Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mapbox Workers Union

mapboxworkersunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#21

Post by ekianjo »

cinntaile wrote: post #15
CryptoPunk wrote: post #4

These workers have just obtained regulatory privilege that shields them from competition from other people who may want to apply for their positions, while allowing them to exploit MapBox's investors by suppressing their contracting rights in deciding who to hire. Of course, ideological hocus pocus is needed to obfuscate the exploitive nature of regulation-entrenched unions, so you get statements like this: >>Our ope…

You're giving this the most negative interpretation you can because of your own ideological bias. That's not particularly helpful. Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard.

> Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard.

Alternatively they are free to move somewhere else, you know, or make their own company.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#22

Post by CryptoPunk »

cinntaile wrote: post #17
CryptoPunk wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am biased against restrictions on people's right to freely interact, and that includes people acting in the capacity of an employer. It's perfectly reasonable to be highly critical of something one views as a violation of human rights. My comment is also a valuable contribution to the public discourse, because it describes the poorly understood mechanism by which unions derive their power, which is regulatory restr…

I don't know what the right to freely interact is, where is this defined somewhere? An employer is a collection of people, so is a union. Why is only one of those allowed to "freely interact"?

The right to freely interact with other consenting adults, which is variously described as the right to free association, and the right to contract, is a foundational principle of a free society, and we see various reflections of that in the legal rights found in many charters and bills of rights and constitutions.

>>An employer is a collection of people, so is a union.

I am not opposed to people forming a union. I'm opposed to regulatory restrictions preventing employers from refusing to negotiate with unions or employ their members.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#23

Post by thinkingemote »

FAQ:

"we will reserve the individual right to refuse to work on any projects that conflict with a worker’s ethics"

Are these the same workers that are very happy with and encourage closed source proprietary software to sell for profit (as some developers from the company have written and posted previously to HN)?

Or maybe that's another group? Anyone know? Maybe there's some crossover?

At the very least one can say that "ethical source" licenses as implied in the FAQ are anti Free Software. But should be ok for proprietary software right?

There is no mention about open source or users freedoms in the website.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#24

Post by thinkingemote »

"Equal pay for equal work"

This is interesting as the company have teams in developing worlds. I imagine they would be supportive of raising their pay and conversely reducing pay for Americans.

I've always thought being paid for where you were in the world and not for what you do as unfair.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#25

Post by zaarn »

throwawaysea wrote: post #18

From their FAQ: > Additionally, we will reserve the individual right to refuse to work on any projects that conflict with a worker’s ethics and to do so without fear of reprisal; as well as the ability to deny service to any customer completely if put to a majority vote by the workers. This union's landing page already reads like a desire to bring progressive politics into the workplace, a disturbing trend throughout…

Atleast it would be a structure that works could elect instead of being forced into.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#26

Post by zaarn »

ekianjo wrote: post #21
cinntaile wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're giving this the most negative interpretation you can because of your own ideological bias. That's not particularly helpful. Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard.

> Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard. Alternatively they are free to move somewhere else, you know, or make their own company.

They're also free to band together and strengthen their bargaining power to balance it against that of the employer.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#27

Post by lucian1900 »

thinkingemote wrote: post #24

"Equal pay for equal work" This is interesting as the company have teams in developing worlds. I imagine they would be supportive of raising their pay and conversely reducing pay for Americans. I've always thought being paid for where you were in the world and not for what you do as unfair.

Why would any pay be reduced? Profits can be reduced instead. The workers are opposed to the owners, not to each other.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#28

Post by lucian1900 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #18

From their FAQ: > Additionally, we will reserve the individual right to refuse to work on any projects that conflict with a worker’s ethics and to do so without fear of reprisal; as well as the ability to deny service to any customer completely if put to a majority vote by the workers. This union's landing page already reads like a desire to bring progressive politics into the workplace, a disturbing trend throughout…

The whole point of unions is workplace democracy, struggling against the dictatorship of the owners. Of course workers want to decide what they work on and ultimately own the workplace collectively.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#29

Post by cinntaile »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #22
cinntaile wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the right to freely interact is, where is this defined somewhere? An employer is a collection of people, so is a union. Why is only one of those allowed to "freely interact"?

The right to freely interact with other consenting adults, which is variously described as the right to free association, and the right to contract, is a foundational principle of a free society, and we see various reflections of that in the legal rights found in many charters and bills of rights and constitutions. >>An employer is a collection of people, so is a union. I am not opposed to people forming a union. I'm…

Do you only oppose this type of employment discrimination or do you oppose employment discrimination in general?

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#30

Post by CryptoPunk »

cinntaile wrote: post #29
CryptoPunk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to freely interact with other consenting adults, which is variously described as the right to free association, and the right to contract, is a foundational principle of a free society, and we see various reflections of that in the legal rights found in many charters and bills of rights and constitutions. >>An employer is a collection of people, so is a union. I am not opposed to people forming a union. I'm…

Do you only oppose this type of employment discrimination or do you oppose employment discrimination in general?

What do you mean by employment discrimination?
Post reply on HN