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

291–300 of 327 posts

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

#291

Post by int_19h »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #282
int_19h wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "extort", exactly? Refusing to perform work for a pay that is too low is pretty much the essence of free market. Why are you okay when individuals do it separately, but suddenly not okay when they band together?

They band together and then they be like: we want 50% wage increase or we all quit and you lose a lot of money in the process. This is what I mean by extort.

How is that extortion, exactly? They are merely refusing to trade their labor for the price offered. This is just basic negotiation, a fundamental mechanism of any free market.

The only reason to be offended by it specifically when people do it collectively rather than individually is because in the former case they actually have enough bargaining power vs their employer to get a better price for their labor. That is, because the market is "too free" to produce the desired (low) price of labor.

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

#292

Post by cbsmith »

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…

> It should not be adjudicating any kind of legal controversy. That is not the role of the executive branch.

Which they aren't doing. They're deciding whether to take Apple to court. If you don't think the executive branch should do that, do you believe the AG's office & the FBI should operate under the judicial branch?

> It's very often worse. Executive agencies often have legislative functions, i.e. APA rulemaking, as well judicial functions, e.g. in this matter. The SEC is another one, (see SEC vs Jarkesy currently before SCOTUS).

Not all rules are laws. Not all judgements are legal judgments. The executive branch is absolutely responsible for making principled decisions, which means rules & judgement. The irony of citing a case where the SEC is before SCOTUS as an example of there not being a separation of powers is... amusing.

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

#293

Post by johnnyanmac »

wddkcs wrote: post #89
gklitz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lit…

>Prior to those efforts, workers in industrialized positions were indeed working 80 to 100 hours a week on average, with little to no recourse.

And much lower productivity. Even by recent metrics we know the modern work is twice as efficient, but apparently the average hours per week worked is around 55-60 hours.

That's part of the point. It in fact has quickly dimishing returns to work more than X hours, and past that there probably is some physical breakdown point wher ea worker loses productivety in the mid-long term (e.g. working 120 hours for 2 weeks, then sick for a month. Congrats, you lost 80 hours of productiviy + whatever middling returns happened) but companies won't budge without collective action.

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

#294

Post by johnnyanmac »

randomdata wrote: post #222
gklitz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Now in that scenario the worker has no power at all The worker holds all the power, so long as another worker isn't an asshole ready to screw over his fellow man . What's the company going to do if the worker balks? Hire nobody? Not going to happen. Which is what a union ultimately serves: Establishing a brotherhood where the workers agree to not be assholes towards each other, to not screw each other over, so that…

>What's the company going to do if the worker balks? Hire nobody? Not going to happen.

These days, yes. They get rid of Bob and make Andy do his and Bob's work (with no extra pay, of course), promising to replace Bob over the next 6 months while the company actually has a hiring freeze.

I wish more "assholes" would realize this before trying to turn against their peers.

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

#295

Post by matchbok »

flandish wrote: post #290
arnavpraneet wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They often demonstrate ideals that go counter to their own interests This for real. The cognitive dissonance is giving me more cognitive dissonance. I highly doubt that even though this may be a VC owned and operated site, somehow everyone on the site is a vc or something similar?

[flagged]

Oh and one virtue singaling guy named flandish who needs to pass Econ 101 before commenting again.

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

#296

Post by johnnyanmac »

GeneralMaximus wrote: post #238
mytailorisrich wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of unions is to extract as much as possible from the employer on the behalf of its members, or at least to extract more than the employer would otherwise have given. You do not contradict anything I have written nor provide any examples of how unions might be a positive for employers... Again, if an happier, more productive employee benefits the company then the market will sort it out by itself (For inst…

> The purpose of unions is to extract as much as possible from the employer on the behalf of its members [...] This is such a weird take. Why would employees do that? Employees benefit when the company benefits. If the company increases profits by 10%, that's 10% more that could potentially go to employee benefits, salaries, etc. I want my employer to make as much profit as possible, because that guarantees my long-t…

>If the company increases profits by 10%, that's 10% more that could potentially go to employee benefits, salaries, etc.

if you work at a good company, maybe. If a company put profts back to the employees, we wouldn't need unions.

I think the interpretation of unions sucking companies dry is uncharitable. But many companies these past few decades have definitely shown they need someone to keep them in check.

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

#297

Post by johnnyanmac »

jensgk wrote: post #86
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." 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?

>How is it in the US?

We sadly gave up proper benefits/balance of life for higher income. Which of course hoodwinked us when economy tightened up. Some states have it slight better, but I haven't had a proper vacation since college. Unless you count being laid off with no notice.

Then you have loopholes as usual. Layoffs in some states SHOULD be noticed in advance, but only if it's something like > X people laid off. So why not instead make rounds of layoffs over the months? Great for morale!

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

#298

Post by cscurmudgeon »

atmosx wrote: post #253
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.

I recall a graph that Yale prof Ian Shapiro showed in his lecture series "Power and Politics in Today’s World" (available on YouTube) that shows a strong correlation between participation fall in worker unions and wage stagnation as opposed to corporation profits in the US. The break point is the fall of the Berlin wall. IIRC he goes on to explain how's that not an accident . I don't remember which lecture was it tho…

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

More seriously: Any analysis which ignores globalization and skirting of environmental and labor laws by importing from China is an incomplete/dishonest analysis.

Wage stagnation also correlates to importing from China.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-impact-of-u...

You probably won't see this analysis from Yale. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/09/congress-targets-ha...

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

#299

Post by johnnyanmac »

polski-g wrote: post #236
jensgk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I have 5 weeks vacation, paid holidays, 40 hour work week, unpaid parental leave. I also make 3-4x what you make.

5 weeks vacation after acrusing them for 4 years and you can't accrue more than 28 days past that.

That's probably not what you meant, but that's been my experience at every role so far. 5 weeks would be a dream for me.

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

#300

Post by johnnyanmac »

indymike wrote: post #185
bell-cot wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read up on primate behavior. Top executives are alpha males, and didn't get there without lots of compulsive control-seeking, dominance-asserting, etc. behavior patterns.

> Top executives are alpha males This is not accurate at all and really has very little place in rational discussion. > didn't get there without lots of compulsive control-seeking, dominance-asserting, etc. behavior patterns Some executives in some company cultures are like this. Most companies I've worked at or collaborated with did not put up with this behavior at all.

>This is not accurate at all and really has very little place in rational discussion.

I wouldn't phrase it that way at all, but it has been a studied phenomenon that C-level positions have disproportionately more individuals with psychopathic tendencies.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240508223718/https://fortune.c...

Post reply on HN