Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor • Hacker News Board

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#41

Post by glogla » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

ggambetta wrote: post #30

claudeganon wrote: post #20

Counter to what you see touted on this website, unions are not solely about securing additional material benefits for workers. They are and have always been about changing workplaces from top-down, authoritarian models to ones where workers have a say in their company’s work and overall direction. They’re about acknowledging that none of these structures function or accomplish anything without labor and shifting thei…

I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like democracies. Company X offers to pay me to do job Y. My two options, as I see it, are taking the job and doing Y, or refusing to do Y and therefore not taking the job. I don't understand the logic of "I'll take the job but then refuse to do Y", except if I assume ill-intent from the person taking the job.

> I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like democracies.

My experience is that the more someone rambles about "being the only rational one", the more oblivious they actually are.

People want companies to function like democracies, because they feel it's better for the world, or better for them, or both.

The capital don't have to listen to them of course, and the people can then organize and try to enact change in a different way - like voting for particular regulations or something similar.

Since you seem to value "rationality" and power, maybe you should think about how big collectives of people have power, and whether it wouldn't make sense to make some concessions, because otherwise things might get out of control and people like you might end up in a gulag or something.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#42

Post by friedman23 » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

glogla wrote: post #35

friedman23 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy a sewing machine and hire someone to operate it, outside of basic safety rights why should the employee have any say in what I decide should be created with it?

Because they want to be able to defend themselves from you and people like you (who own the means of living) from abusing and exploiting them. Why do you mind if they have a say? If you don't plan on abusing and exploiting them, there's no harm, right? EDIT: to put it into words I would think someone like you might understand better (power and money instead of empathy and solidarity) - because if you don't let them h…

I'm paying them, if they don't want to be exploited by me don't accept my money.

> because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords

It always comes down to violence with you people.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#43

Post by friedman23 » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #37

ggambetta wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?

I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial. Why did peasants revolt over feudal ownership of land? Why did indigenous people revolt against settler colonialism? Why did the American Civil War happen?

> I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial

I disagree. It is not historically controversial for the owner of property to decide what is done with it.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#44

Post by civilian » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #37

ggambetta wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?

I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial. Why did peasants revolt over feudal ownership of land? Why did indigenous people revolt against settler colonialism? Why did the American Civil War happen?

You're conflating ownership of people with ownership of a tool & voluntary employment. That's a pretty bad-faith argument to make.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#45

Post by civilian » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

deogeo wrote: post #24

ggambetta wrote: post #13

OK, unpopular opinion follows, bring the downvotes. 1) All of my experiences related to unions have been negative. Things become more bureaucratic and inefficient ("oh no, you can't move that box, we need to wait for the union person whose job description is to move the box"), people are promoted because of seniority and not because of merit, bad performers up to and including flagrant criminals can't be fired becaus…

> All of my experiences related to unions have been negative. Except the 8 hour work-day and weekends, I guess? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep...

So, just because politifact rated the "Henry Ford created the 40-hr workweek" false, doesn't mean that unions were the ones to create it.

As a society, employers were trending towards 40-hr workweeks and weekends. That was already where society was going voluntarily, so the fact that unions got legislation near the end of the trend (when voting it through would've been so much easier) isn't that much of a victory. It was unnecessary and just a play to take credit.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#46

Post by rayiner » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

ggambetta wrote: post #13

OK, unpopular opinion follows, bring the downvotes. 1) All of my experiences related to unions have been negative. Things become more bureaucratic and inefficient ("oh no, you can't move that box, we need to wait for the union person whose job description is to move the box"), people are promoted because of seniority and not because of merit, bad performers up to and including flagrant criminals can't be fired becaus…

Let’s not forget the extensive links to organized crime (a relatively unique feature of American versus european unions): https://www.iww.org/history/myths/11

The IWW page on this is hilariously forthright.

> First of all, it is a myth that organized crime, including the infamous MAFIA, controls all or even most North American labor unions. (It is true that the Teamsters, International Longshore Association (ILA), Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers Union (HERE), Seafarers International Union (SIU), and various Building Trades unions have had to deal with MAFIA corruption). Many AFL-CIO rank & filers have fought long and hard to purge any and all forms of corruption (MAFIA and otherwise) from their unions; it's an ongoing struggle.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#47

Post by whatawaste » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

friedman23 wrote: post #42

glogla wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to be able to defend themselves from you and people like you (who own the means of living) from abusing and exploiting them. Why do you mind if they have a say? If you don't plan on abusing and exploiting them, there's no harm, right? EDIT: to put it into words I would think someone like you might understand better (power and money instead of empathy and solidarity) - because if you don't let them h…

I'm paying them, if they don't want to be exploited by me don't accept my money. > because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords It always comes down to violence with you people.

If you don’t want to be on the receiving end of violence, how about not exploiting people?

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#48

Post by quadrifoliate » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

ggambetta wrote: post #32

claudeganon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn’t they? Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? I’m being a bit hyperbolic here, but it’s funny that the circumstances you cite (sewing, basic safety) actually drove unionization in the early 20th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... Turns out that if you don’t change the relations of power in your workplace, hold your bosses to account…

> Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?

> Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you

Let's take a look at this. Your contributions to the end product are:

- Owning a sewing machine

- Paying someone to use it

Their contributions are:

- Making the thing (say, sewing a shirt)

I think there is an inherent tension between thinking about which of these is more valuable. Of course the sewing machine owners and payers are all going “Hey, the sewing machine belongs to us. You got compensated for your work, that should end your involvement with it. You can't tell us kind of clothes we should be making!”; whereas the people who sew the shirts are going “Without our collective work, you're going to be able to sew maybe one shirt a day, and you don't even know how to sew. So listen to us!”.

The increasing interest in unions (FAANG is hardly a good representative of jobs across the software industry, let alone the entire US) seems to indicate that the needle of society in general has moved more too far in advancing interests of the sewing machine, and the people who sew don't have enough of a say in how things are done.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#49

Post by glogla » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

friedman23 wrote: post #42

glogla wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to be able to defend themselves from you and people like you (who own the means of living) from abusing and exploiting them. Why do you mind if they have a say? If you don't plan on abusing and exploiting them, there's no harm, right? EDIT: to put it into words I would think someone like you might understand better (power and money instead of empathy and solidarity) - because if you don't let them h…

I'm paying them, if they don't want to be exploited by me don't accept my money. > because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords It always comes down to violence with you people.

> It always comes down to violence with you people.

As it should. If they don't accept your power, they starve (or not get healthcare if we're talking about contemporary USA).

How is that any less violent? Because when you kill someone by starvation it's less bloody? Your kind are already using violence against us, you're just good at not caring about others or lying to yourself.

Re: Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

#50

Post by ryandrake » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

ggambetta wrote: post #13

OK, unpopular opinion follows, bring the downvotes. 1) All of my experiences related to unions have been negative. Things become more bureaucratic and inefficient ("oh no, you can't move that box, we need to wait for the union person whose job description is to move the box"), people are promoted because of seniority and not because of merit, bad performers up to and including flagrant criminals can't be fired becaus…

Is that example in #1 actually your own personal experience and observation or did you just read about it somewhere? Because it's a classic trope that gets trotted out in anti-union literature. I remember an anti-union guy at one of my old jobs who also railed against that exact "wait for the person whose job it is to move that box" example. It seems so eerie to see two different people who had the exact same word-for-word experience. Almost as if they both simply read about it somewhere.

For #2, AFAIK http://levels.fyi is a collection of self-reported anecdotes, and probably skews way high. Nobody's going to go e-brag on the Internet how much they make if they feel their salary is low, but you'll definitely get self-reports from those handful of guys making $500K. Take that site with a grain of salt.