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

Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

m.pghcitypaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 448 posts

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#121

Post by dictum »

jahaja wrote: post #104
ben_jones wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent brought up a valid point, that organizing can be done without traditional union bureaucracy behind it - and perhaps suggesting sometimes this is a better approach. Then you responded with a completely different set of points attacking the parent poster on completely unrelated topics that you somehow equated to what the parent said. If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational dis…

> If we want positive change in our world we need respectful and rational discourse. Posts likes yours actively tear down discourse and makes worse the very problems you mention. This is a very ahistorical take. Tone policing and "moderation in discourse" has a strong connection to the will to maintain status quo. Radical discourse, direct action and even an unpleasant tone have however a rich history of change, both…

It all depends on how an individual feels about the status quo.

A. You can be moderate because you believe moderate actions will bring about radical change, or

B. You can be a moderate because you believe things are good to some degree as they are, and any actions should result in moderate changes.

I'm inclined to believe the calls to moderate discourse come from the latter group. "Rational discourse" stands in opposition to "irrational discourse", with implied irrational demands.

In other words, if you can't see why group X would want something, you won't see anything group X does to get that as rational.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#122

Post by coredog64 »

guerrilla wrote: post #68
arglebarnacle wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unions are democratic institutions that represent the self-organization of working people. If the current leadership of a union is bad (and in many cases it is) it should be campaigned against, voted out, and replaced. Giving up on the idea of a union because you don't like who's been elected to run it is self-defeating.

> unions are democratic institutions Not necessarily, some are quite centralized. For example, LO in Sweden. The US has plenty of examples. Look at Harlan County for an extreme example.

One of the major differences between US unions and the rest of the world is a ~50 year old legal hangover related to racism. US unions used to be allowed to moderate their support for members (as in “Joe Bag-O-Donuts is a detriment to the company and should never have been hired”). Unfortunately, many unions used that discretionary capacity to refuse to support their African-American members. It went all the way to the USSC, but the upshot is that US unions are required to have a more antagonistic relationship with management because they can’t endorse throwing out dues paying members.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#123

Post by moocowtruck »

darawk wrote: post #112
rdiddly wrote: post #28

I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…

> It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much." I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing employees at the expense of high perform…

well, USPS has an IT union and I can tell you first hand it is no good for employees, the things you mentioned happening absolutely happen and the place is just a disaster

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#124

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

geofft wrote: post #109
rayiner wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve spent 30 years in the US, many of those in red states, and I’ve heard the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” canard way more often than I’ve heard anti-union rhetoric. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anti- (private sector) union rhetoric. Have you considered that maybe peoples’ reactions are based on bad experiences with unions? In particular, public sector unions. Even liberal areas are pretty anti-uni…

I heard anti-union rhetoric in college when people were wondering why it cost so much to set up A/V in a lecture hall. If you haven't heard any, I'm not sure whether to tell you that you've lived a sheltered life or you've so internalized the anti-union rhetoric (like your comment, right here! ) that it doesn't register when you hear it. Also, I'm very confused about your "liberal areas" comment. My impression as a r…

subway doesn't have massive funding

If I remember correctly, NYC Subway budget is about 10bn.

London tube is about 2bn.

It's not a money problem.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#125

Post by anigbrowl »

microcolonel wrote: post #87
revscat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the toothless cry of the moderate liberal. “I think climate change is real, I just don’t support carbon taxes/the Green New Deal/anything else.” “I’m opposed to racism, I just don’t support reparations/police reform/my daughter and her black boyfriend meeting my parents.” “Sure, Politician X is corrupt, but I just can’t support impeachment. It’s just too soon .” “I support the labor movement, but just can’t a…

> Ah yes, the toothless cry of the moderate liberal. Why should every position need teeth? Isn't it possible that we are largely doing things correctly enough, and we should focus on the exceptions to that? > "...I just don't support ... my parents meeting my daughter and her black boyfriend" [your caricature of a moderate liberal] What do you accomplish, if your parents really are so racist, by tactlessly exposing t…

Because when push comes to shove those without teeth will be bitten. Those who are able to leverage force (whether economic, political, or physical) frequently do so.

People who are wrong about something are still people, and you won't notice when you're wrong like them, so why can't you empathize sometimes?

Oh dear no. Sure, they're still people, but if they've chosen to be mean about their views eventually they're going to be treated with reciprocity. It is not valid to say that 'you won't notice when you're wrong' as many people actively engage in self-reflection and other approaches so as to improve their decision-making.

When those asking for empathy habitually deny it to others, it's reasonable to question whether their request is made in good faith or is a mere gambit. The more a person's behavior resembles the latter, the more reasonable it is to cut them off.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#126

Post by parineum »

anigbrowl wrote: post #111
parineum wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You present this as if there were only two positions one could hold on those topics which helps you paint anyone who has a different opinion as an indecisive buffoon.

This is no different from centrists saying that every problem can be solved by splitting the difference. There's some times and things where one should expect a normal distribution, and other times and things where a binomial distribution shows up. Phase transitions and bifurcations show up all the time in natural systems, from mathematics to cell division and population ecology; I don't know why people think social…

> This is no different from centrists saying that every problem can be solved by splitting the difference.

You're right but because it's no different from someone saying their specific solution is the only way. In reality, there are a multitude of different opinions and it seems likely to me that more than one would be effective.

> There's some times and things where one should expect a normal distribution, and other times and things where a binomial distribution shows up.

Sure things might tend to distribute into two major positions but that doesn't mean nobody holds a different opinion and it says absolutely nothing toward whether those two solutions are somehow the ideal solutions (or one of them, in the case of the OP).

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#127

Post by underpand »

icebraining wrote: post #33
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees. Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a particular anti-union activity on the part o…

The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from their suppliers, legality aside.

> Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way?

Isn't this exactly what companies want to avoid doing? They need to treat employees and contractors differently or risk getting sued.

https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#128

Post by tyri_kai_psomi »

moocowtruck wrote: post #123
darawk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much." I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing employees at the expense of high perform…

well, USPS has an IT union and I can tell you first hand it is no good for employees, the things you mentioned happening absolutely happen and the place is just a disaster

We have a contract with the USPS IT department and let me tell you, it is absolutely awesome for their employees. They do about half the work we do in twice the amount of time, get paid more, have more holidays (2 weeks + every single federal holiday) and have pensions. Every worker there clocks in at 9, and clocks out at exactly 5, not a single minute past. If you want a meeting or them to get you something, it needs to be scheduled before 4 otherwise there's a good chance people have already started leaving the office for the day.

Sometimes I wonder where did I go wrong?

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#129

Post by puzzledobserver »

oh_sigh wrote: post #91
claudeganon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.

I'm fine with unions if they are voluntary, but not if I'm forced to join, forced to strike, forced to pay dues even if I'm not involved, and forced to not seek employment at a place under strike through threats of violence.

Just to clarify, are you saying, "I would like the collective to bargain on my behalf, but I just don't want to be part of that collective"?

Isn't mandatory membership a simple corollary of unionization efforts?

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#130

Post by jahaja »

ben_jones wrote: post #119
revscat wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The very country we (I’m assuming you’re American apologies if not) are sitting in was founded by a group of, admittedly rich old white men, coming together and convincing their oppositions to not just go to war against the greatest power of their time, but afterwards to come together as a single unified country through a large number of compromises. You were quick to list the handful of dictators and “strongmen” you…

The propensity of Americans for selective amnesia to the fate of the Native Americans during those years of "compromise" is truly vile.
Post reply on HN