New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by mcv » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:03 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #82

pjc50 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hollywood unions are a slightly special case: while the studios hold a huge amount of power, the staff are pretty much all contractors per-project, and the entity they're contracting with will be a special purpose corporate vehicle for that film. Most software doesn't look like that - except game development, which is notoriously abusive and can get away with it because of a fresh supply of enthusiastic young people.

> game development...is notoriously abusive and can get away with it because of a fresh supply of enthusiastic young people. Hollywood also has an endless supply of enthusiastic young people. To me this sounds like an argument in favor of unionizing the game dev industry.

All those game industry horror stories are an even stronger argument in favour of unionising the game industry.

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

#112

Post by 0-O-0 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:04 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #39

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…

There are certainly bad unions. But I think that often arises as a reaction to poisonous management behavior, a zero-sum mentality that treats workers as a cost center, not a value generator. It's a "fuck me, no fuck you" scenario. Your point about the Hollywood unions is a great one. Like tech, in Hollywood everybody has clear incentives to create a great final product. Positive-sum thinking usually part of the cult…

> union is something the workers create and run

I just assume that it's almost never going to be the case.

It might look like it's created by worker, but it's created by a sub group of workers which is unhappy with a status quo. This effort will be led by even smaller sub group of activists that have a drive and skillset to organise and weasel into a leadership positions.

Worker run union seems to be even more implausible. It's going to be run by a managerial body composed of said activists, which I absolutely expect to be self-serving, rent seeking and, well, parasitic. Occasionally their interests will coincide with interests of workers they represent, but that will be just some happy accidents.

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

#113

Post by guerrilla » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:06 AM UTC

adwww wrote: post #45

pydry wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much money and rich enemies will do that.

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.

> 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

That's what organizing is. Take personal reaponsability and form or join a union together. It's not something you do on your own and that in fact can be dangerous.

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

#114

Post by mcv » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:06 AM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #54

wpietri wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certainly bad unions. But I think that often arises as a reaction to poisonous management behavior, a zero-sum mentality that treats workers as a cost center, not a value generator. It's a "fuck me, no fuck you" scenario. Your point about the Hollywood unions is a great one. Like tech, in Hollywood everybody has clear incentives to create a great final product. Positive-sum thinking usually part of the cult…

> The union is something the workers create and run. If they think a union they create would be bad, what are they saying about themselves? They think a union would be a bit like a homeowners association - in principle owned and run by them and never acting against their interests, but in practice a threat as much as an opportunity.

US homeowners association are another great example that doesn't match European experience. Why do Americans turn everything that's supposed to be in their own interest, into a vehicle for power abuse? That seems to be the recurring story in American unions, as well as homeowner associations. Are there any other supposedly-good organisations that are toxic in the US? Political parties? News? Boy scouts?

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

#115

Post by sushshshsh » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:07 AM UTC

beowulfey wrote: post #108

sushshshsh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ask any nurse, plumber, or teacher in the United States if they really feel they have the power to replace union reps that are perpetuating such practices.

Power perpetuates power

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

#116

Post by rwmj » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:07 AM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #110

rwmj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that happens then members would leave.

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

#117

Post by cool_dude85 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:08 AM UTC

sushshshsh wrote: post #115

beowulfey wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ask any nurse, plumber, or teacher in the United States if they really feel they have the power to replace union reps that are perpetuating such practices. Power perpetuates power

Now ask any engineer in the US if they have the power to replace management that perpetuates bad practices.

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

#118

Post by chillee » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:09 AM UTC

shp0ngle wrote: post #89

Workplace is very very very annoying to actually use, btw. Workplace is basically "facebook, but in a corp"; but all the nags and annoying notifications that kind-of work in Facebook, because you can chose what pages and groups to follow, just flat out don't work there, because you have to follow certain group. And you keep getting these annoying notifications that you cannot easily filter. So you still have one stre…

As a contrary opinion, I quite like workplace. I definitely feel that, for me, it provides a much more effective way of staying up to date on what's happening compared to mailing lists and such.

I don't understand how one stream of notifications is different from email - at least with workplace there's some ranking going on.

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

#119

Post by Mirioron » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:11 AM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #102

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's not about repetitive chat in that game. The community always adopts certain phrases that are there to signal that somebody sucks. I've yet to play an online game where people compete and this doesn't happen. Even the most innocent words and phrases work for this.

People focus too much on the specific words used. That's not what hurts. What hurts is the intent behind the words.

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

#120

Post by mcv » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

kaibee wrote: post #94

goatinaboat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions “Union” is a trigger word but call it an association like BMA, BALPA, or a Federation (Police) or even a guild, and everyone would be if not on board, at least willing to have a non-emotive conversation.

I have no doubt in my mind that most programmers would at least listen to the pitch if it was to join a guild.

And yet guilds are traditionally vehicles for monopoly and control. All the things Americans complain about with regards to unions, are actually guild-like behaviour.