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

181–190 of 500 posts

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

#181

Post by jasonlotito »

0xy wrote: post #44
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…

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…

Seems to me like teachers and police like their unions.

As for the tech industry, remember, your already getting paid less because of companies like Apple and Adobe who had the non-poaching agreement. This stifled salaries for everyone involved.

Unions are so bad, but companies will collectively bargain if they can.

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

#182

Post by mnw21cam »

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…

Or you could get round the block by just spelling the word correctly.

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

#183

Post by Vinnl »

jcims wrote: post #164
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".

For years now I've seen comments like this from Europeans every time unions come up in conversation online. You all need need to come work for a large union in the US. They are just not the same thing. I've had direct or indirect experience with Teamsters, CWA, NEA, IBEW and UBC. You can dress it up however you like but there are definitely 'union jobs' with all of the connotation that brings. Yes there are benefits…

Is that not exactly the point? "It's not unions that are bad, it's the concept of union jobs. Collective agreements would solve the problem you're pointing out."?

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

#184

Post by jeltz »

KorfmannArno wrote: post #178
dijit wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same argument I see americans make a lot. "Unions are bad!", no, the concept is fine, you have some bad ones. "Police are bad!", no, the concept is fine, yours are just untrained and overburdened. "Public transport is bad, I need a car!", no, the concept is fine, you just have bad public transport and that forms your opinion.

Please give an example of good public transport. (I'm living in Germany)

Stockholm's subway. I have also had good experiences in cities like Madrid, Milan and Lisbon.

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

#185

Post by ethbro »

piva00 wrote: post #103
mcv wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read a study on international power polarities, and they noted that truly independent tripolar was among the most stable configurations from a game theory perspective.

Broadly summarizing, the potential for the remaining tie-breaker to defect to either side tends to keep participants honest, even if they're bitterly opposed.

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

#186

Post by nujabe »

speedgoose wrote: post #100
renewiltord wrote: post #96

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.

Deciding to implement such a feature is a bit weird too. Sometimes you must say no.

I don't think the idea of 'content control' is a bad one at all, as in you may want to filter out offensive content etc. It's just that it's very dumb to spell out the exact type of controversial words/content you can use to filter out, when just explaining the feature to the customer would be enough, they will get the idea.

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

#187

Post by wastedhours »

KorfmannArno wrote: post #178
dijit wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same argument I see americans make a lot. "Unions are bad!", no, the concept is fine, you have some bad ones. "Police are bad!", no, the concept is fine, yours are just untrained and overburdened. "Public transport is bad, I need a car!", no, the concept is fine, you just have bad public transport and that forms your opinion.

Please give an example of good public transport. (I'm living in Germany)

London. Everyone likes to bemoan it usually, but you have connections via metro, train, tram, bus, boat or cycle to pretty much every major location in and around.

Alongside that you also have (putting aside the longstanding battle between them) a plethora of on-demand taxi services.

There are decent (although not high speed) train connections to most other major cities in the UK and even to continental Europe, there's an airport literally 10 minute car ride from the financial district, and two major European airports under 30 mins train ride away (obviously all dependent on your starting location within the metro area).

As an integrated system it's not perfect, but I'd certainly argue it's a viable aspiration for many cities to hit "good".

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

#188

Post by dri_ft »

dijit wrote: post #175
jcims wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years now I've seen comments like this from Europeans every time unions come up in conversation online. You all need need to come work for a large union in the US. They are just not the same thing. I've had direct or indirect experience with Teamsters, CWA, NEA, IBEW and UBC. You can dress it up however you like but there are definitely 'union jobs' with all of the connotation that brings. Yes there are benefits…

This is the same argument I see americans make a lot. "Unions are bad!", no, the concept is fine, you have some bad ones. "Police are bad!", no, the concept is fine, yours are just untrained and overburdened. "Public transport is bad, I need a car!", no, the concept is fine, you just have bad public transport and that forms your opinion.

How many times does a concept need to be executed badly before you can call it a bad concept?

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

#189

Post by jcims »

dijit wrote: post #175
jcims wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years now I've seen comments like this from Europeans every time unions come up in conversation online. You all need need to come work for a large union in the US. They are just not the same thing. I've had direct or indirect experience with Teamsters, CWA, NEA, IBEW and UBC. You can dress it up however you like but there are definitely 'union jobs' with all of the connotation that brings. Yes there are benefits…

This is the same argument I see americans make a lot. "Unions are bad!", no, the concept is fine, you have some bad ones. "Police are bad!", no, the concept is fine, yours are just untrained and overburdened. "Public transport is bad, I need a car!", no, the concept is fine, you just have bad public transport and that forms your opinion.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Michael Scott

We're not going to get different results when we form a union in the US unless we make an attempt to get different results.

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

#190

Post by ethbro »

teekert wrote: post #86
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".

Yeah, this, same in the Netherlands. Where a large company tends to put share holders first because that is where the CEO's bonus depends on, the unions put the employees first. I see it almost a necessary thing to keep the balance. But the way I see it, with the very little workers rights there are in the US the anti-union movement has basically won there. Reminds me of that quote [0] or this meme [1]. Yeah, you don…

In the US, a big part of the anti-union movement's success has been the fact that states retain enough autonomy to rig the rules in pro- or anti-union fashion, while also competing for business that can typically be located anywhere in the CONUS.

As a result, it's a race to the bottom as governors try to pursue business-friendly policies to attract jobs. And on the other "side", to pursue union-friendly policies to attract votes.

Both of which tug decisions to the extremes, the better to win their base, rather than seeking compromise that's acceptable to both parties.

One reason proletarian internationalism remained a hotly debated topic in communist theory for decades.

Post reply on HN