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

The Tech Worker Handbook

techworkerhandbook.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#71

Post by nobody9999 »

btheshoe wrote: post #68
nobody9999 wrote: post #65

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. 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…

I do like the perspective that programmers with a conscience forced to do bad things to the world are adversely affected, but it seems off to me to call that poor working conditions, because it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting. I don't see anyone feeling sorry for the investment bankers of the '80s for having to go through a debaucherous, morally corrupt lifestyle.

>it seems to misidentify the people who the actions are hurting.

Huh? How so? How does acknowledging that people of conscience may be distressed and appalled at the harm their company is doing (making their workplace an uncomfortable place) diminish recognition of that harm?

I'm not suggesting that we should care only about such workers, I'm suggesting that should care about everyone. Why is that, in your view, inappropriate?

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#72

Post by cybernautique »

pessimizer wrote: post #67
cybernautique wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Scab means exactly the same thing in the US as it does in the UK; I'm pretty sure they got it from us. > I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? That's not good faith.

My faith was entirely good when I asked it. What falsifies its good faith? or, perhaps a better question: how ought I to have asked?

Thank you for clarifying re: the term scab.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#73

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #64

> The Signals Network, the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that compiled these legal considerations, is one of these actors. The Signals Network enables whistleblowers and international journalists to work seamlessly together to hold powerful interests accountable 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 caree…

To be fair, some have said this leaker from Facebook is quite vulnerable to being sued or even prosecuted and are probably wondering why Facebook is not taking legal action against her. The most obvious guess is that she is effectively protected by the press that Facebook is receiving at the moment. Without that publicity, i.e., the help of "conflicted" journalists, her legal arguments for protection seem rather weak.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#74

Post by cybernautique »

nobody9999 wrote: post #66
cybernautique wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? 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. Beca…

I certainly don't think something needs to be an unqualified good to be worthwhile. However, I often see very little nuance in the presentation of unions; either its proponents present it as an unqualified good, or its opponents present it as an unmitigatable cost.

I was originally going to reply with:

> My life, by proxy to the afflictions of my loved ones, has certainly been made worse by bad unions. I like the idea of unions, but...

I mention this to make visible the reflective opportunity our exchange granted me. Yes, my loved one have been afflicted by (bad) unions, but it also seems to me that the proposed benefits of unionization are inherently distributed and therefore likely invisible at the individual level, whereas the harm engendered by bad management (union or otherwise) is hypervisible at the individual level. Thus, the good done for my loved ones by their unions isn't so easily measured, while the harms done by poor union management makes itself as easily known as the harms by enterprise's management.

I'll have to do more thinking and reading on how to gain a better perspective. It seems to me that attaining a measurement of the good done by their unions is further complicated by how relative said goods must be and yet there often aren't easy counterfactuals to refer to. Intuitively, it seems that aggregate data would give a false perspective.

Any advice or recommendations along these lines would be helpful. I remember there was a cybernetics program to engender a science of management and organizational development; I might start there, to learn principles of analysis as opposed to blindly groping for data to mash together.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#75

Post by cybernautique »

8note wrote: post #55
ericd wrote: post #50

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

Speaking personally, this pressure is incentive away from whatever you're proselytizing.

Any union that adopts such a spirit will have a culture toxic to my character. I want work to go smoothly, unconditionally. Any culture that requires conformity is a bad one, and I dare further say: a cult.

If a manager makes work bad, I will change jobs. If a union makes work bad, I will scab or change jobs. Regardless, I will do my best to deprive my value from whomever makes my productive hours less enjoyable.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#76

Post by gowld »

elefanten wrote: post #63
tptacek wrote: post #5

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…

Looking around the site, the handbook is by Ifeoma Ozoma, one of the Pinterest "whistleblowers" who went on a raging PR campaign and (seemingly) has now parlayed it into this consulting company. And here's what they're doing. It's utterly unserious content by a grievance-driven person.

That's an interesting interpretation.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifeoma_Ozoma

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#77

Post by gowld »

cybernautique wrote: post #72
pessimizer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scab means exactly the same thing in the US as it does in the UK; I'm pretty sure they got it from us. > I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good? That's not good faith.

My faith was entirely good when I asked it. What falsifies its good faith? or, perhaps a better question: how ought I to have asked? Thank you for clarifying re: the term scab.

You said "why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good" which has no support in the material you replied to.

The only information you had was that the poster held a a strikebreaker in contempt.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#78

Post by gowld »

ericd wrote: post #50
flooow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.

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.

What about whole management pressure, complete with massively funded astroturf campaigns, threats of layoffs, and mandatory indoctrination sessions, pressuring employees to not join a union? Is that a huge turn-on to the whole idea of unions? If not, why not?

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#79

Post by cybernautique »

gowld wrote: post #77
cybernautique wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My faith was entirely good when I asked it. What falsifies its good faith? or, perhaps a better question: how ought I to have asked? Thank you for clarifying re: the term scab.

You said "why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good" which has no support in the material you replied to. The only information you had was that the poster held a a strikebreaker in contempt.

Right, which is why I tried to mitigate that by acknowledging it might only be a seeming on my end due to a bad reading.

As to the context:

(Grandparent) > UK has the highest tech salaries in Europeand trade unions were buried in the 70s.

(Grandparent) > I am fine if you guys seek protection of unions.

(Grandparent) > But never, ever, ever, interfere with my relations with employers.

(Parent) > As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.

The GP said that they're happy for anyone to seek the benefits of unionization, so long as they're not forced to participate. Parent simply called GP a scab for this sentiment.

This exchange, to me, seems to imply the parent believes unions to be an unqualified good- or, at least, that the simple desire for individual labor relations is worthy of unqualified condemnation.

Where do you and I diverge in this reading?

EDIT: further, how do I take better care to explicitly mitigate against my biases to ensure I engage with the full goodness of my faith?

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#80

Post by stale2002 »

8note wrote: post #55
ericd wrote: post #50

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

> The pressure is a convincer.

Hey if that's the game that is being played, you can't complain when people who disagree with this strategy actively work to sabotage you, through a variety of different methods (such as voting for right to work laws, or doing other things).

There are a lot of way to sabotage and cause harm just as much as the pro union people might cause harm to those who do not wish to join.

Post reply on HN