Really unions for Tech works from IT services companies. God bless tech industry.
Not good for anyone.
Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
421–430 of 448 posts
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually extremely common in reality. If you're a landscaper, you don't typically go from there to being the CEO of Facebook, but after a few years you may end up in a supervisory position managing other workers. Or you save up enough money for a down payment on some equipment to start your own landscaping company. There are indeed people who stay in dead end jobs indefinitely, but such people are not the majority of…
The most common jobs in the US are largely, indeed, roles that would call “dead-end jobs”: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_emp_chart/area_emp_char...
What makes you think most of those have no career path? The number one, Retail Salespersons, have the obvious path into becoming sales managers for the local office, then the region etc. Even fast food workers can become the store manager.
And those jobs often have less competition for those management positions because they're so often held by college students who go on to jobs in the industry they've studied rather than competing with other salespersons or fast food workers for the office manager position.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's tons of evidence that for most people working more than 40 hours actually results in a fall in productivity (that's 9-5). More hours are for show.
As I understand it, it's diminishing returns for a while past 40. Putting in more than 40 hours does get more done, just not as much per hour as the earlier hours.
Nope, that's wrong. You get falling OVERALL productivity.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are not the “big 5” in tech by any measure. FANG was an acronym that specifically related to stock returns at the time.
And yet people know exactly what I mean when I say "big 5" tech company. How is it that everyone that I talk to, knows what I am talking about when I say those words, but apparently you don't?
I don’t know. I don’t see how anybody could know which companies you mean when you say big 5 tech companies. Which ones did you mean?
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet people know exactly what I mean when I say "big 5" tech company. How is it that everyone that I talk to, knows what I am talking about when I say those words, but apparently you don't?
I don’t know. I don’t see how anybody could know which companies you mean when you say big 5 tech companies. Which ones did you mean?
It is a short hand for the major/prestigious tech companies.
So it would be Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and maybe Netflix depending on who you ask.
And yes, I know that is more than 5 companies. It is a shorthand for "those prestigious, large tech companies that new grads apply to, and hire lots of people, and have large market caps".
If I talk to any new grad who is applying to companies these day, they will know what I mean when I say "big 5 tech companies".
This is a very common term in the interview/tech market and discussions.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe? But it's like saying that it's harder to fix a bad country than to leave for another country, so its accuracy is possibly less important than its rationality.
It's a lot easier to switch employers than switch countries. Most people in fact do switch employers multiple times throughout their lives, whereas most people don't ever move to a different country from where they were born. That's especially true when there are other jobs in the same industry and the same city but at a different company.
That depends on which country you are born into. There are several million South American immigrants living undocumented in the US who would beg to differ with that statement. Likewise, there are many expats who've chosen staying with a company over staying in their country. Finding an employer that treats you well may be harder than finding a country that treats you well in many instances.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your main objection is that the quote betrays its speaker as uppity?
No, it betrays that they're, at best, equally guilty of sitting on a pro-union baseline themselves.
They're not equal if the baselines built on greater or lesser degrees of correctness or ignorance.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only convincing alternative that I've heard from someone in that world is that conservatives are so afraid of getting screwed over by the rich and powerful that they'll do whatever they can to placate them while scraping to themselves what they need to survive. A, "Pray I don't alter it any further," situation. Of course, this "TEM" thing is partly a face-saving move for our white, right neighbors by progressives…
No offense, but you’ve clearly never talked to a conservative to ask them why they support policies good for business. It has nothing to do with being afraid of rich people.
I have, and that is what he said. I'll be happy to hear another basis for anti-union sentiment that is not inclusive of being afraid of the rich or spiteful of some perceived outgroup. I'd actually wager that that covers the bases.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should do a little research to get a basic familiarity with what labor laws relating to union action prohibit. You'll find that they blatantly violate the contracting rights of employers. Snickering at me while being unaware of such a basic fact is deplorable.
What is a "contracting right"? A quick search doesn't bring it up as legal terminology, so I'm thinking it's somewhere between generic libertarian and freeman-of-the-land level nonsense, but I welcome a less ridiculous explanation. If you aren't far libertarian, the government exists specifically to limit what people can contract to do. Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement e…
The term of art is freedom of contract:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract
Freedom of contract is a basic prequisite of a free society. It's a subset of free association.
>Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement entity
In a free society the government exists only to restrict action in order to protect rights, which extends to the rights one gains through contracts, and to administer public goods for the public benefit.
In a free society the government does not restrict the right of two consenting adults to engage in a mutually voluntary interaction.
There's absolutely no excuse for laws that restrict the right of someone to offer employment terms that reserve the right to fire someone for unionizing or going on a strike.
>Further, describing a constitutional law as a violation of rights is in a sense a reverse tautology.
That's a disingenuous appeal to legality. Law does not confer moral legitimacy.
Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a "contracting right"? A quick search doesn't bring it up as legal terminology, so I'm thinking it's somewhere between generic libertarian and freeman-of-the-land level nonsense, but I welcome a less ridiculous explanation. If you aren't far libertarian, the government exists specifically to limit what people can contract to do. Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement e…
The term of art is freedom of contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract Freedom of contract is a basic prequisite of a free society. It's a subset of free association. >Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement entity In a free society the government exists only to restrict action in order to protect rights, which extends to the rights one gains through contract…
There absolutely is: an imbalance of power between the two groups contracting. There are practically no situations where contracts are unrestricted. Healthcare, labor, and housing (rentals) all restrict what the provider can do.
Freedom to contract that you describe is not commonly considered ethical. While you're correct that law does not on its own confer moral legitimacy, you can usually find some jurisdiction that does something. There aren't any that provide complete freedom to contract. It's a highly fringe anarcho-liberetarian position vthat leads to exploration.