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

#471

Post by umeshunni » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #440

bryan_w wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything, FB helps spread the news by being a platform for people to post articles You could see how that would lead to problems when that become the main driver of traffic. If tomorrow Mark decides to remove the share button, it would be the end of a lot of traditional media sources.

That's fair, but that still doesn't mean the two are competing.

The real competition is for ad dollars. Facebook has singlehandedly caused the end of the display advertising business which is what most news publications tapped into when they went online. Display spend at most ad agencies are shrinking and that money is being put to social (aka Facebook). That's what the owners and shareholders of media organizations are pissed off at and why they're telling their staff to focus on Facebook..

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

#472

Post by 0xy » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:08 AM UTC

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #146

0xy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible. >Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised Firstly, no. The scale is wide and you are placed somewhere between the low and high points of the scale for your level. Not every L5 engineer earns the same thing. Secondly, tota…

> Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible. citation needed

There are very few companies who can consistently outperform index funds. Of course there are exceptions, but there aren't many and I'd wager they won't be forever.

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

#473

Post by trowawee » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

dependenttypes wrote: post #449

trowawee wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you benefit from the union's work, you should absolutely have to pay for that work.

Chances are that you benefit from open source code that I wrote. Where is my money?

Well, you choosing to donate your time and effort to an open source project is really not analogous to a union's work improving workplaces, but! As it so happens I do believe that having huge swathes of the tech industry built on unpaid labor is also a pretty bad thing, that the political stance taken by large parts of the FOSS community that "free means no restrictions, EVER!" is foolish, and that companies should have to pay for their use of FOSS. It enables exploitation of individual maintainers by massive corporations.

And to loop back around to the topic most of us are discussing, if there were some type of SWE Guild, standardizing rules around FOSS usage and remuneration for FOSS creators and maintainers should be high on that guild's list of priorities. There're thousands of people in the entertainment industry making comfortable livings off a combination of some work and residuals; why can't that be us? Why shouldn't people who've created, maintained, and improved projects that companies have leveraged for billions of dollars of profit see some of that money?

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

#474

Post by FuckButtons » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 6:13 AM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #305

FuckButtons wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing, if you set up a new union, you don’t have to follow the same model as the ones that don’t work well in the us, you can follow the ones that do. You also don’t have the same incentives or personnel as the unions you mentioned, an engineering union would look quite different just in terms of the personality types of the people involved if nothing else.

You don't get to just decide how your union will run in a vacuum, the US has laws that standardize a lot of things about them.

Sure, as I said, model it after the unions, in the US, that work. There are many examples to pick from and many lessons to be learned about what not to do from the others. The US has not and cannot legally mandate a union to be completely useless, at least this side of a dictatorship it can’t.

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

#475

Post by Lio » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 7:00 AM UTC

annadane wrote: post #204

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…

It's my general impression that the ones who say "Don't worry, we care about you" ARE the baddies, they're not aligned with their own public image (why? I don't know, they should be, maybe they can't overcome their own egos). The ones you should be trusting are the ones who go "Don't trust me, but these are my principles"

Isn’t that the equivalent of the New Yorker cartoon with the wolf saying “I will eat you” and the sheep saying “I like him because he tells it like it is”?

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

#476

Post by grasshopperpurp » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 11:53 AM UTC

kcolford wrote: post #293

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is hourly. These are issues that arise most often, but the union is most concerned with wages, positions, benefits, etc.. But, all of that is negotiated in the contract, so it only comes to the forefront every few years.

The tracking of work affects future contracts, though, because management (particularly at the corporate level) is continually looking to cut hours and positions, and the union looks to justify keeping them.

In non-union jobs I've worked, those hours/positions get cut without meaningful pushback, and the workers left were forced to do more work without receiving more compensation.

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

#477

Post by koheripbal » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 12:01 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #211

jcims wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

No, the concept is different in the US. It's conceptually not the same as an EU union.

If you think EU unions are great - then you'll need to first educate American union advocates about what they're doing wrong.

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

#478

Post by grasshopperpurp » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 12:24 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #151

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ...a union does is balance the leverage. Without them, the employer has all of it. Maybe that's true of low labor jobs, but Employees in six figure jobs have tremendous power. One of the reasons companies try to create anti-potching rules is exactly to try to get back some power. The unemployment rate in the US was 4% prior to covid, and even lower for tech and white collar desk jobs. This issue simply must take a…

>Maybe that's true of low labor jobs, but Employees in six figure jobs have tremendous power.

You may be right. I don't know enough about those specific dynamics to argue against it. It doesn't feel right to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. It does bring to mind professional sports in the US - Football, Basketball, and Baseball. All have player unions, and all have players that make six figures at minimum, with a fair amount making tens or millions and some making hundreds of millions. But, the NFL is famous for having the most toothless union, and, as a result, its players have the worst contracts/conditions - by a wide margin. It seems to me that unions could still help people who make six figures.

One issue I saw with the pre-Covid job market is that it's too often all or none. Either you spend a ton of time and resources getting a position that pays well and then asks you to work 60+ hours a week, or you take a job that lets you scrape by (even if those positions still ask its workers to put in a lot of hours). It's hard to find balance in either situation, and unions could help restore some of that balance to both situations.

>One of the reasons companies try to create anti-potching rules is exactly to try to get back some power.

What I've read indicates that anti-poching rules are BS. They seem to exist so that employers can control their employees without adequately compensating them. Pay for talent or let it walk.

>The unemployment rate in the US was 4% prior to covid, and even lower for tech and white collar desk jobs.

Beside the point, but the 4% figure doesn't account for gig work, underemployment, or people who have stopped trying. I believe you, and it makes sense, that white collar desk jobs would be in better shape than lower-class positions.

>This issue simply must take a back seat to bigger problems in America.

The hollowing of the middle class is as big as any issue imo, and if we prioritize building the middle class, it will aid in solving many of our other issues. As far as I can tell, nothing would help bring people out of poverty more than a strong union presence.

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

#479

Post by omginternets » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #352

omginternets wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no such thing as a "union job", it's just having what's referred to as a "collective agreement". I won't retort with a similarly vulgar comment because: 1. we probably agree on the value of unions 2. I understand your exasperation with American ignorance and cultural bias on the subject 3. it's not constructive However, it brings me no joy to assert that you are dead wrong. Union jobs can and do exist in pl…

> "I understand your exasperation with American ignorance and cultural bias on the subject" "Ignorance and bias" is apparently now equivalent to "decades of experience that differ from your preferred reality".

Nice try, but no. The issue is literal ignorance of how things work outside of America (as you damn-well know).

Unions in America are clearly a dumpster fire, but only someone profoundly ignorant (and arrogant, to boot) could claim that unions are a failed concept.

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

#480

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #315

omginternets wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

[deleted]