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

401–410 of 500 posts

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

#401

Post by sho »

epistasis wrote: post #396
sho wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New rule: similar to Godwin's law, first person to mention "privilege" loses the argument. It is an unwinnable and deeply toxic ad hominem strategy; discount any merit of the argument and accuse the opponent of simply being too "privileged" to ever understand. Well guess what - that hole just goes down and down. If you can speak english and afford a computer, you're way too privileged. Electricity! Privilege. When it…

First off, that's not similar to Godwin's law. Secondly, telling to shut up because they used the word "privilege" is not very conducive to conversation. If you really think the word poses problems, could you explain what those problems are? Your sarcastic string of identities is not helpful for understanding what your point is.

> telling to shut up because they used the word "privilege" is not very conducive to conversation

I don't like it because it's an all-purpose "shut up" card itself. It discounts opinion and argument not because of any merit or logic, simply because of the arguer's socioeconomic situation - which is not even known! I feel it is a very lazy way to conduct a conversation.

I'm sorry if my original post came across sarcastically, i was just trying to "reductio ad absurdum" some of the arguments i've heard in the past.

What I hate about "privilege" is that it is an invitation to introduce the notion of personal virtue into what should be a dispassionate discussion. It turns into a competition which has nothing to do with the merit of the point. It is a personal thing, much like race, and it's not useful. When I hear "you wouldn't understand because you're privileged" i can just translate it to "because you're white" or "because you're asian" or "because you're X". Well great. Where does that get us? And since you're talking about me, let's look very closely at you?

I don't deny privilege exists. Of course it does. I daresay I see it more than most, living where I do. But like racism it is not to be tossed around lightly, or it will basically kill any discussion.

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

#403

Post by tehjoker »

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…

The idea of having individual employees choose which union they want sounds a lot like the idea that consumer choice drives change (which usually does not work except in the case of huge boycotts, which are limited in their effects). Unions are about democracy in the workplace. If everyone is in a different union, there can be no legitimate democratic decisions on behalf of the workers.

EDIT: There's a bit of an exception. For example, in universities, sometimes graduate students have a union and faculty have a union. It doesn't make sense to place them both in the same union because the faculty boss graduate students around. However, it would make sense for the two unions to cooperate against the administration.

EDIT2: Another reason unions should be as concentrated as possible is so they form a united front against the bosses. If every employee is in a different union, how can they achieve anything without great difficulty?

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

#404

Post by compiler-guy »

Apocryphon wrote: post #382
compiler-guy wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So those proposing having unions in the US need to explain why this implementation will suddenly work differently than all the others in the US. Sure, I'll freely admit that unions have worked very well other places, but the US seems to blow it every darn time. Why would this time be different?

Software engineering has this culture of innovation, invention, disruption, and reimplementing everything from taxis to space travel to payment systems to currency to food from scratch. Why couldn't they attempt to do the same to labor relations. Why assume that the day after a tech union is invented, suddenly you're stuck with a massive clanking bureaucracy that's identical to the ones that were formed in very diffe…

I think the burden of proof is on those saying, "This time it will be different."

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

#405

Post by RobertKerans »

chiefgeek wrote: post #359
capdeck wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent example why unions are wrong solution to a bigger problem - lack of universal healthcare, free education and guaranteed pension. If we had the three above - there won't be a need for unions because you are not loosing _everything_ when you are loosing a job. Until this bigger problem is fixed unions will remain one of the very few things workers can do to improve their odds in life. So you can't…

That's a great point that never occurred to me! I always sort of hold both sides of the argument over unions in my head and can never reconcile them.

If that were correct, why do unions exist in western European countries? I understand from a US point of view, fixing [what are to an outsider's eyes] poor worker protections and a crazy medical system would help (if on the flipside creating vast, black-hole-like, tax-funded bureaucracies), but I think it misses the point of unions slightly.

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

#406

Post by Apocryphon »

dspillett wrote: post #380
jimmaswell wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manual…

Reminds me of a Stewart Lee bit about people confusing things with health and safety legislation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_JCBmY9NGM

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

#407

Post by reaperducer »

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…

Need to plug that new PC into the socket? Sorry, equipment installation is a union job

For anyone who thinks that this is just hyperbole, it's exactly the sort of thing that happens.

When I worked at a unionized television station, I was watching an aircheck of a recent broadcast. When I was done, I ejected the tape and put it back into the archive.

The union filed a grievance against me for pressing the eject button. As a manager, I could use Play, Stop, and the shuttle controls, but not Eject. Only a union member could eject a tape.

At another television station where I worked, there was an employee retiring after 30 years with the station, and we thought it would be cute to show a ten-second clip of him working while the anchors said goodbye and thanks. It never happened. He worked upstairs, in the tech center, and the members of the photographers union weren't allowed to operate any electronic equipment up there because that was the province of a different union. This included working their own cameras. At the same time, the people who worked in the tech center weren't allowed to operate any of the station's cameras, because that was the domain of the photographer's union. As I said, we were never able to air a clip of this good employee doing his job.

At another television station, I worked weekends. Naturally, I was expected to work five days a week like every other employee. So I was assigned to help write during three weekdays. A union grievance was filed against me for taking a theoretical writer's job. The result was that for the next FIVE YEARS, I did nothing three days a week but look at lolcats, and the station had to keep paying me my full salary.

I'm not anti-union. I think unions are essential for coal miners, maids, janitors, and other people. But I'm not convinced that white collar people need unions. Or at least there should be a method of calling out and publicizing union abuses to let their members know what's going on.

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

#408

Post by Apocryphon »

compiler-guy wrote: post #404
Apocryphon wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software engineering has this culture of innovation, invention, disruption, and reimplementing everything from taxis to space travel to payment systems to currency to food from scratch. Why couldn't they attempt to do the same to labor relations. Why assume that the day after a tech union is invented, suddenly you're stuck with a massive clanking bureaucracy that's identical to the ones that were formed in very diffe…

I think the burden of proof is on those saying, "This time it will be different."

Well, why don't we apply the scientific method and try it out! This industry was built upon experimentation and radical thinking.

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

#409

Post by compiler-guy »

Apocryphon wrote: post #408
compiler-guy wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the burden of proof is on those saying, "This time it will be different."

Well, why don't we apply the scientific method and try it out! This industry was built upon experimentation and radical thinking.

Unionization is much more of a social experiment than a technical experiment.

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

#410

Post by Apocryphon »

compiler-guy wrote: post #409
Apocryphon wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, why don't we apply the scientific method and try it out! This industry was built upon experimentation and radical thinking.

Unionization is much more of a social experiment than a technical experiment.

And what is ridesharing, house-sharing, cryptocurrency, or social networking? Or open source software for that matter? As software eats the world, technical innovations are creating social situations that have never existed in the past, creating social experiments whether intentional or not.
Post reply on HN