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

New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#311

Post by TheCoelacanth »

native_samples wrote: post #197
mschuster91 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. Labor providers are organized and connected in all sort of structures, ranging from golf club memberships and industry associations over questionably-legal wage fixing deals to ~~outright bribing~~ donating to politicians. In contrast, just about 10% of US workers are unionized [1]. This disparity is the reason behind a large part of wage stagnation and other areas where employment conditions are far behind of…

More accurately: employers are forbidden by many different mechanisms to join forces, are actively watched to prevent the formation of monopolies, and punished when they do, and are often restrained in many other ways by regulations. Labor is not only allowed to collaborate in order to form monopolies and cartels, but is also legally protected when it does. Please do explain how this disparity is in favor of employer…

The vast majority of employers have joined forces. Sole proprietorships are the only exception.

Meanwhile, 90% of workers are completely on their own.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#312

Post by rdtwo »

scarface74 wrote: post #309
rdtwo wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think you are the top 10% of management favorites then you will not benefit. If you are a middling engineer then you will

I don’t have to be the top 10%. I just have to be better than the median. I should be better than the median in my mid 40s.

Yes and no you have to be better than the median in all categories some of which you have no control over. For example you need to work in a better than median group for a better than median boss in a better than median division with better than median experience.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#313

Post by native_samples »

couchand wrote: post #294
native_samples wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's plain to see that the inherent coordination problems facing workers are much harder than the ones facing managers" It is not plain to me. Employers are just people too, but if they try to conspire with other employers they must do so in secret lest their conspiracy be discovered and punished. Your example of wage fixing in the valley shows this in action perfectly. Yet if employees want to do the exact same thi…

Coordination problems go up in complexity by the square of the number of actors. Since employers meaningfully participating in the labor market average many more than one employee, and employees average somewhere around one employer, employers start at a very significant structural advantage, particularly large employers. The scant legal protections you mention serve to help equalize this disparity, but it is laughab…

"Coordination problems go up in complexity by the square of the number of actors"

Yeah? Then how comes unions are often bigger than companies, sometimes containing entire industries? This "fact" sounds made up. People are not random graphs.

As for violence, the history of unionism is full of union thugs beating up scabs, management, and anyone else who got in their way. Anyone can play the game of "long ago some people were violent". It's not relevant to today's situation.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#314

Post by zorpner »

missedthecue wrote: post #77
zorpner wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?

I don't think the union contract should cover people who don't want it. If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?

It's a contract that the company has agreed to -- if they violate that contract, the consequences apply. Or should they be able to violate contracts negotiated between private parties?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#315

Post by msrenee »

scarface74 wrote: post #284
msrenee wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the numbers here. Were the companies paying say $12/hour in current terms and the union was asking for more or were they trying to get $35/hr raised beyond what was reasonable for the work?

What’s “reasonable” is the same as the market demands for their skillset. If the companies could pick up and move to another state or a cheaper country, what does that tell you?

It tells me that they don't care about anything but their profits and, as a society, we need to stop being okay with that. Employees are not just an inconvenient cost that should be minimized in any way possible. They're human beings who have a right to decent quality of life. They have a right to be paid a living wage for their work. It's sick that there are people out there that believe otherwise.

The unions didn't destroy those towns. Those companies did.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#316

Post by UncleMeat »

ceras wrote: post #280
UncleMeat wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep that's a great one. 24h on-call is garbage and unions could absolutely pressure businesses to have more reasonable policies.

What's the alternative to 24hr on-call?

Services that don't have strict SLAs. Or follow-the-sun support teams.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#317

Post by aaomidi »

scarface74 wrote: post #299
aaomidi wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking control of your own career could mean supporting a union. This is what you're saying: Do you use any type of insurance? If so why are you waiting for these companies to compensate you? Just take control of your own life and don't use them. Unions are a system of mass negotiation. The same systems that make our economy work.

How well have the union shops fared in the economy? Our economy works based on supply and demand and individuals making the best choices for themselves. Again I get back to Amazon (where I work). They weren’t forced to completely redo their compensation packages across corporate because of a union. They were forced to do so because SDEs were quitting like crazy.

They've worked pretty well in the fact that we owe unions the fact that were working only forty hours a week.

SDEs quitting like crazy would've had a much stronger impact if it was an organized strike and AWS literally went down.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#318

Post by djrobstep »

kortilla wrote: post #29
CountSessine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.

That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.

The company's management can prevent me from working for the company without contributing to shareholder profits - do you also think that is bad? If not, what's the difference?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#319

Post by djrobstep »

wyager wrote: post #55
kortilla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.

It's difficult to think of a more textbook example of racketeering.

Why is it racketeering when a union prevents me from working for the company without contributing to fees, but not when management prevents me from working for the company without contributing to shareholder profits?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#320

Post by scarface74 »

aaomidi wrote: post #317
scarface74 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well have the union shops fared in the economy? Our economy works based on supply and demand and individuals making the best choices for themselves. Again I get back to Amazon (where I work). They weren’t forced to completely redo their compensation packages across corporate because of a union. They were forced to do so because SDEs were quitting like crazy.

They've worked pretty well in the fact that we owe unions the fact that were working only forty hours a week. SDEs quitting like crazy would've had a much stronger impact if it was an organized strike and AWS literally went down.

Salaries employees often work more than forty hours a week. But why do you want to take away an individuals agency to decide what’s in their own best interests?
Post reply on HN