415 posts

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#391

Post by nickkell »

More power to them!

I'm a software developer and I wished I had been in a union a couple of years ago. Back then I was working at a company in the middle of nowhere in England after finishing my degree. After several years the boss decided that we were all being paid too much and increased everyone's weekly working hours without additional compensation. I had no strong ties to the area, so practically straight away I quit and moved to London. Unfortunately for most of my colleagues they had family and friends there and this was the only real tech company in the area. It's an incredible feeling, being an educated professional and yet at the same time completely impotent.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#392

Post by acomar »

xg15 wrote: post #343
pasabagi wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's often the case that victors feel their successes stem from superior characteristics, even in manifestly unfair games. Medieval nobles called themselves 'aristocrats', aristo meaning 'the best', in greek. Modern winners tend to think themselves very talented and financially prudent. The aristocrats, at least, were measurably better in some ways than their serfs: larger, more healthy, generally stronger, and so on…

> Medieval nobles called themselves 'aristocrats', aristo meaning 'the best' Interesting, I didn't know that. Sounds suspiciously similar to today's "meritocracy"...

Three men own the majority of wealth in the US by themselves. It's exactly the same kind of thing. Except instead of "ennoblement", we tell ourselves that we can strike it big and join those at the top.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#393

Post by everdev »

OtterCoder wrote: post #374
zero_intp wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'layed off' means different things in the US versus Europe. In the US, an employer may 'lay off' as much staff as they want and then hire new people into those positions. In France, for example, a 'lay off' must close the position and not hire a new body into that role for 12-24 months. This may be difficult to prove, but the laws exist.

Wow, I actually really like the French policy. It would make employers actually distinguish between a temp position and a full hire up front. Too many small businesses try to optimistically hire in good times, only to suddenly realize a few months later that they would collapse under the new payroll when business is normal.

Yes, and I've been "laid off" before after having compensation discussions with management. The employer dodges a lot of liability they would have if they fired me after asking for a pay raise. But for me the end result was I still lost my job.

I like the 12-24 month waiting period as it would help reduce lay off abuse.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#394

Post by spacehome »

Frondo wrote: post #380
spacehome wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Yet people keep voting for socialism.

The contemporary American conservative's use of the word "socialism" seems so meaning-free, it's a stand-in for "things I don't like" or "whatever libtards want". Can you elaborate on what socialism you think people are voting for? Cause right now we don't have free education--we have massive loans we award to children that can never be disposed of. We don't have free health care--we have the worst of both possible s…

Maternity leave policies are a transfer of wealth from people who have fewer children to people who have more children.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#395

Post by spacehome »

Frondo wrote: post #379
spacehome wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Welfare rights"?! That's a great neologism. It's now a right to take other people's paychecks?

Yes, that is what a society is; we all work to support one another in one way or another. The only real question is what that support looks like. For most of the Western world, it includes things like paying women for maternity leave, and not complaining or acting like this is a big controversial idea.

That's what you want it to be. Not everybody wants to live in that world.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#396

Post by conanbatt »

mulmen wrote: post #385
conanbatt wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they all get fired, or progressively fired and replaced with non-unions.Not-working is not much of a leverage as much as non-selling is not a leverage for a company.

With a few exceptions you can’t be fired for striking in the United States.

Thats not the power of unions. Thats the power of the state.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#397

Post by spacehome »

spacehome wrote: post #394
Frondo wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contemporary American conservative's use of the word "socialism" seems so meaning-free, it's a stand-in for "things I don't like" or "whatever libtards want". Can you elaborate on what socialism you think people are voting for? Cause right now we don't have free education--we have massive loans we award to children that can never be disposed of. We don't have free health care--we have the worst of both possible s…

Maternity leave policies are a transfer of wealth from people who have fewer children to people who have more children.

They’re also a transfer of wealth from shareholders to employees (who have kids).

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#398

Post by tekknik »

xg15 wrote: post #310
spacehome wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an employee is pregnant, no one is forcing the employee to show up for work. When people talk about maternity leave, they usually don't mean the ability to not show up for work (which is a given in a free society), but rather the obligation of the employer to pay the employee whether or not she shows up for work. This meaning of 'maternity leave' is not a legal requirement of employment in the US, though some empl…

> Employers are not and should not be required to pay you for work you are not doing. Most other developed countries seem to see that slightly differently. But ok, it is a stance you can discuss - however, it becomes enormously cynical when combined with the conservative aversion against welfare rights: So you're pregnant or sick and happen to not have enough resources to live from savings for a few months. If neithe…

getting pregnant or remaining pregnant is a choice. it’s not a disease you just contract without choice. why should an employer be forced to pay for your decision?

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#399

Post by tekknik »

xg15 wrote: post #349
zero_intp wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is known for practicing social darwinism as though it were a positive thing.

I remember an "ask a conservative" thread on reddit a while ago. What I found remarkable was that a lot of discussions that were ostensibly about "small government" or "promotion of conservative values", when challanged by a few counter-questions, shifted pretty quickly to population control along the lines of "if the poor get too much welfare they'll just have more kids". Admittedly, this was reddit, so apologies if…

Yes you most definitely are misrepresenting the conservatives. None of it has to do with family values or anything other than the lack of understand on the left as to why your employer should not be forced to pay for everything you do or want to do.

Re: Whole Foods workers seek to unionize

#400

Post by tekknik »

krapp wrote: post #356
noer wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's important to negotiate it when arranging employment I'm going to guess that a very small portion of WFMs employees have the ability to successfully negotiate their employment terms

>I'm going to guess that a very small portion of WFMs employees have the ability to successfully negotiate their employment terms A very small portion of all employees have that ability, much less an opportunity to attempt to negotiate the terms of their employment. I think a lot of people here overestimate the leverage that the average employee - including tech industry employees - actually have with their employers…

Maybe it’s because those average employees are, well average? if you’re worth a damn in your field you most definitely can define the terms of your employment or find a company that will let you
Post reply on HN