Live data from Hacker News

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

theintercept.com

131–140 of 500 posts

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

#131
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that happens then members would leave.

Would they though? From what I understood Google has a workplace that heavily leans towards one political side in the US. It seems to even have been used to shame people to stay in line. What's the chance that something similar wouldn't happen with this Union?

There are no "closed shops" any more in the UK[1]. Any member can leave a union any time they like.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_1990

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

#132

Aren't people at facebook paid really well anyway, way above the norm. What is the motive in unionising, is it the politics of it or the pay that you want to change?

It's not about unionizing at Facebook, but about unionizing at companies which use Facebook's product Workplace.

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

#133
> Facebook is quietly helping to set up a new pro-tech advocacy group to battle Washington

> The employee noted that many Facebook team members are now questioning the moral compass of chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.

At some point you need to look at the skull emblems on your uniform and ask yourself, "Hans, are we the baddies?".

IMHO I've never heard one of these stories where I thought Facebook was doing the right thing. Not once.

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

#134
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

> Any union that does not represent its members to the best of its ability is not a good union. This is as naive as saying that "any good country does not represent it's population" and then therefore expecting good governments. > 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 ne…

Of course there are bad governments. They deserve to be overthrown. Similarly, bad unions should be overthrown. But just like good governments, good unions are possible.

Many countries have healthy unions. The problem in the US is not the concept of unions, it's the American concept of unions. It's how the US goes about dealing with unions. That's the thing that needs to change. Claiming that all unions are bad when that is clearly not the case, is a nonsense argument.

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

#135

In going to say it: you are probably a complete moron if you thought it was a good idea to put "unionize" on the slide for words you can block using your software.

I agree, having that specific word on a slide shows, whoever prepared it must have been out of touch - or, very in touch with what employers like Facebook want, but blind to the serious legal implications.

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

#136
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…

> The alternative is to force everyone to unionize - and that's got its own problems.

Does it really, though? Because literally every one of your complaints above would be solved, if your companies employees stopped actively fighting the union, and just simply joined it instead.

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

#137
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…

I'm endlessly surprised that unions are collectively as bad at PR as their image suggests.

What would a company chose between:

- Spend 1 million to accommodate a union's demands e.g. raise salaries and improve working conditions

- Spend 999999 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting organizations that are specialized on disrupting unions, tarnishing their reputation, and manipulate/threaten/sue/bribe/smear their members

In some countries unions has become corrupted, bureaucratic, ineffective. Companies benefit from that.

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

#138
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…

I'm in a union and see similar things, but instead of using lawyers, the union would note that the contract had been violated, and management will typically agree to pay the people who would have done the work. If it's just 10 minutes, the union probably wouldn't bother with it - unless it's a pattern, and in that case, they'd add up all the 10-minute transgressions. I often disagree with the focuses of my union, but I'm still happy to support it. As many have noted, the main thing a union does is balance the leverage. Without them, the employer has all of it.

For seemingly silly rules like the ones you're describing, the union is attempting to protect jobs and hours.

I wish my union was more like some European unions I've read about, where they're involved in the decision-making process. Mine fights for wages, positions, and conditions, but management decides how things work - so long as they're not violating the agreed-upon conditions. I expect your workplace is similar. Instead of mapping out a path with management, my union reacts to the path set out by management, and I think a lot of the weird rules come as a result of reacting, rather than helping to create.

I also think this sort of collaboration would be better for companies, particularly larger companies, where there is a disconnect from how things actually work and how corporate thinks they work. We have this particularly terrible piece of machinery that corporate is obsessed with justifying. We have other machines that do its jobs better, but it does the jobs of many machines - just much worse. It just wastes a lot of time, but corporate incentiveses management to use it, and when discussing the POS machine, management cites those incentives as reasons for why the machine is actually good. When you say, "Yes, but how does wasting all this time using this particular machine help the company?" management highlights the incentives.

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

#139

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.

With e-mail, you don't get an avalanche of "funny memes" pictures that some people tend to post to Workplace. (At least from my experience.)

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

#140
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…

I don't think its that clear cut. Unions add another system that you need to cooperate with, and over which you may have very little influence. Devs aren't cops, but they aren't artists either. You do not know how a union would work out. I don't think devs at affluent companies that are highly invested in tech workers stand to gain much. Especially in america, you have no recourse to "the union". You can't start a new union as an alternative organization.

Game devs and other subsets should probably unionize. But cushy FAANG dev jobs? Probably not. If you're in a shitty team there, you should just try to find a better team.

Post reply on HN