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

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#291

Post by fortran77 »

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…

You're right, and that's why I call it GNU/Linux. However, I don't run it. I use the world's best operating system, Windows 11 Pro for Arm.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#292

Post by philipallstar »

some_random wrote: post #193
anothermathbozo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions are not the primary mechanism between employers and workers for establishing fairer wages in many European countries. Unions are designed to level a power imbalance between an employer (typically a legal vehicle which aggregates the material self interest of various actors) and the employees who would otherwise have to act alone. Myopically focusing on wages while ignoring the many other concerns about the dis…

What a great excuse for stagnant wages.

The "excuse" is that there hasn't been automation or other things introduced to make a worker's output more, which would then raise their value.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#293

Post by xhkkffbf »

rjh29 wrote: post #250
teachrdan wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that Wait until you see what management does to workers, like fail to pay them on time, give them inhumane working conditions, or fire them arbitrarily. Sarcasm aside, I've never understood this genre…

I've noticed a lot of Americans have an anti-union sentiment, probably a product of indoctrination.

Or maybe encountering union workers. Many Americans grow up in schools run by teachers' unions. Maybe the so-called indoctrination isn't working the way you expect. Ask yourself why 12 or so years of being on the receiving end of union labor isn't having the effect you expect?

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#294

Post by DrBazza »

Thedarkb wrote: post #219
DrBazza wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reverse is true. Unionization of the UK car industry in the 1970s, more than played its part in the collapse of the UK car industry, for example: > The company became an infamous example of the industrial turmoil that plagued the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Action by unions frequently crippled BL manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland#1975%E2%80%931... 'work deserves to be compensated fairl…

Unionisation didn't bring down British Leyland, the management did. There was no upward mobility from the unionised shop floor up to the management and design departments and it led to designs and management strategies that were completely divorced from both the realities of building cars and what consumers wanted to buy. The unions were a convenient scapegoat for Margaret Thatcher, but the reality is that Ford of Br…

Perhaps. Though if you strike endlessly, you have no product to sell. So people buy elsewhere and you go out of business. If you disagree, perhaps edit this line in wikipedia:

> These internal issues, which were never satisfactorily solved, combined with serious industrial relations problems with trade unions, the 1973 oil crisis, the three-day week, high inflation and ineffectual management meant that BL became an unmanageable and financially crippled behemoth

(emphasis, mine).

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#295

Post by DrBazza »

Giefo6ah wrote: post #241
DrBazza wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reverse is true. Unionization of the UK car industry in the 1970s, more than played its part in the collapse of the UK car industry, for example: > The company became an infamous example of the industrial turmoil that plagued the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Action by unions frequently crippled BL manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland#1975%E2%80%931... 'work deserves to be compensated fairl…

The labour theory of value is Adam Smith's, not Marx's.

Indeed. I paraphrased this line from wikipedia - "The LTV is usually associated with Marxian economics" perhaps I should have read the next bit ", although it also appears in the theories of earlier classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. "

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#296

Post by DrBazza »

bArray wrote: post #289
DrBazza wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Labour party was founded by unions, so it's no surprise they're still completely beholden to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Labour_Party_(U...

I understand why there is that relationship, but it appears the people that make the main membership and the leadership in the unions/Labour party have drifted apart. So now you have this weird situation where the unions and the Labour party are funded by people that are largely ideologically opposed.

That's UK politics in general, which I suppose is microcosm of the UK. Everything is now a career. We have many, many, sitting MPs, that have only ever studied topics like politics with the sole aim of becoming a politician. Or never worked in private industry, or even worked in the public sector in parts that aren't necessarily unionized. In the past many MPs had 'life experience' outside of politics.

They are therefore naturally detached from unions, and more worryingly, the every day reality of the electorate.

For some of these MPs, losing their seat at a General Election is the first time in their entire lives they've ever lost a job, unlike the general public that have to put up with routine dismissals, via redundancy, company bankruptcy and so on.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#297

Post by bpt3 »

dofm wrote: post #274
bpt3 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This comment is much more revealing about you than I think you realise, but it's good to know at least that there's no point in wasting time on arguing things on the merits.

I mean I think it's exactly as revealing as I realize, in that I have again explicitly stated that unions are not beneficial to above average workers because they don't need external protections against job loss or substandard working conditions in modern society. To use your terms, they are best off self-insuring against these issues, as is the case with insurance against most forms of loss.

Fearmongering and/or hand wringing about what could get worse in the future doesn't change that reality today.

The big risk to a worker is that they overestimate their skill level, which absolutely does happen, but those people are not in the above average pool I'm talking about in the first place and would in fact benefit from a union.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#298

Post by xhkkffbf »

khriss wrote: post #242
xhkkffbf wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good? They've been a mixed bag in my life. Unions are made up of people and they come with all of the good and bad of people. I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that. I suppose I can see some good, but for the most part the union ends up…

If we are going by anecdotes, then I suspect the number and scale of anecdotes of capital misusing it's power are going to vastly outnumber unions doing the same.

Your suspicions are wrong in my case. (Yours may be different.) For the most part, I've found that companies have treated me fairly and, if anything, avoided making overly rosy promises. It's always been a very quid-pro-quo message.

Unions, though, spin up these stories of worker protections that haven't worked out in my life. When the unions didn't defend my colleague, I was pretty much gobsmacked. It was such a clear case. But in the end they didn't even give a reason. And they didn't have to because, well, they're a magical union and people like you reflexively love them and imagine that they'll defeat that evil capital. Hah. The scales fell off my eyes. I'm sure you'll experience the same one day.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#299

Post by xhkkffbf »

teachrdan wrote: post #239
xhkkffbf wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good? They've been a mixed bag in my life. Unions are made up of people and they come with all of the good and bad of people. I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that. I suppose I can see some good, but for the most part the union ends up…

> I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that Wait until you see what management does to workers, like fail to pay them on time, give them inhumane working conditions, or fire them arbitrarily. Sarcasm aside, I've never understood this genre…

This is what people say but I have yet to experience it myself. But maybe the problem is that I never had great expectations for management. I always assumed it was all a business. Making money was the goal. The unions, though, push this dreamy narrative about how there are these great knights in shining armor that will always defend you. Bah. Baloney. They're also profit-maximizing people motivated by selfishness, but they hide it.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#300

Post by shye »

iso1631 wrote: post #68
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> safety nets should be built not only when you are speeding towards the ground, and often lack the resources, but much before that, when you are safe Safety nets cost time and resources to build and come at the cost of agility. They shouldn’t be avoided at all costs. But a foundation in an industry where unions aren’t the norm taking that step can correctly be interpreted as a sign management fucked up. Given the fo…

Or it can be seen as a sign of an industry that's maturing

Unions are a solution to a power imbalance, not a sign of maturity, neither when maturity is defined as "having attained a final or desired state" or as "having achieved a low but stable growth rate".
Post reply on HN