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

141–150 of 500 posts

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

#141

Post by bluntfang »

neximo64 wrote: post #125

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?

>What is the motive in unionising, is it the politics of it or the pay that you want to change?

IMO a software engineers union would accomplish things like productive social change. Most of the employees at facebook don't like Zucc's relationship with Trump? Well, strike. See how long it takes them to replace and onboard a bunch of scabs if 90% of your engineers aren't working.

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

#142

Post by lexs »

neximo64 wrote: post #125

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?

Unions are not only about compensation but also terms of employment. I see enough discussions on HN about non-competes, forced arbitration etc. where unionising would help.

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

#143

Post by humanrebar »

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…

> It was always clear that there was a huge misconception about what unions are, and how they work, based on the depiction of unions in popular culture or the past.

Police and teacher unions are very much current events in the U.S. between COVID and the protests.

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

#144

Post by eeZah7Ux »

0xy wrote: post #80
rightbyte wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems "top performers" are not really recognized and job jumpers are the ones that are paid more.

If a company isn't meeting your salary expectations then leaving for a better offer is itself a negotiating tactic in a way.

...which only proves the point that people are not rewarded for their skills and efforts.

Instead: being good at doing interviews including "looking the part", being strong negotiators, changing jobs often.

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

#145

Post by djaychela »

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…

> A union is a huge additional layer of bureaucracy.

They can be, undoubtedly.

But don't forget the times when they go into bat to defend the rights of workers who have been treated badly by their employers - whether during employment or when they have been made redundant and procedures have not been followed correctly. When you're a part-time worker who is in a union who has very little input in your day-to-day work, but they come to your rescue with a considerable amount of legal muscle behind you in such a situation, the £10 a month you've paid them looks like very good value indeed.

I totally get that unions can be the embodiment of self-protection and bureaucracy, and can lead to expensive and crazy situations (indeed when I see some union leaders here in the UK it appears that is their desire). But that isn't all they are there for - they can also help the little guy out when their back is against the wall.

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

#146

Post by eeZah7Ux »

0xy wrote: post #77
KaiserPro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok, but hear me out on this: how do you know you are earning as much as you should? I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay. You're slapped on a scale and thats it. You might be able to up your share offer, but actual pay is fixed on a scale. Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised. Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always…

>I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible. >Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised Firstly, no. The scale is wide and you are placed somewhere between the low and high points of the scale for your level. Not every L5 engineer earns the same thing. Secondly, tota…

> Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible.

citation needed

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

#147

Post by teddyh »

Mirioron wrote: post #119
ShamelessC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eggplant emoji.

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

#148

Post by eeZah7Ux »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #27

Clearly, they don't play online games with a chat lobby. They would have quickly learned that such features is useless, as it's easily bypassed: - in novembre, we should cost them the electrons. Ionize! - It's time we u_nionize - un10n1z3 people ! - let's fetch the U:\N\I\O\N\I\Z\E file - all go to http://unio.ni/ze - so we should do the u-thingy - what about talking to Mr Ulysse Nionize - never too late to ｕｎᎥｏｎｉｚｅ…

That's incredibly naive.

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

#149

Post by leereeves »

mcv wrote: post #114
michaelt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Are there any other supposedly-good organisations that are toxic in the US?

There aren't many supposedly-good organizations in the US.

According to Gallup[1], in 2019 there were only three institutions in which more than half of Americans had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of trust: the military, police, and small business. The police probably lost that trust recently, leaving only small business and the military.

Only 29% trusted organized labor, which puts it below the presidency, in 2019. But even fewer trust big business, and trust in organized labor has been rising, so there might be some hope for unions.

1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.as...

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

#150

Post by Intermernet »

guerrilla wrote: post #113
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.

> 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.

Forming a union on your own is bound to fail...
Post reply on HN