Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App • Hacker News Board

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#231

Post by randomdata » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #226

randomdata wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join a union rather than to not join one. Exactly. You take away worker's freedom and fairness to improve the situation. Freedom is what causes the problems that unions attempt to solve. When people are free to operate any way they want, in a fair market with no restrictions, they will undercut others to everyone's detriment, be that through accepting lower pay,…

You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible. I've already explained that freedom to join a union is as much a freedom for me as to not do it. It's just a matter of tactics. Also regarding freedom of firing an employee for joining a union. That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I do…

> You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible.

But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was.

> That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you.

Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary.

> I'm not even sure if you're arguing against or for unions anymore.

Deep down, the topic isn't really about unions at all, so I'm not even sure what difference it makes?

Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union, as I figured some overly emotional people would take the opening the wrong way (and still did anyway). I am now left wondering if you actually read the comment at all?

> to say that unions are inherently bad

I don't quite understand where you are even going here? Suppose we did agree on what free and fair mean. Then what? All we can conclude is that unions take away freedoms and fairness. How do you take that and turn it into unions being bad? I don't see the leap you are making here.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#232

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

lotharbot wrote: post #208

phil21 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While a bit more political and divisive than I would have gone with, I think you hit the nail on the head. Those that would benefit most in theory from unions generally have the most experience "in the trenches" with them. This experience shows them that unions more or less became places to protect the lowest common denominator with zero regard for any value they bring to the table. Show me a union that functions lik…

> "Show me a union that functions like a "guild" where it polices it's membership extremely well, and people strive to be skillful enough to join" Pro sports players' unions. It makes sense -- owners must act as a collective unit in order to ensure competitive balance and some degree of economic stability. A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans…

> A sports league where one team can afford to buy all of the best players from other teams is going to lose fans very fast

On the other hand, the New York Yankees.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#233

Post by matchagaucho » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #186

matchagaucho wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Follow the money. NBER's source of funding is dubious, at best.

Oh please... an ad hominem attack on the NBER?? >...The NBER is the largest economics research organization in the United States.[2] Many of the American winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences were NBER Research Associates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Re...

Are you advocating for small businesses to be replaced by a handful of monopoly mega-corps?

"Research" can be used to defend any argument in this debate.

The NBER has 3-4 sources of funding and consistently reinforces conservative, monopolistic positions.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#234

Post by matchagaucho » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #165

matchagaucho wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Follow the money. NBER's source of funding is dubious, at best.

It's the largest economic research organization in the US and the #1 clearinghouse for academic work in economics. Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.

And their "research" is used by right-wing conservatives to justify fracking, and other environmentally damaging agendas.

http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#235

Post by jahaja » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:03 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #231

jahaja wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible. I've already explained that freedom to join a union is as much a freedom for me as to not do it. It's just a matter of tactics. Also regarding freedom of firing an employee for joining a union. That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I do…

> You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible. But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was. > That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you. Why can't you be fre…

> Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary.

Answering this would inevitably leads us down a never ending philosophical discussion ("What is freedom? Is it an act of freedom to fire someone if it's made possible by an institution based on servitude?") that's subjective anyway.

> Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro-union

You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false.

> I don't quite understand where you are even going here?

I made a punt based on previous experiences with people discussing in a pseudo-philosophical manner. My bad.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#236

Post by wpietri » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #122

wpietri wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it could be because they weren't very good points. At best, I read it as indulging in not-very-good word games, which is a distraction from a serious topic. Or if you're making a serious point, it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. If you're going to jump into a discussion that you know is emotional for people, then you should…

> it doesn't seem like you understand either the practicalities of union negotiating or the economic theory that justifies them. My comment emphasized the need for unions, so if you disagree with my points, are you saying that unions aren't necessary?

I am not.

I will say, though, that I don't see it as necessary to reply to somebody who ignores the substance of a comment, picks out one sentence, and misinterprets it.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#237

Post by yolesaber » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:01 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #202

yolesaber wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean that $131.69 billion is not a massive amount of money. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...

That's gross profit--revenue minus cost of goods sold, not including salaries and rent. Other overhead plus taxes brings that down to about $15 billion. Which is not a lot of profit for a company with almost 2.3 million employees. It's equivalent to a 20-employee mom-and-pop that pulls out $120,000 a year for its owner. A McDonalds franchise is much more profitable.

Wow! Thank you for explaining that to me. Surprising.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#238

Post by harryh » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:03 PM UTC

matchagaucho wrote: post #234

harryh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the largest economic research organization in the US and the #1 clearinghouse for academic work in economics. Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.

And their "research" is used by right-wing conservatives to justify fracking, and other environmentally damaging agendas. http://www.nofrackingway.us/2012/11/01/shale-boom-nber-conse...

The paper I linked to wasn't done by NBER. They just host a database of research done by basically all academic economists. Your ad hominem attack isn't even aimed at the right people.

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#239

Post by randomdata » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #235

randomdata wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to be trying to promote some kind of objective definition of fair and freedom. I don't think it's possible. But that only further emphasizes how flawed the use of "fair compensation" by the OP was. Glad to see you are starting to make the same points I was. > That "freedom" is only rendered possible by suppressing other peoples freedom of joining a union, so no, I don't agree with you. Why can't you be fre…

> Why can't you be free to join a union while also allowing the employer the freedom to fire you? This isn't binary. Answering this would inevitably leads us down a never ending philosophical discussion ("What is freedom? Is it an act of freedom to fire someone if it's made possible by an institution based on servitude?") that's subjective anyway. > Although I did explicitly state that the message was meant to be pro…

> You're first paragraph is so obviously anti-worker that I've assumed your pro-union stance to be false.

Huh? Maybe if you attach objective meaning to the word fair, but you said couldn't be done and would lead to a never ending philosophical discussion.

But within the context of my position that has held that a fair market is not desirable for employees, that would tell you that the first paragraph is very much pro-labour. Fair is clearly bad.

What do you hope to take away from this discussion? You originally asked why Americans see unions as having negative outcomes. How are these talking points codifying an answer to that question in your mind?

Re: Wal-Mart Tells Workers: Don’t Download Labor Group’s Chat App

#240

Post by Frondo » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

salmon30salmon wrote: post #201

Frondo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works, too. In the popular media, unions have been so thoroughly demonized for several decades. Lots of middle-aged folks now will have grown up with their only idea of the union as being the lazy teamster who does nothing all day except file grievances, or the fabled electrician who won't plug in your power cord at a trade show because it's someone else's job. And the kinds of people who're going in for these job…

The Port of Portland (Oregon) lost container service due in no small part to this exact type of fracas between unions. There was a work slowdown over who is allowed to plug and unplug refrigerated units. This slowdown eventually led to large container ships no longer calling the port. The economic impact that this has had on the local economy is huge. Now small businesses and farms need to truck or train their goods…

That article tells us that the plug/unplug stuff was a consequence of a bunch of other stuff (like mismanagement, working without a union contract, etc).

According to that article, the problems didn't begin with the who's-allowed-to-plug/unplug. They were structural and systemic, and had to do with the port being mismanaged as much as the unions agitating for their workers.

So, I'm not entirely sure why you're saying it's about plugging and unplugging refrigeration units.

But, also interestingly, they lost Hanjin, and a mere year later, Hanjin's bankrupt. There was a lot of press a few months ago about container ships being stranded, etc.