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

#291

Post by MrZongle2 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

Did you reach Friday without having a good reason to dislike Facebook this week?

Well, here you are.

I'm not crazy about unions. I'm not convinced that software developers need one, despite regular revivals of the notion. But I do recognize that other people want them, and other industries even need them.

But this shit is Orwellian. As many things that have come out of Facebook -- and other big tech companies. I'm amazed that so many of these types of ideas make it as far as they do, and are generally met with tepid disapproval at best.

We're living in a Stasi wet dream, but many are trying to convince us that it's ok because these are private companies, rather than a government.

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

#292

Post by nathanlied » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

waheoo wrote: post #277

dijit wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt about that. I’m just arguing that the concept is fine, and the implementation is corrupted. Removing the corruption would be great but the issue is not the concept itself.

What if the concept is what leads to the corruption? E.g. communism. Im for unions, it beats the current situation, but im weary of the sales pitch.

Are you arguing that unions lead to communism? While Europe has a rich weave of social-democratic governments, that would hardly constitute communism. In fact, I'd daresay actual communist parties in Europe with any real power are a distinct rarity.

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

#293

Post by kcolford » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #138

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…

I'm in a union and see similar things, but instead of using lawyers, the union would note that the contract had been violated, and management will typically agree to pay the people who would have done the work. If it's just 10 minutes, the union probably wouldn't bother with it - unless it's a pattern, and in that case, they'd add up all the 10-minute transgressions. I often disagree with the focuses of my union, but…

Interesting, so you're saying the union is most concerned with hours and making sure that none of the hours that would be directed to union members as per their collective bargaining agreement are redirected elsewhere.

Are your union members actually paid by the hour or are these hours tracked to justify/demand a certain headcount of salaried union members?

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

#294

Post by redbeard0x0a » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #288

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 would be much more attractive if US were an open shop country. Instead, we’re closed shop, which means that, once a union is in place, you can’t choose to join a different union. This routinely leads to situations where corrupt unions abuse their own members. For an example of how this works in practice, look at the UAW’s conduct with UC’s grad students. Years ago, they negotiated salary caps for grad students…

Where did the closed shop restrictions come from, did it come from anti-union lobbying or some think tank somewhere? This smells completely like "the government is useless", then going in and defunding things that the government is responsible for.

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

#295

Post by roosterdawn » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

api wrote: post #263

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.

I hate to use the most cliche word from California startup culture, but... maybe someone needs to... umm... disrupt unions? Could you start a new kind of union as a kind of non-profit startup? If I wanted to do this I'd leverage modern information technology to create covert communication channels for organizing and leverage big data, machine learning, and game theory to drive organization and bargaining strategies.…

Have you ever dealt with a cartel in real life? The idea that you can apply a "hacker" solution or "black hat" the cartel itself is naive. The whole point of any cartel (legal or otherwise) is to control and punish any attempts to operate outside of the rules and contracts that leadership negotiates. Anyone who considers doing something like this should be very aware of the career, financial, legal and physical risks of doing so.

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

#296

Post by tenebrisalietum » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #207

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Soviet Russia did that by making being unemployed illegal.

The Soviet economy tended to have supply side issues - everyone had enough money but getting things to buy was difficult.

I'm not sure how the two are really related and it's a deep and interesting thing to study which I haven't really done. So I don't know all the nuances but that would be an actual example of it.

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

#297

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

dsjoerg wrote: post #270

mcv wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As an American I strongly agree with your insight, and independently arrived at it. It is an underlying cultural issue -- a lack of community spirit that is relatively widespread. It is a universal human tendency that is strongly in effect here at the current time and place.

> a lack of community spirit that is relatively widespread.

How did this happen?

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

#298

Post by mikestew » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:03 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…

If I told you that I once worked in a shop that didn’t use source control, didn’t have any formal testing, and builds came from dev desktop machines, would you:

1. Vow never to work in the software industry.

2. Allow that perhaps mine is a bad example, that there might be good software shops to work in, and wait for more data.

Though I would not fault anyone for choosing #1.

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

#299

Post by C1sc0cat » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

abj wrote: post #219

C1sc0cat wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in labour organisations "guild" has some unfortunate racist conations in the USA.

Serious question - maybe the word "union" or "guild" is a branding problem? We could do some basic user research and come up with a more appealing name.(Think Universal Basic Income -> Freedom Dividend) I'd be more likely to join an organization called "Gathered Friends for Salary Negation And Fair Treatment".

A lot of early US workers organisations where called guilds and one of the aims was excluding BAME (to use a modern term) workers.

Also Guild does imply exclusion which is the medieval guild system which I think others have mentioned.

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

#300

Post by horsemessiah » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

TakawaraJu wrote: post #16

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tool is something that Facebook is trying to sell . To other companies . So you're missing the point with your superficial speculation as to the balance of power between Facebook and its employees. For that reason, I'll keep the rebuttal short: laws are still valid, as far as I know. And this tool is blatantly illegal. Facebook employees also don't typically face starvation if they can't find a new job right awa…

Whilst it may be distasteful, it is entirely legal. An employer cannot inhibit the formation or function of a union but are under no obligation to provide the facilities or platform to form one. What FB have done is akin to not allowing an organizer to use the company photocopier to print union leaflets

This is only true if they block all non-work discussions. Law explicitly allows union related discussion if other non-work related discussions are allowed.