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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

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

#81

Post by krainboltgreene »

jpollock wrote: post #78
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…

I have no desire to be part of a union because of my one-person removed (friends) experience with union violence. 1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to cross the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike). My friend (female) was punched in the face by a union member. 2) Another friend working on the factory floor, doubled then tripled their work quota. They were pulled aside and told it was amazing h…

> 1) Interns, not being part of the union, needed to cross the picket line (Canada Federal Government strike). My friend (female) was punched in the face by a union member.

This would have made news and I cannot find it.

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

#82

Post by arrosenberg »

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.

> Basically, I'm opposed to unions as they exist in the US because of the government being involved and "artificially" granting them power.

Artificial is an unfair characterization of history. The President didn't just descend from on high and grant unions powers out of magnanimity. At one point the unions were extremely powerful to the point that they were able to codify in law the rights they had attained.

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

#83

Post by ruined »

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.

most american laws around unions are actually prohibitory and limiting. if legal recognition and regulation for organized labor were eliminated, i don't think it would result in less power wielded by unions.

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

#84

Post by andrepd »

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.

I feel like this is such an obvious fact that I don't know how people say "contract of free association" with a straight face when it comes to the employment market.

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

#85

Post by andrepd »

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.

As opposed to enforcing "artificial" property rights. That's government interference that you can tolerate :)

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

#86

Post by fallingknife »

kodah wrote: post #59
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 can be kind of mixed from a union standpoint. It really just depends on the goals and outcomes of a particular union. Airline unions tend to be particularly bad when it comes to controlling internal dissent against the union, and regulating peoples pay and flying hours (especially around furloughs). Things may have changed since I heard this criticism, but I'd hate to have this happen in software. That said, we cou…

Why would I want standardization in pay? I would make less money.

Why would I want standardized promotions? I don't want to be lead by people just because they have been around longer than me.

Why would I want to tear down the leetcode interview process? It's much easier.than having to do demo projects.

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

#87

Post by JoshTriplett »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #73
Macha wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the whole concept of employers recognizing a union or employees being required to join a union which is raised in US union discussions are kind of weird. Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join. Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surpri…

Minority unions undermine the collective bargaining that underpins the very concept of a union. They make no sense to me, at all. The whole point of a union is having a large enough block of workers committed to act together that the company is forced to either negotiate or perish. This obviously works when you have all the workers unionized, as a company without employees can achieve nothing at all. As the union get…

That sounds like a really good argument for a union providing sufficiently valuable services to their members that they want to be a member. If a union isn't serving its members those members should be able to seek better options.

If unions worked like this in the US, it seems like many more people would be in favor of them.

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

#88

Post by andrepd »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #66
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

How do you measure teacher performance? Have you looked at the actual proposals? They're atrocious, as if education needed to be any more of a rat race of chasing idiotic """performance""" metrics.

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

#89

Post by fallingknife »

cmh89 wrote: post #49
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation. >W…

They certainly can raise taxes without improving services, so why not the opposite?

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

#90

Post by dkonofalski »

wccrawford wrote: post #56
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…

I think you made my point for me, at least partially. The real teeth in a union is the ability to strike. In joining a union, you signify that you're willing to strike if enough other people aren't getting what they want. I'm happy with what I have. My team seems pretty happy, too. If things were bad, I'd consider joining a union. But until they are bad, union dues are just wasted money, and the obligation to strike…

I think you've also pointed out the need for unions, though. Lots of employees literally can't afford to strike because it means they don't get paid, even if it's temporarily. That means that your assertion that "if enough others want to" is kinda meaningless.
Post reply on HN