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

251–260 of 500 posts

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

#251

Post by toomuchtodo »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #245
toomuchtodo wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens in non-union jobs. Your issue is not with unions, but with bureaucracy, which is fair. To blame unions is not.

We can blame unions for bringing it to a fine art. Their goals are to preserve jobs and pad pay. That directly results in nonsense like this - 7 days to prepare for a meeting or plug in a monitor etc. Sure unions are not the only ones doing this. But unions are doing this . So its 'fair' to blame them.

Can't argue with someone who has an axe to grind.

EDIT: Non-union shops are just as culpable in the deficiencies you describe (creating and defending bureaucracies from innovation or creative destruction), which is why your pejorative opinion of unions poisons the ability to have a legitimate conversation regarding their benefits to workers (who have very little power against corporations). Unions have challenges, but all organizations of people have challenges.

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

#252

Post by jcims »

omginternets wrote: post #249
dri_ft wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How many times must others get it right before you'll consider your own execution to be poor?

Well in the US we can only really vote on two opinions.

The 'left' argues for unions based on the concept. The 'right' argues against them based on their execution. So we go round and round and round and round because neither is willing to consider or admit that we might be talking past each other.

Makes for great web traffic though.

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

#253

Post by jkestner »

koheripbal wrote: post #236
take_a_breath wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

== This issue simply must take a back seat to bigger problems in America.== What if labor rights is actually the single biggest problem that drives all the others? I can think of things like a higher minimum wage, paid sick leave, anti-discrimination in hiring, maternity/paternity leave, and guaranteed PTO that could be helped by unionization to make us a stronger country, collectively.

Maybe other labor rights - but definitely not Facebook six-figure-salary labor rights - the context of this post.

Why tech workers should unionize is to have a say in their company's values and deeds. [1] And when a company has an enormous influence on our country, its employees should (and do) want to be part of decisions.

It's okay, society can handle more than one issue at a time.

1. https://www.wired.com/story/how-kickstarter-employees-formed...

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

#254

Post by omginternets »

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)

Let it be known: I am about to indulge you knowing full-well that you're going to quibble over the definition of "good".

With that said, I have lived in the following places for more than a year, and found the public transportation to be good, if not excellent.

- Paris, France

- Lyon, France

- London, UK

- Amsterdam, NL

- Bayreuth, DE

Despite some well-known problems in some of these places (strikes in Paris comes readily to mind), the advantages remain enormous:

- Reduced motor vehicle circulation in the city

- A high degree of mobility at a moment's notice

- The ability to move around without breaking a sweat (sadly important when going to a meeting in a suit)

- The ability to get home while inebriated

- The ability for suburban (read: underprivileged) employees to participate in the heart of the regional economy

The list goes on...

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

#255

Post by api »

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…

The work rules are the thing that gets me. The idea of paying employees more? Great. Protection from discrimination and unfair termination? Collective bargaining? Great. But I can't imagine how it's possible to get anything done with the work rules.

Companies that operate this way must be in slow paced industries. To innovate you must be able to just do stuff. As soon as you add a bunch of hoops and sign-offs you lose momentum.

My own hypothesis on this is that it's not just a matter of high overhead but of slowing things down to the point that it breaks the dopamine reinforcement loop for the human beings involved. Humans need to be able to see results or at least movement toward them in a reasonable amount of time or it becomes really difficult to stay focused and engaged.

The work rules and bureaucracy element is like 100% of my skepticism about unions. Get rid of that stuff and I'd be all for them.

That being said, unions aren't the only source of inane bureaucracy of course. Many organizations without unions manage to invent worthless tar pits of their own.

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

#256

Post by omginternets »

jcims wrote: post #252
omginternets wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many times must others get it right before you'll consider your own execution to be poor?

Well in the US we can only really vote on two opinions. The 'left' argues for unions based on the concept. The 'right' argues against them based on their execution. So we go round and round and round and round because neither is willing to consider or admit that we might be talking past each other. Makes for great web traffic though.

I don't understand how this is remotely relevant.

The point is: many (most?) first-world countries have unions that work well overall. Same with police departments.

What you're describing are putative reasons why the American execution is a failure.

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

#257

Post by Kaze404 »

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've never had issues with public transportation in Brazil (living in small, medium and large cities). For the 5 years that I worked in person, I took the bus to work every day and I can only remember it failing me once.

Admittedly sometimes I'd fall asleep and miss my stop.

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

#258

Post by Frondo »

jcims wrote: post #189
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.

"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.

Yes, like dijit said, something modeled after the Screen Actors Guild. You rockstars get your million dollar salaries, no one gets overworked.

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

#259

Post by JoeAltmaier »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #251
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can blame unions for bringing it to a fine art. Their goals are to preserve jobs and pad pay. That directly results in nonsense like this - 7 days to prepare for a meeting or plug in a monitor etc. Sure unions are not the only ones doing this. But unions are doing this . So its 'fair' to blame them.

Can't argue with someone who has an axe to grind. EDIT: Non-union shops are just as culpable in the deficiencies you describe (creating and defending bureaucracies from innovation or creative destruction), which is why your pejorative opinion of unions poisons the ability to have a legitimate conversation regarding their benefits to workers (who have very little power against corporations). Unions have challenges, bu…

Doesn't. I can discuss unions objectively. Just not gonna pretend they can do no wrong. In fact, that's the entire discussion right there -how to preserve the benefits without making dysfunctional organizations.

It'd be fair to say, its union supporters that can't have a meaningful discussion. Because they have a chip on their shoulders. So discussing the negative is instantly off the table.

Anyway, I've worked my whole career free of that particular brand of dysfunctional organization. Worked with guys who were part of them, including one 'enforcer' who's whole job was to threaten other employees into line on critical votes. How's that for dysfunctional?

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

#260

Post by Frondo »

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)

Taipei's intracity transit, both buses and the metro system. Taiwan's intercity buses, rail, and HSR. Clean, very frequent, gets you everywhere.
Post reply on HN