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

#371

Post by mattmcknight » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #99

cool_dude85 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, things that seem to not make sense are the result of historical practices at that workplace or others. In a situation like the comment describes, usually it's at a partially unionized workplace. If you don't have these kinds of things in the contract, what can sometimes happen is a situation where all the "monitor movers" are unionized, but then management hires a new "screen transporter" for $10 an hour who i…

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.

I think a lot of people worry about these pay scales being limiting. In the US, they tend to end up being based on years of service or credentials, rather than about productivity or quality.

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

#372

Post by ultrarunner » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

johnday wrote: post #319

mennis16 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really your main point but there are quite a few US "metro areas" with fairly sparse layout/wide scope, so I think public transit actually is a harder problem in the US than it is in e.g. Europe. That said even the cities that don't have this excuse tend to have mediocre at best transit here (for example Boston).

You would expect that the surplus of space in many US metropolitan areas would make it considerably easier to install and operate metro transit lines, but this seems not to be the case. I suspect the systemic bias towards road users is much more of a problem than geographical scale.

Interestingly enough there is much more revenue generation for the state in traffic violations. When one is walking or using public transport it’s more difficult for cops to harass them. But people can have a taillight out at any moment that warrants a traffic stop and subsequent fishing expedition. Our urban planning, especially in the West has been heavily biased toward cars.

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

#373

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #68

0xy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> " Poor performers get paid more, top performers get paid less. No thanks, I can negotiate for myself. " The two retorts to this are: 1) it's selfish arguing. "Fuck you got mine" style, dismisses what happens to everyone else as long as you're OK. Which may be fine for you, but why should the rest of us agree that you being wealthier is the thing we all want? 2) You negotiating against the resources of a multi-milli…

[deleted]

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

#374

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #124

mcv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "most of the time a union has some degree of member democracy" Most of the time ? Some degree ? Any union that does not represent its members to the best of its ability is not a good union. That's also why it's vital that no single union has a monopoly on a certain type of work; if union members are unhappy with their union, they need to be able to leave and join or start a new one.

> Any union that does not represent its members to the best of its ability is not a good union. This is as naive as saying that "any good country does not represent it's population" and then therefore expecting good governments. > That's also why it's vital that no single union has a monopoly on a certain type of work; if union members are unhappy with their union, they need to be able to leave and join or start a ne…

>Again, the reality on the ground is one of union monopolies. Union power derives from its collective bargaining power - so separate unions always end up merging and union bosses always end up as major power brokers, accountable to no one.

This is the case for many corporations, leading to corporate mergers too, accountable to no one. That's why we have mechanisms to deal with it. Some mergers must be approved by the government. Sometimes companies are split up. We just need to apply the same regulations around anticompetitive behavior and monopolies to unions, so that we can have unions while keeping them from being all encompassing.

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

#375

Post by kelvin0 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

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…

From my personal (limited) research and observations. I am in no way an expert.

Unions originally seem to have made a very positive impact on the working conditions of workers. Just think of the horrible situation of steel workers (and others) during the start of the industrial revolution. Workers organized to make a change and improve their lot.

Fast forward a few decades: Unions seem to have become self-sustained entities whose incentive have switched from helping workers, to sustaining the union's economic interests. They also sometimes help some workers, but it's not free.

There is a very well known case in Quebec, Canada. It's the Gaspesia debacle:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comme...

"Work on the mill conversion began in the spring of 2002. From the beginning, the project -- established as a limited partnership 50 per cent owned by the Fonds de solidarité with the SGF and Tembec each holding 25-per-cent stakes -- was plagued by delays and mismanagement. The FTQ was accused of blocking workers affiliated with other unions from getting construction jobs on the site. Contractors complained that workers were paid for eight-hour days, but put in only three hours of productive labour."

This is only the tip of the Iceberg, and illustrates why there seems a negative perception of unions.

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

#376

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #304

jcims wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. Guilds in general are a great way to reboot collective bargaining in the US. That thought occurred to me earlier this year and I completely forgot about it in this thread.

What's the difference between a union and a guild? Do Americans just have an aversion to the word union now?

Classic definition wise guilds had a legal monopoly or regulation over a certain trade occupations including the quality and the maximium supply through control of pipelines of licensing and training.

Historically they were a often a feudal "link" of control for administration. They meet with the head haberdasher to discuss carrots and sticks of taxation and licensing so they pay willingly and let them shout about unlicensed competitors instead of trying to chase down every last haberdasher to tax.

Unions are more "if you piss off every affiliated habberdasher in the city they refuse to make hats until their demands are met".

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

#377

Post by umeshunni » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:01 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…

> IMHO I've never heard one of these stories where I thought Facebook was doing the right thing. Not once.

It's almost like the media is pushing some kind of narrative here against an entity they compete with.

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

#378

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#379

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #324

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…

I'll never forget the union at a convention center that forced vendors to pay them to move anything from their own car they couldn't carry. Nothing but extortionist bullies squeezing every cent of protection money they could out of the people there who actually make things and add value to the world. In contrast, these union employees were nothing but parasites. They did nothing the vendors couldn't do themselves, wh…

So put in a provision in the tech union charter that allows anyone, unionized or not, to move monitors. Problem solved.

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

#380

Post by dspillett » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #324

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…

I'll never forget the union at a convention center that forced vendors to pay them to move anything from their own car they couldn't carry. Nothing but extortionist bullies squeezing every cent of protection money they could out of the people there who actually make things and add value to the world. In contrast, these union employees were nothing but parasites. They did nothing the vendors couldn't do themselves, wh…

I hear this sort of thing a lot, but far more often than not it is from the point of view of "someone I know", "a mate a ", or "this thing I read on The Register". I'm sure it really happens, just not nearly as often as people seem to think and/or suggest.

I've actually experienced it twice, but neither case had anything to do with unions.

One was officially a Health and safety matter (if you'd not been on the manually handling course you should not be moving heave expensive bits of equipment around) though I suspect it was really more of an insurance matter (only the relevant people should be moving the expensive equipment, or accidental damages won't be covered). Commercial arse-shielding, no unions involved.

The other was again commercial: in an outsourced IT arrangement where all equipment moves had to be done by someone on the outsourced team. This of course carried a charge for time, but if it wasn't done that way the contract said the charge could still be made with additional charges for the extra paperwork. Again, a purely commercial matter, no unions present affecting the matter in either company.