7 ms·

No its not. This is a union fluff piece. The reality is these are contractors who will get dropped as soon as it makes sense. Thats why you hire these services

No its not. This is a union fluff piece. The reality is these are contractors who will get dropped as soon as it makes sense. Thats why you hire these services as contractors. I think the real test here will be how long till the union pushes facebook too far and they are just dropped. I have never seen a union that could actually compete with non-union shops unless there was a legal force preventing the competition.

hgsigala 9y ago
Which is exactly why we have to make it easier for people to form and join unions everywhere.
- xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
  To paint a wall in an individual office on Market St, San Francisco, with whiteboard paint, is upwards of $10000 in labor, because of union regulations. Unions are ripe to be used as instruments for abuse.
  - eutropia 9y ago
    I can't believe this. Do you have proof?
    - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
      I was present when a facilities manager explained why we shouldn't use spray-cleaner to clean whiteboards, because it wore down the paint faster, and repainting it cost $10k, and that they had already paid to repaint them twice.
      - enraged_camel 9y ago
        That's not proof, it's hearsay.
        xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
        Indeed, I didn't state that I have proof.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        What does that have to do with unions?
      - pavement 9y ago
        ...and then the facilities manager threw up their hands, sighed, said "yeah, but what can you do..." flipped through a couple of emails on the old smart phone, then went and sat down and watched some crap on youtube for a few more hours, until oh... 4:35 PM, close enough, and clocked out for the day, with the wall still unpainted. C'est la vie.
        xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
        My understanding is that per regulations only union labor is permitted to perform various tasks -- you can't just call any old contractor to install light fixtures. This was a requirement having to do with the location, I am not sure about the specifics (if it was a city thing or if the building owner had entered into such an agreement) but I'd like to have a better understanding. On the face of it, it does seem absurd.
        pavement 9y ago
        Right, I understand that aspect, but it's still worth highlighting cognitive dissonance where it exists.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Is that because of unions or because of market forces?
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Unions are a market force.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        Ok, fine. "Is that because of unions or some other market force such as high demand for white board walls relative to the supply of contractors".
        DataWorker 9y ago
        It's due to the lack of wall painting robots and it would seem that the market is soon to provide a solution. The future will hasten the demise of human labor, it's economic inevitability.
        tyingq 9y ago
        That is one thing unions specifically address..."work rules". What can, and cannot, be automated. It does require the union to have the upper hand in the first place in order to get a company management to sign a union contract with restrictions like that. However, for this particular story, it makes no sense, because the union only has leverage with their employer, not with the big name companies that have chosen their employer as the provider of the service. The big name companies would just switch to a new provider if they didn't like what was happening.
- briandear 9y ago
  If we oppose corporate monopolies, why could be support labor monopolies? Such a view is intellectually inconsistent.
forapurpose 9y ago
> The reality is these are contractors who will get dropped as soon as it makes sense. Thats why you hire these services as contractors. I think the real test here will be how long till the union pushes facebook too far and they are just dropped. That overlooks the whole point of unions, which is to give people power over their work lives and prevent situations like the one you describe. Perhaps the union won't succeed, but they have far more negotiating power when they are organized than when they are not. > I have never seen a union that could actually compete with non-union shops unless there was a legal force preventing the competition. That's a powerful claim, but do you have evidence? Particular expertise?
- sverige 9y ago
  Not OP, but one example would be the relocation of manufacturing in many sectors away from union strongholds in the northeast US to southern states, Mexico, and Asia. Carrier is a recent example that sticks out in my memory.
- briandear 9y ago
  The problem with union negotiations is that members’ ability to earn isn’t related to the merits of the member’s ability. I don’t want to make the same exact wage as someone with the same seniority but perhaps less ambition. I am not an interchangeable widget. Everyone is not equal in value despite being equal in seniority or experience. A first year teacher might be amazing, but thanks to unions her wage is codified based on her position in the pecking order and not her merits.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Unions don't have to pay based on seniority. They are democratically organized, and as such, are structured to reflect the will of their members. Don't want seniority-based pay? Don't set up your union contract that way.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    That's the argument of a boss in version of the prisoners dilemma. The reality is that you are a widget, you probably make less several people whom you consider a less able and "ambitious" than you, and your salary is only loosely associated with your value, if at all.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"I have never seen a union that could actually compete with non-union shops unless there was a legal force preventing the competition." You say "compete", but I'll bet these people would say "earn a living wage."
- JPKab 9y ago
  I say this as someone who grew up in a poor, rural community in a single parent household with 5 siblings, and was a construction worker being paid an hourly wage until around 25 years of age: If the labor you are selling to somebody isn't priced high enough to pay your bills, you need to ask yourself: 1) Is someone else willing to pay me more for this labor? 2) If yes, go work for them. If no, then the market has spoken, and the price for your form of labor is too low and you should find a new skill or move to a location where your labor's price point is more in line with the cost of living. 3) Paying people more than their labor is worth means that the difference has to be taken from others. 4) The energy being wasted on bitching and complaining and picketing would be better spent finding a new trade. There is a shortage of people in this country that can fix physical things with their hands. There is a surplus of people who can spoon food onto plates, because ANYBODY can do it. I have empathy and compassion for people scraping by, but I also know that handouts undermine people's self-confidence and pride. Paying these folks more than they are worth just hastens the automation of their jobs.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Your above statement shows that you do not have any empathy or compassion for those people, as you do not want to give them the opportunity to earn a living wage. And I find it very dishonest of you to refer to collective bargaining as a handout, or say that if they are able to negotiate something, that it is more than they are worth. If they are able to get that deal, does that not mean they are worth that much?
    - JPKab 9y ago
      I always want to give people opportunity to earn a living wage. The best way to earn a living wage is to learn a skill that has a market value at or above the living wage. Collective bargaining has a "tragedy of the commons" problem: Each worker's wage is negotiated as part of a bulk package, therefore the worst performers get a higher wage than they otherwise would, and the best performers get a lower wage than they otherwise would. Other side effects of collective bargaining: The union has to have tight control over new workers, otherwise their bargaining position is undermined. All new workers are required to be part of the union, who now controls hiring. In every unionized entity I've ever seen, this leads to nepotistic hiring practices. This is why NYC's fire department remained dominated by Irish Americans for decades after the demographics of NYC had completely changed. We live in an age where education has been made available enough to a large enough % of the population that the majority of the public has been able to acquire skills that allow them to earn above a living wage. The minute that % drops low enough, you will see unions getting their power back, along with a boost in public support.
matchagaucho 9y ago
"The reality is these are contractors who will get dropped as soon as it makes sense." This is exactly the kind of abuse Unions seek to end. Workers cannot simply be fired. The collective bargaining contract signed between the tech companies and Unions defines grounds for termination.
- nnfy 9y ago
  Why is that abusive? If you want more secure work, don't offer your services as a contractor. Are you trying to suggest that there is something inherently abusive about contracting? What if I don't want a full time gig?
  - SolarNet 9y ago
    Because if you don't work for someone you die and/or live a terrible life. Without the freedom to choose work, the labor market is not a free market, and the narrative you are trying to push does not apply.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      That doesn't make non-rich people victims and rich people abusers when they choose to hire them and pay them their actual market wage. Life is hard for some people. It's not someone else's fault, and someone else shouldn't have their freedom of association and private property rights violated for it
    - nnfy 9y ago
      Two points: 1. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that employees do not have freedom to choose work; in fact, contracting by its very nature leaves individuals with more freedom to choose work elsewhere, even concurrently. 2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees. I dont understand your point.
      - 9y ago

hgsigala 9y ago

Which is exactly why we have to make it easier for people to form and join unions everywhere.

xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
To paint a wall in an individual office on Market St, San Francisco, with whiteboard paint, is upwards of $10000 in labor, because of union regulations. Unions are ripe to be used as instruments for abuse.
- eutropia 9y ago
  I can't believe this. Do you have proof?
  - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
    I was present when a facilities manager explained why we shouldn't use spray-cleaner to clean whiteboards, because it wore down the paint faster, and repainting it cost $10k, and that they had already paid to repaint them twice.
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      That's not proof, it's hearsay.
      - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
        Indeed, I didn't state that I have proof.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      What does that have to do with unions?
    - pavement 9y ago
      ...and then the facilities manager threw up their hands, sighed, said "yeah, but what can you do..." flipped through a couple of emails on the old smart phone, then went and sat down and watched some crap on youtube for a few more hours, until oh... 4:35 PM, close enough, and clocked out for the day, with the wall still unpainted. C'est la vie.
      - xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
        My understanding is that per regulations only union labor is permitted to perform various tasks -- you can't just call any old contractor to install light fixtures. This was a requirement having to do with the location, I am not sure about the specifics (if it was a city thing or if the building owner had entered into such an agreement) but I'd like to have a better understanding. On the face of it, it does seem absurd.
        pavement 9y ago
        Right, I understand that aspect, but it's still worth highlighting cognitive dissonance where it exists.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Is that because of unions or because of market forces?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Unions are a market force.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Ok, fine. "Is that because of unions or some other market force such as high demand for white board walls relative to the supply of contractors".
      - DataWorker 9y ago
        It's due to the lack of wall painting robots and it would seem that the market is soon to provide a solution. The future will hasten the demise of human labor, it's economic inevitability.
        tyingq 9y ago
        That is one thing unions specifically address..."work rules". What can, and cannot, be automated. It does require the union to have the upper hand in the first place in order to get a company management to sign a union contract with restrictions like that. However, for this particular story, it makes no sense, because the union only has leverage with their employer, not with the big name companies that have chosen their employer as the provider of the service. The big name companies would just switch to a new provider if they didn't like what was happening.
briandear 9y ago
If we oppose corporate monopolies, why could be support labor monopolies? Such a view is intellectually inconsistent.

forapurpose 9y ago

> The reality is these are contractors who will get dropped as soon as it makes sense. Thats why you hire these services as contractors. I think the real test here will be how long till the union pushes facebook too far and they are just dropped. That overlooks the whole point of unions, which is to give people power over their work lives and prevent situations like the one you describe. Perhaps the union won't succeed, but they have far more negotiating power when they are organized than when they are not. > I have never seen a union that could actually compete with non-union shops unless there was a legal force preventing the competition. That's a powerful claim, but do you have evidence? Particular expertise?

sverige 9y ago
Not OP, but one example would be the relocation of manufacturing in many sectors away from union strongholds in the northeast US to southern states, Mexico, and Asia. Carrier is a recent example that sticks out in my memory.
briandear 9y ago
The problem with union negotiations is that members’ ability to earn isn’t related to the merits of the member’s ability. I don’t want to make the same exact wage as someone with the same seniority but perhaps less ambition. I am not an interchangeable widget. Everyone is not equal in value despite being equal in seniority or experience. A first year teacher might be amazing, but thanks to unions her wage is codified based on her position in the pecking order and not her merits.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Unions don't have to pay based on seniority. They are democratically organized, and as such, are structured to reflect the will of their members. Don't want seniority-based pay? Don't set up your union contract that way.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  That's the argument of a boss in version of the prisoners dilemma. The reality is that you are a widget, you probably make less several people whom you consider a less able and "ambitious" than you, and your salary is only loosely associated with your value, if at all.

s73ver_ 9y ago

"I have never seen a union that could actually compete with non-union shops unless there was a legal force preventing the competition." You say "compete", but I'll bet these people would say "earn a living wage."

JPKab 9y ago
I say this as someone who grew up in a poor, rural community in a single parent household with 5 siblings, and was a construction worker being paid an hourly wage until around 25 years of age: If the labor you are selling to somebody isn't priced high enough to pay your bills, you need to ask yourself: 1) Is someone else willing to pay me more for this labor? 2) If yes, go work for them. If no, then the market has spoken, and the price for your form of labor is too low and you should find a new skill or move to a location where your labor's price point is more in line with the cost of living. 3) Paying people more than their labor is worth means that the difference has to be taken from others. 4) The energy being wasted on bitching and complaining and picketing would be better spent finding a new trade. There is a shortage of people in this country that can fix physical things with their hands. There is a surplus of people who can spoon food onto plates, because ANYBODY can do it. I have empathy and compassion for people scraping by, but I also know that handouts undermine people's self-confidence and pride. Paying these folks more than they are worth just hastens the automation of their jobs.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Your above statement shows that you do not have any empathy or compassion for those people, as you do not want to give them the opportunity to earn a living wage. And I find it very dishonest of you to refer to collective bargaining as a handout, or say that if they are able to negotiate something, that it is more than they are worth. If they are able to get that deal, does that not mean they are worth that much?
  - JPKab 9y ago
    I always want to give people opportunity to earn a living wage. The best way to earn a living wage is to learn a skill that has a market value at or above the living wage. Collective bargaining has a "tragedy of the commons" problem: Each worker's wage is negotiated as part of a bulk package, therefore the worst performers get a higher wage than they otherwise would, and the best performers get a lower wage than they otherwise would. Other side effects of collective bargaining: The union has to have tight control over new workers, otherwise their bargaining position is undermined. All new workers are required to be part of the union, who now controls hiring. In every unionized entity I've ever seen, this leads to nepotistic hiring practices. This is why NYC's fire department remained dominated by Irish Americans for decades after the demographics of NYC had completely changed. We live in an age where education has been made available enough to a large enough % of the population that the majority of the public has been able to acquire skills that allow them to earn above a living wage. The minute that % drops low enough, you will see unions getting their power back, along with a boost in public support.

matchagaucho 9y ago

"The reality is these are contractors who will get dropped as soon as it makes sense." This is exactly the kind of abuse Unions seek to end. Workers cannot simply be fired. The collective bargaining contract signed between the tech companies and Unions defines grounds for termination.

nnfy 9y ago
Why is that abusive? If you want more secure work, don't offer your services as a contractor. Are you trying to suggest that there is something inherently abusive about contracting? What if I don't want a full time gig?
- SolarNet 9y ago
  Because if you don't work for someone you die and/or live a terrible life. Without the freedom to choose work, the labor market is not a free market, and the narrative you are trying to push does not apply.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    That doesn't make non-rich people victims and rich people abusers when they choose to hire them and pay them their actual market wage. Life is hard for some people. It's not someone else's fault, and someone else shouldn't have their freedom of association and private property rights violated for it
  - nnfy 9y ago
    Two points: 1. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that employees do not have freedom to choose work; in fact, contracting by its very nature leaves individuals with more freedom to choose work elsewhere, even concurrently. 2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees. I dont understand your point.
    - 9y ago