New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat • Hacker News Board

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#381

Post by eagsalazar2 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

There is no broad support for unions not because of the bogeyman arguments your co-workers were raising but because for most US based software developers there is no acute problem they feel that unions would solve because almost all of us are doing pretty well. On the other hand no single developer really has that much leverage because the importance of even the best individual devs doesn't compare to an individual LeBron and/or there isn't the massive amount of money at stake that depends massively on the work of specific people. Unions for writers, actors, NBA players, etc are frequently representing for extremes of the totally destitute who are easily taken advantage of or groups of the ultra important where the Unions are essentially acting as high powered negotiators for those they represent. All very good reasons for unions, none of which is true for developers in the US right now.

I'm not saying there aren't things a union could help with, I'm just saying that for most devs, those things aren't pinching very hard. Also, you have to be realistic about the impact of unions, they are a double edged sword. Police unions aren't a straw man, they are a real example of the worst case scenario for abusive concentration of power and agendas at odds with the public good. The best examples always come with some bureaucratic overhead. So it is valid to consider the cost/benefit of unions. Again, I'm not taking a stance on what is right here, just saying unions are not as obviously a good idea in every case as you might imagine and the hesitance of your co-workers, right or wrong, is at least understandable.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#382

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #315

omginternets wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how this is remotely relevant. The point is: many (most?) first-world countries have unions that work well overall. Same with police departments. What you're describing are putative reasons why the American execution is a failure.

So those proposing having unions in the US need to explain why this implementation will suddenly work differently than all the others in the US. Sure, I'll freely admit that unions have worked very well other places, but the US seems to blow it every darn time. Why would this time be different?

Software engineering has this culture of innovation, invention, disruption, and reimplementing everything from taxis to space travel to payment systems to currency to food from scratch. Why couldn't they attempt to do the same to labor relations.

Why assume that the day after a tech union is invented, suddenly you're stuck with a massive clanking bureaucracy that's identical to the ones that were formed in very different industries many decades ago?

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#383

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

lukebitts wrote: post #176

take_a_breath wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in unions can’t find other jobs?

They can’t find other unions

Specifically union power tends to be rather exclusive - competition or fragmentation over a shared niche harms them far more than even individuals or businesses. The dynamic is thus "anti-competitive" by design.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#384

Post by eagsalazar2 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #381

objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

There is no broad support for unions not because of the bogeyman arguments your co-workers were raising but because for most US based software developers there is no acute problem they feel that unions would solve because almost all of us are doing pretty well. On the other hand no single developer really has that much leverage because the importance of even the best individual devs doesn't compare to an individual L…

Oh and to be clear how I feel about the larger question here, I'm not at all defending Facebook. Zuckerberg is the vilest piece of sh*t for allowing this and for profiting off Facebook as tool for misleading so many people. Recent events have really made it clear what a massively damaging thing Facebook's complacency really is.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#385

Post by CodeMage » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #324

objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

I'll never forget the union at a convention center that forced vendors to pay them to move anything from their own car they couldn't carry. Nothing but extortionist bullies squeezing every cent of protection money they could out of the people there who actually make things and add value to the world. In contrast, these union employees were nothing but parasites. They did nothing the vendors couldn't do themselves, wh…

I not sure I understand the point of your comment. The parent comment literally said that there are many unions like that, but that this is not what a union has to be and that there are several unions that are a net positive.

The whole point is that the fight for protection of workers' rights needs some sort of organization. Traditionally, that has been called a "union", but if the problem you're pointing out is that the name has too many bad connotations, feel free to propose another one.

FWIW, it looks like most of the "good unions" are careful to call themselves "guilds".

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#386

Post by CodeMage » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #381

objclxt wrote: post #25

I used to work at Facebook, and it was always interesting to me to see just how many engineers were actively against - aghast, even - at the idea of unions. Whenever it would come up on the internal boards the arguments were usually along the lines of: * "People who don't deserve to be paid more will get more money under a union" * "I'll be paid less under a union" * "Unions will slow us down, and we'll become more b…

There is no broad support for unions not because of the bogeyman arguments your co-workers were raising but because for most US based software developers there is no acute problem they feel that unions would solve because almost all of us are doing pretty well. On the other hand no single developer really has that much leverage because the importance of even the best individual devs doesn't compare to an individual L…

The tech industry in general might not need unions yet, but game dev industry is a clear example of where they're sorely needed.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#387

Post by eagsalazar2 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #175

jcims wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years now I've seen comments like this from Europeans every time unions come up in conversation online. You all need need to come work for a large union in the US. They are just not the same thing. I've had direct or indirect experience with Teamsters, CWA, NEA, IBEW and UBC. You can dress it up however you like but there are definitely 'union jobs' with all of the connotation that brings. Yes there are benefits…

This is the same argument I see americans make a lot. "Unions are bad!", no, the concept is fine, you have some bad ones. "Police are bad!", no, the concept is fine, yours are just untrained and overburdened. "Public transport is bad, I need a car!", no, the concept is fine, you just have bad public transport and that forms your opinion.

You are failing to acknowledge the underlying issues associated with all your examples. This isn't American's whining about anecdotes while the system overall is sound. The system overall is a setup for unions, police, public transportation, etc to turn out bad way more often than they should (and probably way more often than they do in Europe, hence the confusion about why people are hostile to these things). People pushing the superficial and polarizing positions you've listed do exist sadly but largely, IMO, because they directly benefit from that polarization or they've been lied to and manipulated intentionally into taking those positions for the benefit of special interests and large corporations that dominate what laws actually get passed in this country.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#388

Post by sho » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

pietrovismara wrote: post #346

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because you can't move a piece of furniture, you believe it cancels the amount of protections and good from unionization?!

That kinda shows you what privilege is and how it conditions the political discussion. If you never had to face a problem (never needed someone to protect you against greedy employers), it is so hard to understand why that it's relevant.

New rule: similar to Godwin's law, first person to mention "privilege" loses the argument. It is an unwinnable and deeply toxic ad hominem strategy; discount any merit of the argument and accuse the opponent of simply being too "privileged" to ever understand. Well guess what - that hole just goes down and down. If you can speak english and afford a computer, you're way too privileged. Electricity! Privilege.

When it comes to identity politics, unless you are an illiterate, congenitally disabled, imprisoned, transgender veteran of color in a 3rd world country then I would ask you to respectfully step back and let our true heroes speak. Thanks

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#389

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #259

toomuchtodo wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't argue with someone who has an axe to grind. EDIT: Non-union shops are just as culpable in the deficiencies you describe (creating and defending bureaucracies from innovation or creative destruction), which is why your pejorative opinion of unions poisons the ability to have a legitimate conversation regarding their benefits to workers (who have very little power against corporations). Unions have challenges, bu…

Doesn't. I can discuss unions objectively. Just not gonna pretend they can do no wrong. In fact, that's the entire discussion right there -how to preserve the benefits without making dysfunctional organizations. It'd be fair to say, its union supporters that can't have a meaningful discussion. Because they have a chip on their shoulders. So discussing the negative is instantly off the table. Anyway, I've worked my wh…

Anti-union critics tend to have as much of a chip of their shoulders as well. There's no shortage of example comments where people are tossing around FUD and anecdata in an attempt to paint all unions as bad. If you're going to make presumptions as to sentiment, then it's only fair for your own side to be held to the same standard.

Re: New Facebook tool allows employers to suppress “unionize” in workplace chat

#390

Post by jcims » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #382

compiler-guy wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So those proposing having unions in the US need to explain why this implementation will suddenly work differently than all the others in the US. Sure, I'll freely admit that unions have worked very well other places, but the US seems to blow it every darn time. Why would this time be different?

Software engineering has this culture of innovation, invention, disruption, and reimplementing everything from taxis to space travel to payment systems to currency to food from scratch. Why couldn't they attempt to do the same to labor relations. Why assume that the day after a tech union is invented, suddenly you're stuck with a massive clanking bureaucracy that's identical to the ones that were formed in very diffe…

I guess we'll find out: https://kickstarterunited.org/