Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#61

Post by yardie » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15

danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you…

> any worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay),

Seems to be quite a lot of context missing. I think nearly everyone agrees they want to pay less taxes and take home more money. Now if lowering taxes does not result in more money then you don't need politicians and unions to make that case.

I'm guessing lowering taxes would result in more expensive, privatized services and voters figured that wouldn't work.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#62

Post by e12e » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts, training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a whole.

Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)?

It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations.

Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#63

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them, is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#64

Post by nickpp » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

bmicraft wrote: post #34

nickpp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal. Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters. So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.

Which is good because corporations aren't people. If company goes under its owner(s) arn't usually weeks away from being on the street.

Aren't unions just as much "people" as corporations are?

And corporation owners could very well be pension funds...

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#65

Post by jcampbell1 » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

purple_ferret wrote: post #39

wccrawford wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.

Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union? I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer c…

You joined a union where more than a dozen of the leaders were recently convicted of embezzlement. The UAW is in a bit of a pickle for awhile.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#66

Post by PathOfEclipse » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #57

sfteus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things: 1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high…

>2) Many people believe that unions spend too much time protecting "low-performers," and that a union enacting barriers to protect employees from quick firing for performance will hurt the overall team/company. This is not a "some people think" issue. This is a reality of running an organization like a union. Literally every low barrier to entry organization from unions to political parties to organized religion to o…

This is especially true of teacher's unions, who have been openly hostile towards any meaningful way of measuring teacher performance, and have made it astronomically expensive to fire any teacher no matter how bad or incompetent. The world would be a much better place if teacher's unions didn't exist.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#67

Post by eesmith » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #62

danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts, training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a whole. Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)? It's always seemed strange to me that people wi…

Also, anti-poaching agreements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching :

> Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees

You mentioned "standard contracts".

I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs.

This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..."

So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective.

BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#68

Post by dpkirchner » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

Ancapistani wrote: post #55

sfteus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things: 1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high…

I'm very much anti-unionization, but don't really fall into any of those buckets. To be fair, I didn't take it to be an exhaustive list. Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the US because of the government being involved and "artificially" granting them power.

The government artificially grants corporations power by virtue of creating the concept of a corporation and limited liability, so to me it seems only fair for them to grant a collective of workers power as well.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#69

Post by lexiPrime » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #53

wahnfrieden wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)

I've never heard of this before. Are there other political paradoxes you're aware of, say for example, a paradox of the right?

Is the answer to this supposed to be obvious enough to not actually require a response? Whether or not that is the case, it seems useful to lay out an example.

A paradox of the Right is that they say that they fight for peoples' freedoms, yet they continue to fight to restrict freedoms. See any of the Right's stances regarding the freedoms of LGBT people for a salient and current example.

You could say "the Right is against rights", if you want to be cute about it.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#70

Post by seanmcdirmid » Tue, Dec 06, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

sfteus wrote: post #51

purple_ferret wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union? I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer c…

From a union supporter who's spent some time reading about anti-union sentiment here, I've found it generally boils down to a few things: 1) A large portion of users on this site are entrepreneurs or in higher-level tech. For the former, unions can be seen as getting in the way of the startup lifecycle; for the latter, many believe that the value they provide makes them untouchable, or believe that the supply of high…

I see unions as mostly other entrenched institutions that add their own layers of bureaucracy and politics. They aren't any better or worse than corporations and governments, but simply by having a place at the table, things move slower and with less efficiency than they could. Of course, if the alternative is abuse of power by corporations and/or governments, they are a necessary evil.