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

451–460 of 500 posts

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

#451

Post by dependenttypes »

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".

You are lucky to be living in Sweden then. My experience from other EU countries is that unions are leeches that once in a while defend "high-ranking" union members that did something bad from being fired. (although admittedly it is not nearly as bad as what GP described)

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

#452

Post by dependenttypes »

dijit wrote: post #286
waheoo wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But there are non-corrupt unions in other countries? Even some in the US as some commentators have suggested (Screen Actors Guild being one)

Sure, there are non-corrupt unions in some other countries, the question is however how much % of them are not corrupt.

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

#453

Post by JackFr »

dijit wrote: post #434
JackFr wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Travelling around NYC using their underground was "ok" from a dependability standpoint; though I saw human excrement on many occasions, in one case it was smeared entirely on one of the benches where passengers usually sit. “Many occasions” sounds like BS to me. Until the pandemic I rode the subway at least 12 times a week, every week for the past 22 years, and only saw human excrement twice (and one time it was ac…

I don't really know what's "normal" on the NYC subway to be fair, I don't live their and didn't travel during peak times. I do slightly suspect that peak hours are more cleanly than non-peak time due to various economic reasons. But I saw: * poopy seat (when I got on the train at JFK) * little human sized nugger, near the door, nearly stood in it as I disembarked a train near penn station. * sticky urine floor near t…

Oh wait - I wasn’t counting urine. If we are than yeah, many.

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

#454

Post by capdeck »

claudeganon wrote: post #450
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…

...but Unions and union-backed political parties are who won all of these benefits in social democracies? You seem to have the entire thing backwards: the failure to build and grow unions in the US has resulted an absence of power and political representation for working people. Without this counterbalance, the rich and corporations have used the state to enshrine benefits for themselves and total power over workers.

Don't you think that if we have to have unions to achieve political representation -- there is something really wrong with our political process. If I am in a party and / or a union - how does that (not) help with representation? Why do I even have to be in the union to be represented?

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

#455

Post by claudeganon »

capdeck wrote: post #454
claudeganon wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but Unions and union-backed political parties are who won all of these benefits in social democracies? You seem to have the entire thing backwards: the failure to build and grow unions in the US has resulted an absence of power and political representation for working people. Without this counterbalance, the rich and corporations have used the state to enshrine benefits for themselves and total power over workers.

Don't you think that if we have to have unions to achieve political representation -- there is something really wrong with our political process. If I am in a party and / or a union - how does that (not) help with representation? Why do I even have to be in the union to be represented?

Collective problems require collective action. We aren’t born into a just or meritocratic world, but one defined by the wealthy and powerful, who themselves form blocs to defend their interests. You can certainly try to take them on by yourself, but history suggests you won’t be very successful.

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

#456

Post by dspillett »

jimmaswell wrote: post #416
dspillett wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>someone I know For reference I volunteered at a convention there, which is how I know all this.

As I expand lower down: it certainly does happen, and on your example did.

But I suspect it happens less often due to union matters than the oft regaled stories suggest, possibly less overall too.

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

#457

Post by rightbyte »

notnap wrote: post #444
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...which only proves the point that people are not rewarded for their skills and efforts. Instead: being good at doing interviews including "looking the part", being strong negotiators, changing jobs often.

Free Society doesn’t benefit much from the hammer that does the nails the best of the best. Society benefits more from the good hammer that finds the right nails to handle. Thus, rewards the latter behaviour more

Sure changing job is good for everyone given that you have the wrong programmer on the wrong post.

Likewise a OK programmer at their present job is worth maybe half a year to 2 year in salary in company or narrow product specific knowledge, for the company.

The way changing company gives raises doesn't make sense for the company losing an employee. The employee is worth more for the prior employer than the new. And the new employer's present employees are worth more than the new.

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

#458

Post by rightbyte »

LatteLazy wrote: post #177
rightbyte wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems "top performers" are not really recognized and job jumpers are the ones that are paid more.

I'm not the person you replied to and I get where you're coming frorm but... * Job jumping is what forces employers to actually recognize performance. That's both for the person leaving and for everyone else left behind. * Not so much for the company a person leaves or joins, but for the economy as a whole, job jumping IS performance. Your job isn't just being good at whatever you do right now, it's finding and movin…

I agree with that it is not bad the economy that people change jobs, but I believe that the employers overvalue others employees and undervalues their own, a bit.

Not counting the most dull sweat shops, programmers experienced in the company's code and processes just are like X months/years of salary more valuable on average than everyone else in their hiring pool on average.

I worked on my prior workplace for three years and at the end I worked half as hard for twice the result as in year 1-2. In the first 6 months I got sort of nothing done. I think this applied to other hires too. Is anyone agreeing with this, numbers approximately of course?

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

#459

Post by diogenescynic »

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…

You know unions are effective because all the most powerful groups have them—actors, athletes, doctors (AMA) cops, firefighters, and other professional guilds... America just seems against the working class being able to organize in any way.

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

#460

Post by mmm_grayons »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #159
shaftoe wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. It's called finding another job.

Birling: […] So I refused. Said I couldn't consider it. We were paying the usual rates and if they didn't like those rates, they could go and work somewhere else. It's a free country, I told them. Eric: It isn't if you can't go and work somewhere else. — J. B. Priestley Not everyone is in a position to find another job. And what do you do if the best place you can work is still rubbish? What if you're an ISP tech?

One is not forced to spend his life working as an ISP tech. I attended a community college for a few years where most people were learning new skills precisely because they didn't like the job or often the industry in which they worked. If ISP tech work was horrible and everyone left, employers would be forced to make it less horrible.
Post reply on HN