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

Post by xnyan » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

LeoPanthera wrote: post #131

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…

> 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 It's become clear in the past few years that a lot of people care less about winning than they do about their "enemies" losing. To them, it doesn't matter if you hurt yourself, as long as you hurt the people who disagree with you as well.

Post by option » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

Despegar wrote: post #61

refurb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Often forming a union just replaces self-serving management with self-serving union leadership. Nothing like those union leaders making $300k per year!

$300k a year doesn't seem like much to pay for union leadership if it covered a large enough number of workers. It might be expensive on first glance, but it might be more expensive to not negotiate collectively.

Post by stale2002 » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #128

moocowtruck wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need…

Post by throwaway1777 » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

paulie_a wrote: post #185

mszcz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I'd like to work in a place like that. Wouldn't you get lazy after a couple of years? Doesn't this create incentives to deliberately work more slowly? After a couple of more years like that wouldn't you get used to not doing much and then get slaughtered when inevitable change came around? My friend referred to this kind of situation as "being in an ass" ;) Yeah, from time to time there's a smell but…

It enforces the 40 hours a week. That's the job you are paid for. Working 16 hours a day..7 days a week is not lazy. It's a recipe for burn out. Working hard for the 40 is what is expected and should be exactly that. You pay me for 40 I'll give you 40 You want 80 then you pay me for 80

Post by wind0w » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #176

wind0w wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticizing how white men use their whiteness to preserve their exclusive access to money and power isn't racist

Your statement right there is racist as it assumes a general trait across all white men, not just the ones guilty of it. It's the same as saying all black men are bad fathers (because stereotype). Both are hideously racist statements.