6 ms·

That jumped out at me too. My reading was the implication that if there was a union, you would lose that. It seems like a common anti-union talking point, from

That jumped out at me too. My reading was the implication that if there was a union, you would lose that. It seems like a common anti-union talking point, from what I've seen at Walmart and Whole Foods.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago
In my experience being in a union (against my preferences) it’s not implied, but a fact. Unions have sued their own members for speaking with managers about grievances.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  My guess would be that it would be because the member is trying to cut an individual deal on a group problem. This is how the capitalist class practices divide and conquer.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    What is the "capitalist class"?
    - asark 7y ago
      > Modern capitalist societies—marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and a capitalist class which owns the means of production [....] Emphasis mine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - manigandham 7y ago
        I expected another definition in the context of that comment, but fine. According to that, it's anyone who owns the means to production, and is thus the most open class possible. Rather strange to say they're dividing and conquering when anyone can join.
        sp332 7y ago
        Anyone who owns the means but does not actually do the work of production. This is in contrast to a worker-owned structure. It leads to concentration of power, since the profit from many workers goes to one or a few owners. Each owner is more powerful than any one worker, so workers have to act collectively to have leverage.
        manigandham 7y ago
        This is a fallacy. If you're going to talk about profit then you must also consider that the risk and loss also goes to owners while workers get paid either way. This is something that should be rather simple to understand in the HN/Startup crowd. Considering that anyone can buy shares or start their own business, my point stands that this is the most non-exclusive club possible.
        jtolmar 7y ago
        The workers also shoulder the risk. If a business goes under, they lose their jobs. Ability to buy large quantities of shares is not "non-exclusive." Not everyone has money.
        manigandham 7y ago
        That's not the same risk. That's a voluntary agreement of work in exchange for cash, and either side can stop at anytime. Legal and contractual obligations like pensions and severance can also be layered on. What assets and liabilities that employee has in their personal life doesn't factor into calculation, they could be independently wealthy for all you know. Also why does it have to be "large quantities"? Buy 1 share and you're a part owner. Many large companies have stock plans. It's not rare and if you're an employee then by definition you "have money" from working.
    - lukifer 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      In my comment, I meant the people that give the orders versus the people who must accept them.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    As always I'm divided on comments like this. The first half is entirely accurate - it's trying to keep individuals from cutting their own deal and undermining the value of the collective bargaining process. I just don't know if we should start using a framework of class conflict to go along with it. I feel like the point could easily be made without mentioning the "capitalist class", which seems to weaken the argument. But I don't know if the particular word choice terminology has no value? Should a point be inflammatory for those who oppose it? For some people putting it like that, using the ideas of class conflict conflict has value, but it seems to further divide the conversation. Is it more important to tell it like you think it is, or to try and make a point that the most people will agree with? I don't know what the solution is.
    - benj111 7y ago
      If capitalist class were replaced with managerial class? Or just management? That's how I read it as I'm not sure capitalist class makes a whole lot of sense to me in the context, and I'm sure the commies used exactly the same tactics anyway.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        It's just the use of clearly something that's very meaningful to the author, but I wonder if it gets lost or just serves to exacerbate people who aren't viewing it from their same angle, causing the point to be discarded.
- btown 7y ago
  It truly depends on the context. Can this type of siloization be detrimental to quick fixes? Absolutely. But are quick one-off sweep-under-the-rug fixes the best thing for less-vocal workers if there is a likelihood that similar problems may be occurring for them? The devil is in the details, and suing a member would hopefully be a last resort in case of a member knowingly stepping on the heads of others. Now, I’m not naive enough to think that all unions are rationally run. But having an environment that is hostile to them on principle doesn’t help.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Citation for that?!
  - projektfu 7y ago
    I also searched a little and didn’t find a story about this. Where did this occur and what union?
- ken 7y ago
  I work under a union (though I'm not a member yet). Obviously every union is different, and every contract is different, but this sounds completely insane to me. My first point of contact is always my team lead. If they ask me to do something unsafe, for example, I just say so. If it's not resolved there, I'd go to my job steward. The job steward exists to be the on-site worker advocate. I've spoken to my job steward about an issue maybe once ever. I can't imagine how not having an advocate would ever be beneficial for me. It's simply an alternate path of escalation for issues which doesn't end at management saying "shut up and do the job". The simple answer to not wanting to get sued for speaking with your manager is to have your union not write a #@&!*ing contract that allows workers to get sued for speaking with their managers. (Duh?) I'm sure that clause has existed somewhere, and I'm sure they had a reason for it, but my experience is that 99.99% of the time it's just like any other job, but with better pay and working conditions. If your manager is reasonable and listens to your grievances, then the day-to-day is literally no different than non-represented work. Sounds like pure FUD to me.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  What sort of grievance here I would normally expect a worker to first use the standard grievance procedure (in most cases) before coming to me. Or is it "Hi Boss we come from the same village / clan /race how about you put me on that sweet work detail/shift". I have (in the UK) personally overheard a guy working at a well known company say this - Also Fords at Dagenham had a scandal where white workers monopolised the better jobs.
- mikestew 7y ago
  Unions have sued their own members for speaking with managers about grievances. When someone did an end-run around the agreed-upon way of handling conflict, and thought they'd go leverage their personal friendship with the manager to get what they want? Yeah, I could how that might happen, that's one of things unions often try to prevent.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

In my experience being in a union (against my preferences) it’s not implied, but a fact. Unions have sued their own members for speaking with managers about grievances.

tehjoker 7y ago
My guess would be that it would be because the member is trying to cut an individual deal on a group problem. This is how the capitalist class practices divide and conquer.
- manigandham 7y ago
  What is the "capitalist class"?
  - asark 7y ago
    > Modern capitalist societies—marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and a capitalist class which owns the means of production [....] Emphasis mine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - manigandham 7y ago
      I expected another definition in the context of that comment, but fine. According to that, it's anyone who owns the means to production, and is thus the most open class possible. Rather strange to say they're dividing and conquering when anyone can join.
      - sp332 7y ago
        Anyone who owns the means but does not actually do the work of production. This is in contrast to a worker-owned structure. It leads to concentration of power, since the profit from many workers goes to one or a few owners. Each owner is more powerful than any one worker, so workers have to act collectively to have leverage.
        manigandham 7y ago
        This is a fallacy. If you're going to talk about profit then you must also consider that the risk and loss also goes to owners while workers get paid either way. This is something that should be rather simple to understand in the HN/Startup crowd. Considering that anyone can buy shares or start their own business, my point stands that this is the most non-exclusive club possible.
        jtolmar 7y ago
        The workers also shoulder the risk. If a business goes under, they lose their jobs. Ability to buy large quantities of shares is not "non-exclusive." Not everyone has money.
        manigandham 7y ago
        That's not the same risk. That's a voluntary agreement of work in exchange for cash, and either side can stop at anytime. Legal and contractual obligations like pensions and severance can also be layered on. What assets and liabilities that employee has in their personal life doesn't factor into calculation, they could be independently wealthy for all you know. Also why does it have to be "large quantities"? Buy 1 share and you're a part owner. Many large companies have stock plans. It's not rare and if you're an employee then by definition you "have money" from working.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    In my comment, I meant the people that give the orders versus the people who must accept them.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  As always I'm divided on comments like this. The first half is entirely accurate - it's trying to keep individuals from cutting their own deal and undermining the value of the collective bargaining process. I just don't know if we should start using a framework of class conflict to go along with it. I feel like the point could easily be made without mentioning the "capitalist class", which seems to weaken the argument. But I don't know if the particular word choice terminology has no value? Should a point be inflammatory for those who oppose it? For some people putting it like that, using the ideas of class conflict conflict has value, but it seems to further divide the conversation. Is it more important to tell it like you think it is, or to try and make a point that the most people will agree with? I don't know what the solution is.
  - benj111 7y ago
    If capitalist class were replaced with managerial class? Or just management? That's how I read it as I'm not sure capitalist class makes a whole lot of sense to me in the context, and I'm sure the commies used exactly the same tactics anyway.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      It's just the use of clearly something that's very meaningful to the author, but I wonder if it gets lost or just serves to exacerbate people who aren't viewing it from their same angle, causing the point to be discarded.
btown 7y ago
It truly depends on the context. Can this type of siloization be detrimental to quick fixes? Absolutely. But are quick one-off sweep-under-the-rug fixes the best thing for less-vocal workers if there is a likelihood that similar problems may be occurring for them? The devil is in the details, and suing a member would hopefully be a last resort in case of a member knowingly stepping on the heads of others. Now, I’m not naive enough to think that all unions are rationally run. But having an environment that is hostile to them on principle doesn’t help.
pjc50 7y ago
Citation for that?!
- projektfu 7y ago
  I also searched a little and didn’t find a story about this. Where did this occur and what union?
ken 7y ago
I work under a union (though I'm not a member yet). Obviously every union is different, and every contract is different, but this sounds completely insane to me. My first point of contact is always my team lead. If they ask me to do something unsafe, for example, I just say so. If it's not resolved there, I'd go to my job steward. The job steward exists to be the on-site worker advocate. I've spoken to my job steward about an issue maybe once ever. I can't imagine how not having an advocate would ever be beneficial for me. It's simply an alternate path of escalation for issues which doesn't end at management saying "shut up and do the job". The simple answer to not wanting to get sued for speaking with your manager is to have your union not write a #@&!*ing contract that allows workers to get sued for speaking with their managers. (Duh?) I'm sure that clause has existed somewhere, and I'm sure they had a reason for it, but my experience is that 99.99% of the time it's just like any other job, but with better pay and working conditions. If your manager is reasonable and listens to your grievances, then the day-to-day is literally no different than non-represented work. Sounds like pure FUD to me.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
What sort of grievance here I would normally expect a worker to first use the standard grievance procedure (in most cases) before coming to me. Or is it "Hi Boss we come from the same village / clan /race how about you put me on that sweet work detail/shift". I have (in the UK) personally overheard a guy working at a well known company say this - Also Fords at Dagenham had a scandal where white workers monopolised the better jobs.
mikestew 7y ago
Unions have sued their own members for speaking with managers about grievances. When someone did an end-run around the agreed-upon way of handling conflict, and thought they'd go leverage their personal friendship with the manager to get what they want? Yeah, I could how that might happen, that's one of things unions often try to prevent.