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

#201

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

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".

...and this is one of the main problems with online advocacy.

You can say "unions are a no brainer - America is so backwards not to have them".

I can say "unions are awful and poisonous to a company."

...and given the different definition of "union", we are each correct within our national context, but often incorrect when saying it online.

US unions != EU unions.

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

#202

Post by ric2b » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

dri_ft wrote: post #188

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.

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

Apparently 1, and you need to ignore all the ones that are executed well.

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

#203

Post by tenebrisalietum » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

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…

Protecting work in this manner exists because the prevailing culture is that jobs solve social issues - we can't give the disadvantaged money directly because socialism, but we can pressure companies to make-work jobs because having a job means you deserve to be human, and it also creates situations where people want to protect their jobs for their income rather than any other reason.

A UBI can possibly help prevent this type of silliness.

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

#204

Post by annadane » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

Lio wrote: post #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…

It's my general impression that the ones who say "Don't worry, we care about you" ARE the baddies, they're not aligned with their own public image (why? I don't know, they should be, maybe they can't overcome their own egos). The ones you should be trusting are the ones who go "Don't trust me, but these are my principles"

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

#205

Post by ttsda » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #184

KorfmannArno wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone living in Lisbon and has been to multiple European capitals: we're not a good example.

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

#206

Post by derivativethrow » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

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…

How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic? Where I work, I still have to open tickets for everything. I still have to wait a long time for new equipment. How does a union make that worse if I have to wait for cogs to turn anyway?

I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit. Yeah yeah the MTA is bad sure, and I've interacted with unions before that exemplified their stereotypes. But if you really think employees would suddenly not be able to plug in a monitor or move it across the room because there's a union, I think you're completely incorrect.

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

#207

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:22 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #203

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…

Protecting work in this manner exists because the prevailing culture is that jobs solve social issues - we can't give the disadvantaged money directly because socialism, but we can pressure companies to make-work jobs because having a job means you deserve to be human, and it also creates situations where people want to protect their jobs for their income rather than any other reason. A UBI can possibly help prevent…

Anyone who wants a job, should be able to get one. Personally, I advocate UBW - Universal Basic Work - A guaranteed living-wage job for any American that wants one.

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

#208

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:23 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #101

koheripbal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be your definition, but unions do this also. Maybe it's different in different places - but here the union clearly forbids non-union workers from doing various types of work.

Well, it's not how unions work in Europe, and those unions do not create the kind of problems that American unions apparently create, so maybe the US could learn a lesson from Europe here. Because the argument "the wrong way is the only right way" makes no sense. If it's wrong, you fix it. Being forced to choose between two wrongs is no good.

Maybe - but clearly advocating for unions in the US when you are in the EU is not the message you intend since unions function differently here.

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

#209

Post by throwawaygh » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:25 PM UTC

ghj wrote: post #23

I guess we're past the point where codewords like "winnie the pooh" work but is NLP so advanced it can parse all the other ways human hint and indirectly communicate with each other? Like can't I just send something like "hey coworker, lets do the thing that's opposite of ionized!". Or will the AI block my message (or more scarily, subtly rewrite it) and inform my manager? This seems like tech with huge unintended co…

Or just... don't use your company's chat product to talk about unionization efforts?

I'm mostly agnostic toward unions for software workers. I think we need something closer to what professional engineers have than to what police/teachers have.

And then my employer started punishing people for talking about unionizing. That's when I became pro-union.

Often times, it's the clamp-down that turns people against you. "The tighter you tighten your grip..."

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

#210

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

derivativethrow wrote: post #206

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…

How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic? Where I work, I still have to open tickets for everything. I still have to wait a long time for new equipment. How does a union make that worse if I have to wait for cogs to turn anyway? I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit. Yeah yeah the MTA is bad sure, and I've interacted with unions before th…

> I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit.

These were real examples that infuriated everyone. I also think they're bullshit. That's what made them infuriating.

> How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic?

It effectively doubles the amount of bureaucracy, because it adds to the list of work that requires a ticket.

> I still have to wait a long time for new equipment.

Do the examples in the comment above currently require a ticket? Plugging in a computer? Carrying a monitor one cube over? Grabbing some chairs from another office? I suspect not.