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

New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 500 posts

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#101

Post by mcv »

koheripbal wrote: post #97
mcv wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "At our company, a number of job functions are union-only work, meaning it is a violation of the union contract for any non-union employee to perform that work." That's not a union, that's a guild. A medieval-style guild has a monopoly on a certain type of work. A union merely represents its members in workplace negotiations.

That might be your definition, but unions do this also. Maybe it's different in different places - but here the union clearly forbids non-union workers from doing various types of work.

Well, it's not how unions work in Europe, and those unions do not create the kind of problems that American unions apparently create, so maybe the US could learn a lesson from Europe here.

Because the argument "the wrong way is the only right way" makes no sense. If it's wrong, you fix it. Being forced to choose between two wrongs is no good.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#102

Post by ShamelessC »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #81
ShamelessC wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocket League's approach to this is very good. The D-pad is bound to several predefined words and phrases that are useful such as "Nice shot!" or "Great pass!". Because of the fast paced nature of the game it's pretty tough to try to abuse this system (maybe by spelling words with the first letters of allowed phrases?) but no one does that. To appease the folks who wanted to express that they were using a curse word,…

> That reminds me of Rocket League's approach. The D-pad is bound to several predefined words and phrases that are useful such as "Nice shot!" or "Great pass!". Because of the fast paced nature of the game it's pretty tough to try to abuse this system (maybe by spelling words with the first letters of allowed phrases?) but no one does that. Dota has that, and it didn't work. People just used the nice phrases sarcasti…

Is there a timeout on repetitive chat? In RL you're temporarily blocked from chat after repeating the same phrase three times. Solves the repetition issue.

As for sarcasm, yeah that can be used to harass people but only mildly. I consider that about the least toxic possible form of chat in a competitive video game where people want to engage.

If someone hits the ball into their own goal at least someone from the team that got the goal will say "Nice shot!" sarcastically. Mildly toxic but everyone's done it at least once before and so there's usually someone else chiming in with "No problem." Ultimately works out really well. Sometimes people quit but it's rare and it's usually due to embarrassment than anger.

Edit: just to be clear, I agree with the premise that it's an unsolvable arms race with the community. I just meant to say that RL's implementation was pretty good considering that fact.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#103

Post by piva00 »

mcv wrote: post #99
cool_dude85 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, things that seem to not make sense are the result of historical practices at that workplace or others. In a situation like the comment describes, usually it's at a partially unionized workplace. If you don't have these kinds of things in the contract, what can sometimes happen is a situation where all the "monitor movers" are unionized, but then management hires a new "screen transporter" for $10 an hour who i…

In Netherland, unions negotiate with employers, generally with the government also at the table, to agree on workplace conditions and pay scales that apply to the whole industry, and not just the union members. The employer gains nothing by hiring a non-union member, and besides, a non-union member can always join the union if they want to.

The same system is used in most of Scandinavia, the union-government-employer tripod where the government acts as a facilitator and the union and employers negotiate a collective agreement.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#104

Post by cool_dude85 »

mcv wrote: post #99
cool_dude85 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, things that seem to not make sense are the result of historical practices at that workplace or others. In a situation like the comment describes, usually it's at a partially unionized workplace. If you don't have these kinds of things in the contract, what can sometimes happen is a situation where all the "monitor movers" are unionized, but then management hires a new "screen transporter" for $10 an hour who i…

In Netherland, unions negotiate with employers, generally with the government also at the table, to agree on workplace conditions and pay scales that apply to the whole industry, and not just the union members. The employer gains nothing by hiring a non-union member, and besides, a non-union member can always join the union if they want to.

Given political realities in the US, I would hold out more hopes for the revolution coming than for nationwide sectoral bargaining.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#105

Post by mcv »

kdtsh wrote: post #85
koheripbal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more bureaucratic Anyone who's actually had to deal with a union can agree with this point. At our company, a number of job functions are union-only work, meaning it is a violation of the union contract for any non-union employee to perform that work. In principle, you might think that makes sense, until you need to get something very simple done - that you are willing to…

This is definitely not unique to unions, nor are all (or many) unions like this. Of course the examples you list are ridiculous and shouldn’t happen, but the more boring instances of bureaucracy are just part of the mundane process of work in a large company (e.g. raising a ticket on a third party vendor to grant access to some service and the whole process descending into farce as no one knows how to/wants to do it…

> "most of the time a union has some degree of member democracy"

Most of the time? Some degree? Any union that does not represent its members to the best of its ability is not a good union.

That's also why it's vital that no single union has a monopoly on a certain type of work; if union members are unhappy with their union, they need to be able to leave and join or start a new one.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#106

Post by piva00 »

sushshshsh wrote: post #92
dijit wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sorry to be blunt but that's fucking stupid. Contrast that with my experience with Unions in Sweden; and that is that they basically don't exist except to ensure that workers rights are not infringed. So they'll be involved in a termination, or help negotiate overtime pay. There is no such thing as a "union job", it's just having what's referred to as a "collective agreement".

Sorry to be blunt but when you give unions power, this is the bullshit that comes from it

Unions in Sweden (and Scandinavia, Germany) are powerful to defend workers interests, it doesn't mean that unions are requiring to have union-only jobs or trying to micromanage the workplace. The bullshit you are seeing is from your own bubble and worldview, don't make broad platitudes out of it, that is bullshit.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#107

Post by guerrilla »

koheripbal wrote: post #61
objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

> Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more bureaucratic Anyone who's actually had to deal with a union can agree with this point. At our company, a number of job functions are union-only work, meaning it is a violation of the union contract for any non-union employee to perform that work. In principle, you might think that makes sense, until you need to get something very simple done - that you are willing to…

That's absurd, laughable and not how a single union works in Sweden and essentially the enrire country is unionized.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#108

Post by beowulfey »

sushshshsh wrote: post #92
dijit wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sorry to be blunt but that's fucking stupid. Contrast that with my experience with Unions in Sweden; and that is that they basically don't exist except to ensure that workers rights are not infringed. So they'll be involved in a termination, or help negotiate overtime pay. There is no such thing as a "union job", it's just having what's referred to as a "collective agreement".

Sorry to be blunt but when you give unions power, this is the bullshit that comes from it

Why do you trust corporation-backed power (small amount of people in charge) versus union-backed power (power distributed across many people)?

I find it fascinating, particularly in a country like America where democracy is a core part of our being.

Unions allow people to vote on their own preferences, then use their collective voice to negotiate. If you don’t like some bullshit union practice, then that is the fault of the people in it not the unions themselves.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#109

Post by 0xy »

hef19898 wrote: post #90
0xy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the person to fight in my corner is me? Unions drag everyone's wages to an average. Poor performers get paid more, top performers get paid less. No thanks, I can negotiate for myself. Look at teachers and police unions for a prime example. Great police get paid the same as the police who racially profile. Great teachers get paid the same as the teachers who phone it in. Additionally unions protect incompetent…

Obviously, I have no idea how unions work in the US. But there was the example of Dwayne Johnson, earning 90 Million and being a union member. The collective bargaining I am used to, has the effect in some cases of maybe overpaying certain individuals. IMHO that always happens. It doesn't drag salaries anywhere but up so. And there is a cap on salary levels and job levels being covered by unions collective bargaining…

>Above these levels, it is what you negotiate with your employer

Teachers cannot negotiate salary, thanks to unions. The best teacher in America is paid the same as the worst teacher.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#110

Post by Mirioron »

rwmj wrote: post #57
adwww wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the UK the union leaders manage to look like tits all on their own. I'd love to have a workable union system for tech workers here, but I just don't see what they offer unless you can persuade meaningful numbers of your coworkers to sign up.

While I don't disagree on your main points, I will mention that there is a UK union (Prospect) for tech workers which is not politically aligned and sensible. (Disclaimer: I'm a member)

How long will it stay politically unaligned though? It seems like it would be quite easy to end up using the Union to push certain politics.
Post reply on HN