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

U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 327 posts

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#81

Post by pbmonster »

walthamstow wrote: post #11
ein0p wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public school education is poor in part because it’s darn near impossible to fire bad teachers though. And I don’t see how unions would improve housing affordability. I’m not against unions per se, particularly for positions which are not as lavishly compensated as a typical white collar FAANG employee. I’m merely pointing out that you need to pick better examples. Otherwise you just undermine your own argument.

Neither of you are giving examples, only conjecture. Bad teachers are a noteworthy cause of poor schools. House prices wouldn't be so high if we had unions. Ok, prove it. Or at least give me some reasoning to go off.

> House prices wouldn't be so high if we had unions.

In Switzerland, all the large unions (railroad workers, public service workers, ect.) have so much money and so much access to cheap credit, they can (and frequently did in the past) start housing co-ops for their members.

This results in large developments in the middle of the most expensive cities, where only union members have a chance to rent. And even those have year-long waiting list on every new development.

Since the housing co-op is non-profit and pays rock bottom interest rates on its loans, rent is frequently around half the fair market rate.

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#82

Post by actionfromafar »

lukan wrote: post #60
mytailorisrich wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously in general it makes a positive difference for employees, that was a rhetorical question... I have listed two main negative differences it makes for employers. I am hard-pressed to find any positive differences for them... on the issues this touches it's pretty much a zero-sum game so if employees gain it means employers 'lose'. If something is positive for both sides then I think the market will eventually…

"If something is positive for both sides then I think the market will eventually adopt it on its own." Due to millions of regulations already in place, the market is not really free, but very distorted. So even if the "free market" would always go for the best solution, current state is nonproof for anything. Otherwise you might argue, that europe would be a proof, because unions here are strong.

Without regulations the market would remain free for at most a hot minute and you would get regulation again, your own or someone elses, to paraphrase.

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#83

Post by zimpenfish »

Stranger43 wrote: post #22

I wonder why US companies keep pulling stunts like this despite the data showing little negative impact of unionization to overall productivity nor company survival. It looks to be a purely dogmatic ego trip where somehow blind loyalty is demanded even when it's not actually necessary.

At a meta level, if your government isn't particularly pro-union (and one side is rabidly anti-union with the potential for them to be in charge for the next four years), and you are to some extent hostage to governmental fortune (cf the current lawsuits against Apple, the reliance on outsourcing to China, etc.) there's probably a certain amount of political sense in being seen to be anti-union Just In Case.

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#84

Post by actionfromafar »

thequux wrote: post #37
jollofricepeas wrote: post #7

I don’t understand how so many HNers are anti-union and anti-collective bargaining. The fact that corporations and billionaires are so anti-union and engage in regular conduct like this demonstrates that unions are pro-worker and ideal for the balance needed in the US and across the globe. Balance is key between workers and owners. Without it we are left with growing wealth inequality such as… - ridiculous housing pr…

I think unions are great! I'm even a member of one, and have been known to encourage everybody else around me to unionize. Notably, though, I love in Belgium. The American implementation of unions, on the other hand, is not great. While in the US, I've run into rules like not being allowed to plug something in because only union electricians are allowed to do that, and that's just one example among many. Police union…

The differences were made law with the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

I.e. sympathy strikes are illegal in the US, so the only real power left to unions is jealously guarding the petty pearls available to them.

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#85

Post by lupusreal »

pbmonster wrote: post #81
walthamstow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of you are giving examples, only conjecture. Bad teachers are a noteworthy cause of poor schools. House prices wouldn't be so high if we had unions. Ok, prove it. Or at least give me some reasoning to go off.

> House prices wouldn't be so high if we had unions. In Switzerland, all the large unions (railroad workers, public service workers, ect.) have so much money and so much access to cheap credit, they can (and frequently did in the past) start housing co-ops for their members. This results in large developments in the middle of the most expensive cities, where only union members have a chance to rent. And even those ha…

Where did those unions get so much money from?

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#86

Post by jensgk »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #41
sebtron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a positive difference for the employees. You seem to imply that this is correlated to a negative difference for the employer, which is completely wrong.

Obviously in general it makes a positive difference for employees, that was a rhetorical question... I have listed two main negative differences it makes for employers. I am hard-pressed to find any positive differences for them... on the issues this touches it's pretty much a zero-sum game so if employees gain it means employers 'lose'. If something is positive for both sides then I think the market will eventually…

"If something is positive for both sides then I think the market will eventually adopt it on its own." In Denmark we (by law) all have 5 weeks of holiday per year (besides public holidays), paid sick leave, 37 hour work week, paid maternity care (m/f), reasonable notice of termination, reasonable rules for work environment, etc. All because of our unions. How is it in the US?

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#87

Post by ExoticPearTree »

ok_dad wrote: post #79
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'all missing the point in this: - I hired a company to do some construction work and in that particular location, due to how the contracts were set, I could only get union work. Expensive and no over time. - In another location which did not had this kind of restriction, I hired another company that was not unionized: they worked longer hours and as a result finished faster. Also their hourly rates were lower. Point…

Have you ever researched the difference between the companies, the workers, how satisfied they are, how much they are paid, and why it was a quarter cheaper? You keep saying how the union affected you for your two projects, and how the union was the bad guys because you had to spend more time and money. Did you ever think that perhaps the workers at the union company could have been secure in their jobs, happy with t…

You do know that you can switch jobs if you don't like the one you're in at the moment, right?

And it is not my problem with how much someone if paid, really. I put out a request for work, companies bid, the cheapest one overall wins. That's how the free market works.

And sure, believe whatever you want, but getting the best deal possible is not going to be the end of the US :)

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#88

Post by tsimionescu »

sjtgraham wrote: post #19
wolverine876 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of the same old talking point, what solution do you propose? Should the executive branch agency make decisions by fiat, without due process? The use of due process doesn't make them a judiciary; it's just a more fair way to make decisions within their purview. Should we move every such judgment out of the executive branch's hands? First, they have to be able to make some decisions. But the heart of this issue…

> Instead of the same old talking point, what solution do you propose? Unnecessarily hostile opening, but full separation of powers as written in the Constitution. > Should the executive branch agency make decisions by fiat, without due process? It should not be adjudicating any kind of legal controversy. That is not the role of the executive branch. > The use of due process doesn't make them a judiciary; it's just a…

This makes no sense. They are not adjuticating a legal issue, they are investigating whether they should start legal proceedings.

What's your alternative? That they should just sue every company every year so that a judge can decide if that company is doing illegal union busting activities?

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#89

Post by wddkcs »

gklitz wrote: post #65
mytailorisrich wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it made no difference why would employees bother? It does make a negative difference for employers with potentially higher costs and lower flexibility over time.

Great question. Ledt assume that you’re discussing a topic like working hours. Your company says you have to work. 14h each day, and you argue that if you have to do that, you’ll be sleep deprived, make mistakes and be so low productivity that it wouldn’t benefit the company, especially since they would have to pay you more with a constant hourly wage than if you worked fewer hours and was more productive. The compan…

This is a bad example and overall I don't see the argument. For decades companies did force workers into extremely long hours. The standardization of the 40 hour work week was in some sense a collective action effort, starting with the request of the National Labor Union in the U.S. in 1866. [1] Prior to those efforts, workers in industrialized positions were indeed working 80 to 100 hours a week on average, with little to no recourse.

Beyond that, you ask 'Why would workers argue for fewer hours if it doesn't end up costing the company net profits? The workers don't care about net profits, at least at the expense of their own time. Time is money, and if the company has more of your time, you have less...

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workw...

Re: U.S. Rules Apple Illegally Interrogated Staff and Confiscated Union Flyers

#90

Post by chii »

gklitz wrote: post #65
mytailorisrich wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it made no difference why would employees bother? It does make a negative difference for employers with potentially higher costs and lower flexibility over time.

Great question. Ledt assume that you’re discussing a topic like working hours. Your company says you have to work. 14h each day, and you argue that if you have to do that, you’ll be sleep deprived, make mistakes and be so low productivity that it wouldn’t benefit the company, especially since they would have to pay you more with a constant hourly wage than if you worked fewer hours and was more productive. The compan…

> and not everything in this world boils down to pure profit driven motives.

that's not true. In fact, the polar opposite is true - every decision is in service to profit and the bottom line. It is only laws that prevent slavery. It is only laws that prevent over-work or exploitation.

I would say that it is better to have regulation over unions. Unions may or may not act in the interest of the employee - it's a hit or miss depending on the actual union in question. But as a citizen, you have some semblence of a vote on the gov't, and at least everybody gets the same gov't.

Post reply on HN