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

491–500 of 500 posts

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

#491

Post by thefringthing »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #303
hedora wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I did not think all union contracts where closed shop in the USA. And this case why on earth where professional roles being represented by an Auto workers union.

> why on earth where professional roles being represented by an Auto workers union

An innovation in organized labour from around the turn of the 20th century known as the "industrial union" (as opposed to the "craft union") wherein the union seeks to organized all workers in a particular industry rather than a particular job. The idea is that this prevents workers of different jobs being pitted against one another, and provides more power as a strike could shut down an entire industry.

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

#492

Post by derivativethrow »

koheripbal wrote: post #210
derivativethrow wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic? Where I work, I still have to open tickets for everything. I still have to wait a long time for new equipment. How does a union make that worse if I have to wait for cogs to turn anyway? I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit. Yeah yeah the MTA is bad sure, and I've interacted with unions before th…

> I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit. These were real examples that infuriated everyone. I also think they're bullshit. That's what made them infuriating. > How does that work at a large company that's already bureaucratic? It effectively doubles the amount of bureaucracy, because it adds to the list of work that requires a ticket. > I still have to wait a lon…

You suspect not, but you'd be wrong :) Those things do require a ticket. We can't install our own equipment, only IT is allowed to do that. Pretty strict about connecting peripherals and USBs too.

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

#493

Post by C1sc0cat »

thefringthing wrote: post #491
C1sc0cat wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not think all union contracts where closed shop in the USA. And this case why on earth where professional roles being represented by an Auto workers union.

> why on earth where professional roles being represented by an Auto workers union An innovation in organized labour from around the turn of the 20th century known as the "industrial union" (as opposed to the "craft union") wherein the union seeks to organized all workers in a particular industry rather than a particular job. The idea is that this prevents workers of different jobs being pitted against one another, a…

Yes I know that but normally you would expect a union to stick to that industry, also blue collar unions don't always know how to organise and represent professional workers and some members may not want "their" union to represent mangers eg the CWU in the UK

Trying to go back to the ancient one big union just wont cut it

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

#494

Post by wpietri »

manfredo wrote: post #327
C1sc0cat wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are run by the members

In theory. In practice unions are run by union leadership. Who are elected. But then again so is Congress and the President - and we know how that works out.

I think that's quite different. Congress has 435 people representing 325 million. A union local can be just a couple hundred people.

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

#495

Post by thefringthing »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #493
thefringthing wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why on earth where professional roles being represented by an Auto workers union An innovation in organized labour from around the turn of the 20th century known as the "industrial union" (as opposed to the "craft union") wherein the union seeks to organized all workers in a particular industry rather than a particular job. The idea is that this prevents workers of different jobs being pitted against one another, a…

Yes I know that but normally you would expect a union to stick to that industry, also blue collar unions don't always know how to organise and represent professional workers and some members may not want "their" union to represent mangers eg the CWU in the UK Trying to go back to the ancient one big union just wont cut it

Managers are not eligible to join the one big union: https://iww.org/membership/

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

#496

Post by CryptoPunk »

knorker wrote: post #488
CryptoPunk wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The changes that unions make will not neutralize the negative impact they have on an industry's efficiency/competitivess. The outlier is if unions succeed in changing immigration policy to restrict the inflow of foreign labor. That can have unexpected effects that boost the country's economic growth rate or at least help its wage growth rate. Depending on the situation, immigration restrictions can also harm the coun…

Yes, but all else is not equal, so... Unions are there as a counterpart to business screwing employees. I understand the US has a different experience with unions than the rest of the world, but they can be really good. Employers have certainly tried to screw me (e.g. "you need to work overtime with no pay"), and it's really useful to have someone have your back saying "uh, nope that's not legal", instead of being al…

Communal support (e.g. telling your friends about your work situation, and receiving advice from those who are informed) and legal mechanisms like lawsuits already ensures workers are by and large receiving the best the market can offer them.

The effect that unions have on ensuring employment contracts are not being broken by exploitive employers pales in comparison to the effect they have in restricting the labor market by giving unions what effectively amounts to government-enforced monopolies over various work units, which lets unions exploit companies.

There are numerous alternatives to granting unions enormous extra-contractual powers over employers that are available to society to prevent employer violations of labor contracts.

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

#497

Post by adamsea »

Mxs2000 wrote: post #278
adamsea wrote: post #224

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. What about the Writers Guild and the NBA players union? Would the people in those unions say that? Semi-genuinely asking? ;)

NBA players Union is a great example of how top performers get penalized. The Max contracts that the union agrees to is why top players are underpaid versus what they could command absent that, with most of the bench being overpaid.

Is there any evidence the highest-paid players in the NBA themselves want to get rid of their union? I.e, do you claim this is empirically verifiable?

Or, is this a hypothetical, rational-actor thought experiment you're conducting?

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

#498

Post by [deleted] »

Mxs2000 wrote: post #278
adamsea wrote: post #224

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. What about the Writers Guild and the NBA players union? Would the people in those unions say that? Semi-genuinely asking? ;)

NBA players Union is a great example of how top performers get penalized. The Max contracts that the union agrees to is why top players are underpaid versus what they could command absent that, with most of the bench being overpaid.

[deleted]

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

#499

Post by varispeed »

toyg wrote: post #173
varispeed wrote: post #36

Here in the UK government is pushing no rights employment under guise of fairer taxation. People providing services will be taxed as employees but will not have any workers' rights, including no right to unionise, no equal pay, no maternity leave and so on. Currently this won't affect existing employees, but from April nothing will stop employers from terminating their staff and issuing new NRE contracts on a take it…

> even the unions are not too fussed about it That's because it primarily hits contractors, who are typically not unionized and in fact tend to erode union presence. Abuse of contractor agreements and temp-agencies has already been used for decades to effectively bust unions, that's really nothing new. Mass-rehiring could have been done already a long time ago, and likely was, by and large, where they could avoid the…

Workers re-hired on a contract could defend themselves against lack of employment protections by working outside IR35 and providing these protections themselves. The change takes this away as only the client will be able to decide how worker is taxed. This favour agencies over independent workers as agencies have more freedoms what business costs they can deduct from tax and what salaries to pay to their workers. This is a seemingly subtle change, that changes from benign to lethal.

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

#500

Post by adamsea »

kenned3 wrote: post #354
adamsea wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is in the US there is a strong history of busting up unions specifically to disempower workers. There absolutely are legitimate reasons to not want to join a union. However, “both sides can be right” so to speak, whitewashes (word chosen deliberately) away the historical fact and current reality of systemic suppression of and propaganda against union organizing by US workers.

"busting up unions specifically to disempower workers." Let us review GM. They knew they needed to cut down product, would the union let them? They knew they needed automation as their labour costs are too high. The union position was always the same, use the profits from some cars to subsidize the losses from others. How long can that go on for when you continue to lose marketshare? Their pension is a mess as fewer…

Let us review the Ludlow massacre:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

I feel like your point, although containin validity, kinda misses the forests for the trees w/regards to what I was trying to express.

By no means am I claiming every particular union is perfect. What I am claiming is that organized labor is, at present, an important way for people in the working class (which really does include us white-collar knowledge professionals, at the end of the day) to gather power and use it to negotiate decent pay, humane treatment, fair treatment, etc, when there's a long and very visible history of the folks in positions of management and power being very comfortable with exploiting and abusing the employees of their own companies, if they can get away with it.

Unions are a means, not an end -- like government. Like the market.

Post reply on HN