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

191–200 of 500 posts

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

#191

Post by elliekelly »

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)

I was really impressed by Amsterdam’s transportation system as a whole - roads, bike lanes, light rail. As an American it felt like the city was designed to encourage walking or biking followed by public transport with cars as a last resort.

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

#192

Post by elliekelly »

ethbro wrote: post #185
piva00 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Any chance you have the link to the study? That sounds really interesting. Maybe even worth a post of its own on HN?

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

#193

Post by RHSeeger »

rwmj wrote: post #131
Mirioron wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even voicing the opinion that Right to Work is a good idea causes the pro-union folks to act like they're going rabid, acting like you're trying to tear down their entire world. Passing a Right to Work law is, in the eyes of many, a flat out attack on unions and an act of union busting.

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

#194

Post by forgingahead »

dijit wrote: post #70
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…

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".

You don't need to be rude to the parent poster.

They have real experiences of a union in their company. You have examples of unions in your country. Who is correct?

If your answer is yourself, then you're not understanding the point or the concern that people who are against unions have. It doesn't matter if Sweden implemented it well and somewhere else implemented it poorly. Bottom line is that the poorly-implemented scenario can happen, does happen, and in fact happens more often than anecdata of "oh no true union does that".

Unless you can propose a foolproof way that the "wrong way" is always prevented, then you will get opposition to your beliefs. Calling people or things stupid doesn't solve that.

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

#195

Post by tomsmeding »

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)

Western Netherlands, or more specifically, the "Randstad" area. People like to complain about train punctuality but really, shit's quite dependable. Trains run regularly and on a fixed schedule, trams in metropolitan areas, buses perpendicular on those trams and in the less-densely-populated areas. Higher education students get free usage of public transport during their studies. I have a driver's license, but I won't be using it often.

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

#196

Post by RHSeeger »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #137
regularfry wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Compan…

I think the trick is making is so that the 1 million they spend to accommodate a union's demands gets them enough benefit (happy, more productive workers, effectively) that it costs less to do that than it does to try to stop the union from being there in the first place.

If the _only_ thing the union does it make life better for the members at the cost of the company, then you have to expect the company to not want the union there.

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

#197

Post by derivativethrow »

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)

Switzerland. As an American, I wanted to move there after zipping around the country on their buses and trains.

That was such a good experience, even the tickrt app brought me joy.

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

#198

Post by sct202 »

perfunctory wrote: post #46

US looks more and more like China or Soviet Union. One difference is that the oppressor is not the communist party but corporations [0] [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-survei...

We're going to have to start communicating in emojis to get around the censors just like in China.

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

#199

Post by javagram »

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #3

>>Section 1: The policy of the United States is to be carried out "by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment..." Section 7: "Employees shall have the right to self-orga…

The NLRB recently reversed itself and said companies can prevent their workers from organizing on the work email system. Expect the same would apply to FB Workplace.

https://www.reuters.com/article/labor-disclosure/workers-can...

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

#200

Post by regularfry »

scarmig wrote: post #33
regularfry wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1) A lot of the good PR individual professions have is the result of union PR. Teachers, nurses, cops, etc all have unions that put out endless propaganda (no negative connotation intended) about how great and vital to society they are. A lot of our nostalgia for jobs associated with heavy industry comes from old union propaganda. 2) Good PR can easily be outweighed by negative PR. Coal companies have excellent PR de…

On 1) sure, I'm not discounting that. Great PR for the members. For the union itself? For the concept of a union? Not so much.

2) I said this further down the thread, but isn't that table stakes? If you're going to advocate for your members, you yourself need to have a support base beyond that membership. Otherwise you get the situation we've got now, where a request in support of the members is viewed negatively precisely because it's coming from a union.

3) Again, table stakes. Especially so if union members buy into the negative-PR-driven image and create a feedback loop.

Post reply on HN