61–70 of 114 posts
Whistleblowing seems to be where everyone's faith is these days. Training people on whistleblowing is supposed to be an internal matter. By that I mean companies can have whistleblowing programs to identify problems proactively. This is generally how the US military (and the government more widely) use theirs. This should shield the company from responsibility if they at least attempt to act, not to mention it would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other people have answered your question directly, but I just wanted to add this: One of the things I have learned since starting and seriously optimising a consumer-focused full time business last year is that consumer discretionary spending, at least in the current era of opulence and advertising, does not follow the laws of economics in the same way that it does for commodity businesses. Unless you're doing someth…
Generally that's true in the consumer space but the food business has few barriers of entry so it's very competitive and low margin. Most restaurants barely make 30% gross margin after labor and COGS, before rent and marketing. McDonalds is a special case though, both because of its franchise model and because its corporate owned restaurants are largely real estate plays. The latter have a much more complex pricing m…
Not an expert in this area, but I'd be shocked if McDonalds' books looked anything like a typical restaurant's - real estate investments aside.
This seems pretty fluffy. I read through the "Legal Handbook" and it doesn't seem as much like a handbook as it does a long article about what it's like to be a whistleblower, along with some very high level stuff about what it's like to engage a lawyer. Like, a really basic thing here is that the legal advice starts by asking people to evaluate whether the misconduct they're thinking about violates laws. But it prov…
It's utterly unserious content by a grievance-driven person.
A word of advice: Don't get your legal advice from the same journalists that want to use your story, and maybe also your name, to further their own career.
There's an inherent conflict of interest between someone who wants to use your leak to further their own agenda (be it activism or simply writing a juicy news story) and your own interests as someone with potentially massive legal liability. When the legal wheels start turning, it's not the journalist who is putting their finances and freedom at risk. It's the employee.
Leaking company documents or even violating NDAs you signed as part of your employment should not be taken lightly, no matter how friendly sites like this make it sound. Always engage with legal representation that is not affiliated with the journalists who want your story. Never let a friendly journalist talk you into divulging information that could expose you until you've worked through the legal ramifications, no matter how much they encourage you to push forward.
Regulating big tech is a democratic issue. It’s not up to the individual tech worker to do so, and I’m not convinced that all these movements aren’t “soft-solutions” organised by big tech to avoid people working on real solutions. Solutions like legal intervention from the EU and whatever government you are under. Poor working conditions are solved by forming unions. In Denmark we have strong unions, and while their…
For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech. Unethical decisions surrounding wellness of users are.
A reasonable point. However, it seems to me that those unethical decisions can create poor working conditions.
If I know that the work I'm doing is actively harming others, that, as someone with a conscience, directly affects my working conditions for the worse.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.
Out of curiosity, how perjoratively do you use the term 'scab'? It reads of condemnation to me, which is fine if that's intended. I was just wondering if the difference in our culture (Amerimutt here) caused an incidental tone-shift. More to the point: I've never seen a union actually benefit anyone I'm close to. The reps have all been awful and the structural incentives were all perverse. I ask, in good faith, why d…
Not OP, but it's been my experience that other than orgasms (and not even always then), nothing is an unqualified good. Does something need to be so in order for you to believe it worthwhile?
That may also be a bad read on my part, but I think it's a useful discussion, especially when we're talking about standing up for what's right in the workplace.
Because the converse is a big question in this context: How bad does it need to be/get in order to start thinking about rabble-rousing internally/quitting/whistle-blowing?
I'd expect that as with unions (because unions are absolutely not all the same), the level of unethical, harmful or illegal activity is likely a continuum and different people will have different breaking points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.
Out of curiosity, how perjoratively do you use the term 'scab'? It reads of condemnation to me, which is fine if that's intended. I was just wondering if the difference in our culture (Amerimutt here) caused an incidental tone-shift. More to the point: I've never seen a union actually benefit anyone I'm close to. The reps have all been awful and the structural incentives were all perverse. I ask, in good faith, why d…
> I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good?
That's not good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech. Unethical decisions surrounding wellness of users are.
>For the most part poor working conditions are not the problem at big tech. Unethical decisions surrounding wellness of users are. A reasonable point. However, it seems to me that those unethical decisions can create poor working conditions. If I know that the work I'm doing is actively harming others, that, as someone with a conscience, directly affects my working conditions for the worse. I guess it's a matter of p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a compelling takedown to somebody's comment, but it's not responsive to mine; I'm not saying quitting is the only remedy to problems at giant tech companies, only that it is an important remedy. One way you know that my comment doesn't make the point you're arguing against is that you managed to agree with it in the last sentence of your own rebuttal.
I don't really view mine as a rebuttal or takedown either. I'm simply offering what I think is a compelling reason for them to not include instructions in this guide to the important remedy that you describe, i.e. quitting. Citing the fact that the "Just quit" advice tired shibboleth is sort of a broadside against our profession in general, not your comment in particular. I did think about including a disclaimer abou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole peer pressure to join a union thing is a huge turn-off to the whole idea of unions, at least for me. Convince, don’t pressure.
The pressure is a convincer. If you don't care that everyone in the union will hate you and your ability to do work will also be reduced, feel free to scab. If you want work to go smoothly with the union members, you should be in the union