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

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#81

Post by btheshoe »

nobody9999 wrote: post #71
btheshoe wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, inap…

It makes light of the personal responsibility that they have for the things that they do

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#82

Post by drstewart »

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

This honestly sounds like mob tactics.

"It would be a shame if your life were harder if you didn't pay protection money, god forbid"

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#83

Post by tptacek »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #39
tptacek wrote: post #34

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…

The simplest way to defang your criticism of "just quit" is to say that people who aren't privileged enough to quit and land in a comparable role elsewhere simply shouldn't quit. The people who do have that privilege, though, should indeed consider it. There are a lot of them.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#84

Post by ericd »

gowld wrote: post #78
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.

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?

No, similarly, I wouldn’t work for employers that act like that.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#86

Post by dgb23 »

_3u10 wrote: post #17
ethbr0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so employee handbooks inform their employees of their right to unionize (or refrain from unionizing) without threatening, interrogating, spying on pro-union employees, or promising benefits if employees forget about forming a union? https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in...

Why would anyone making salary in the 1% (top 0.001% globally) range in the US want to unionize? I don’t get this whole anti tech thing from tech.

Unions are not “anti-tech”, they are “pro-worker”. Who else is?

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#87

Post by rzzzt »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #41
Eiriksmal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't resist this bikeshed, but you've written the Maximum Hacker News aside of the week. I have several car factory service manuals. They do not include cost benefit analyses on when to remove a vehicle from service. Instead, they are full of flow charts on how to diagnose problems. Each flow chart ends with a "If nothing failed a test, but the symptom persists, replace the entire part/assembly." The goal is to pi…

This kind of aside is what keeps me here, so I'll thank you for it :) > Each flow chart ends with a "If nothing failed a test, but the symptom persists, replace the entire part/assembly." I suppose this kind of does refute my point a little bit. Maybe the Tech Worker Handbook should have rules of thumb on when to quit – e.g. if the estimate for legal fees is going to be more than 1% of your salary, evaluate if makes…

"Change your company or change your company" is an oft-repeated phrase that pairs up with the suggestion in the car repair manual nicely.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#88

Post by laurent92 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #73
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…

The word of mouth circulating around less technical people, is to assume she’s more a PR coup / a corporate plant. Actual whistleblowers don’t get leniency, exit their hideout at 47 looking 80 with dementia, in a wheelchair, portrayed as the most dangerous liability in the world, with two accusations of rape. Anyone not suicided, presented as friendly by the press, does not represent a risk for corporations.

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#89

Post by dredmorbius »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #73
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…

The Senate subcommittee also made quite clear that they'd be protecting Haugen against any legal, or other, threats, in yesterday's testimony.

How substantive that promise is I'm not sure, but i was made and is part of the record.

I strongly encourage listening if you have the time. Excellent information and discussion.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw

Re: The Tech Worker Handbook

#90

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #89
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Senate subcommittee also made quite clear that they'd be protecting Haugen against any legal, or other, threats, in yesterday's testimony. How substantive that promise is I'm not sure, but i was made and is part of the record. I strongly encourage listening if you have the time. Excellent information and discussion. https://youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw

According to WSJ, her NDA permits disclosure to Congress, regulatory bodies like the SEC, and law enforcement. The disclosure to the press (the public) however is a different question.

Transcript as alternative to YouTube

https://archive.org/details/CSPAN_20211006_050100_Facebook_W...

Post reply on HN