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

Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

cwu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 300 posts

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#261

Post by LanceH »

tovej wrote: post #133
aaa_aaa wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one of my previous work, I was "forced" to enter a public union. They were simply leeches sucking government money (surprise, government was paying union premiums) through workers with almost no actual benefits. Whenever somebody glorifies Unions I just chukle.

Was this in the US? In the US, anti-union action by the government and employers has been extra egregious historically. This has obviously impacted unions in the US. There's also LOTS of anti-union misinformation spreading in the US.

There is lots of pro-union misinformation as well.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#262

Post by bpt3 »

dofm wrote: post #226
bpt3 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can more easily take care of those needs yourself if you aren't required to subsidize your below average colleagues.

I mean, this is likely factually wrong even in a US context, because presumably the collective bargaining power of a union extends beyond salary to functioning as a buyers group things like health insurance, being loud enough to gain visibility, etc. But it's a thought process that depends on the idea that you're always in control of staying on the better side of the average in whatever metric a company chooses to ju…

I'm not sure how it can be "likely factually wrong" that you are better off without paying a third party who does very little for you as an individual who is above average in your field than you would be if you didn't have that money. Concessions in indirect benefits often come at the cost of higher wages and the portability of earnings, the latter being one of the major downsides for skilled professionals.

All above average employees I know don't need to worry about staying on the better of average for some arbitrary metric. If the company makes a mistake and fires them, they can quickly get a job elsewhere. It's the people who have no better alternative than their current job who need the protection provided by a union contract, and they have no better alternative because the company made a mistake in the other direction when agreeing to employ them, and the union's job is to bar the employer from correcting that mistake.

And yes, unions successfully fought for improved work conditions 100+ years ago. What have they done to earn their keep during the careers of anyone posting on this site? Why should I as a non-unionized worker today join one? It's certainly not going to improve my total compensation, and the people who did the hard work you mentioned are long gone so it's no benefit to them for me to pay dues into an organization they were affiliated with at some point.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#263

Post by psychoslave »

cdkmoose wrote: post #254
psychoslave wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with everyone with same degree and years in district being paid equally? Per the very definition of such a competition, not everyone can pursue and finish number one in national fame machines.

If they don't contribute equally, why should they be paid equally, especially when the individuals desire to be paid per their contribution. Some rest on their years and degree while others go above and beyond to deliver a difference. The union doesn't allow the employer to recognize that. I think there are jobs where those distinctions don't matter as much, but creative jobs and other areas where the ability of an e…

Maybe because the union role is not to encourage anyone to burn themself down in relentless efforts? Maybe in the union eye, trying to protect people in the working class includes to dodge the traps of the exploiting class and the meritocratic myth?

Divide and rule is nothing new, and playing on the extra individual effort rewards is a very cheap trick to lower the working condition of everyone, possibly even the one doing the extra efforts. It doesn’t take a Nobel price in economy and a certificate of adhesion to Marxism to fathom this basic power dynamic leveraging on sociological imbalance, does it?

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#264

Post by [deleted] »

nephihaha wrote: post #231
cellu wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

British have no concept of unionisation and avoid conflict at all cost. Their employer tells them they must go back to five days to the office? They all obediently do it

No idea where you get that from. Most of my childhood was dominated by strikes. We still have them.

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#265

Post by fortran77 »

Giefo6ah wrote: post #240
fortran77 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is “X-Windows”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System

The Wikipedia article you posted says:

> The term "X-Windows" (in the manner of the subsequently released "Microsoft Windows") is not officially endorsed – with X Consortium release manager Matt Landau stating in 1993, "There is no such thing as 'X Windows' or 'X Window', despite the repeated misuse of the forms by the trade rags"[60] – though it has been in common informal use since early in the history of X[61] and has been used deliberately for provocative effect, for example in the Unix-Haters Handbook.[8]

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#266

Post by dofm »

bpt3 wrote: post #262
dofm wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this is likely factually wrong even in a US context, because presumably the collective bargaining power of a union extends beyond salary to functioning as a buyers group things like health insurance, being loud enough to gain visibility, etc. But it's a thought process that depends on the idea that you're always in control of staying on the better side of the average in whatever metric a company chooses to ju…

I'm not sure how it can be "likely factually wrong" that you are better off without paying a third party who does very little for you as an individual who is above average in your field than you would be if you didn't have that money. Concessions in indirect benefits often come at the cost of higher wages and the portability of earnings, the latter being one of the major downsides for skilled professionals. All above…

> I'm not sure how it can be "likely factually wrong" that you are better off without paying a third party who does very little for you as an individual who is above average in your field than you would be if you didn't have that money.

Do you not purchase insurance? Same principle. Collective bargaining and buying power unlocks things even you, a wealthy above average human, might wish to have affordable.

> Why should I as a non-unionized worker today join one?

So they continue to exist and rules don't slide back further.

I mean if you are old and rich enough enough not to care about the next decade of working life then good for you, I guess. But society could very well be ripped apart by the very things that the tech industry is rolling out, and unions are one of the few things that stand in the way of absolutely massive regressions in the way humans who have the temerity to want to eat will have to tolerate being treated.

Personally I want to see them survive, and non-union workers joining them when they can is one of those ways that can happen.

(As an IT freelancer I cannot, meaningfully; I assure you that when my work pattern changes I will)

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#267

Post by some_random »

fortran77 wrote: post #265
Giefo6ah wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System

The Wikipedia article you posted says: > The term "X-Windows" (in the manner of the subsequently released "Microsoft Windows") is not officially endorsed – with X Consortium release manager Matt Landau stating in 1993, "There is no such thing as 'X Windows' or 'X Window', despite the repeated misuse of the forms by the trade rags"[60] – though it has been in common informal use since early in the history of X[61] and…

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#268

Post by ghaff »

fortran77 wrote: post #265
Giefo6ah wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System

The Wikipedia article you posted says: > The term "X-Windows" (in the manner of the subsequently released "Microsoft Windows") is not officially endorsed – with X Consortium release manager Matt Landau stating in 1993, "There is no such thing as 'X Windows' or 'X Window', despite the repeated misuse of the forms by the trade rags"[60] – though it has been in common informal use since early in the history of X[61] and…

And MANY people involved with it and Unix for a very long time routinely use the term, officially endorsed or not. Understandably because it is/was a windowing system and just saying X out of context isn't especially clear.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#269

Post by ghaff »

some_random wrote: post #267
fortran77 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia article you posted says: > The term "X-Windows" (in the manner of the subsequently released "Microsoft Windows") is not officially endorsed – with X Consortium release manager Matt Landau stating in 1993, "There is no such thing as 'X Windows' or 'X Window', despite the repeated misuse of the forms by the trade rags"[60] – though it has been in common informal use since early in the history of X[61] and…

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modif…

Essentially all the distributions are GNU + Linux kernel + a whole bunch of other stuff that tend to have some common elements but vary by distribution. At which point we're into pedantry about what things are called.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#270

Post by bpt3 »

dofm wrote: post #266
bpt3 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how it can be "likely factually wrong" that you are better off without paying a third party who does very little for you as an individual who is above average in your field than you would be if you didn't have that money. Concessions in indirect benefits often come at the cost of higher wages and the portability of earnings, the latter being one of the major downsides for skilled professionals. All above…

> I'm not sure how it can be "likely factually wrong" that you are better off without paying a third party who does very little for you as an individual who is above average in your field than you would be if you didn't have that money. Do you not purchase insurance? Same principle. Collective bargaining and buying power unlocks things even you, a wealthy above average human, might wish to have affordable. > Why shou…

So it's insurance against some nebulous, unspecified catastrophe that if it comes to fruition, unions will be effectively powerless to stop anyway.

If that's the best case you can make, they're even more useless to skilled workers than I thought.

Would you like to buy some insurance against aliens destroying the earth as well?

Post reply on HN