3 ms·

Everyone has a smartphone and a dataplan now. This ruling won’t stop anyone, it will just drive them underground. Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of socia

Everyone has a smartphone and a dataplan now. This ruling won’t stop anyone, it will just drive them underground. Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking.

marcosdumay 7y ago
Great, strikes will be limited to 255 participants now.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Right. Limit the size of the breach incase any cell is comprised.
tyingq 7y ago
It's the "discoverability". You know all their work emails, so messaging all potential union members is easier. Basically, an opt-in model will have lower reach.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking That would also mean super-broad discoverability, and a likely change in employment law permitting employers to check employees' personal phones for such groups. Particularly in compliance regimes.
ggggtez 7y ago
With all the talk about tech trying to unionize, and people being fired for unionizing at Google... Why haven't we actually seen any... you know... unions? I keep seeing news about this, but I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that it's union busting behavior when I don't see any evidence of anyone actually trying to form a union in the tech world. (That said, yeah it makes sense that Google and other tech companies would want to prevent it).
- SaberTail 7y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your logic. You present as evidence that we see no unions forming. Wouldn't that equally well support the hypothesis that there is union busting behavior going on (to great success)? You are also ignoring that Google is enlisting a union-busting consulting firm[1]. This seems like furher evidence that union-busting is happening. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-consultant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    Not so. I don't present it as evidence, but I present it as a startling lack of evidence. Take the other news story in the news today, about someone at Google who made a notification about something to do with labor organizing I guess. I read the blog post and the news article, and I'm just not convinced by the union-busting argument. I keep seeing things like "X behavior is like posting a flyer on a public bulletin board". So where are the articles talking about people getting fired for actually putting up flyers on a public bulletin board? That's the thing I don't understand. There is a startling lack of unionizing going on in these supposed cases of union busting. To bring it back to this article, do I think the ruling is bad? Yeah I do. I disagree with the ruling a lot. Maybe there should be some kind of organization where workers could fight against that sort of thing... Hmmm...
- tssva 7y ago
  Supposedly being fired for unionizing. I have yet to see any case where there has been compelling evidence of such.

Everyone has a smartphone and a dataplan now. This ruling won’t stop anyone, it will just drive them underground. Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking.

marcosdumay 7y ago

Great, strikes will be limited to 255 participants now.

goatinaboat 7y ago
Right. Limit the size of the breach incase any cell is comprised.

tyingq 7y ago

It's the "discoverability". You know all their work emails, so messaging all potential union members is easier. Basically, an opt-in model will have lower reach.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> Secret WhatsApp groups are the future of social networking That would also mean super-broad discoverability, and a likely change in employment law permitting employers to check employees' personal phones for such groups. Particularly in compliance regimes.

ggggtez 7y ago

With all the talk about tech trying to unionize, and people being fired for unionizing at Google... Why haven't we actually seen any... you know... unions? I keep seeing news about this, but I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that it's union busting behavior when I don't see any evidence of anyone actually trying to form a union in the tech world. (That said, yeah it makes sense that Google and other tech companies would want to prevent it).

SaberTail 7y ago
I'm not sure I follow your logic. You present as evidence that we see no unions forming. Wouldn't that equally well support the hypothesis that there is union busting behavior going on (to great success)? You are also ignoring that Google is enlisting a union-busting consulting firm[1]. This seems like furher evidence that union-busting is happening. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-consultant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Not so. I don't present it as evidence, but I present it as a startling lack of evidence. Take the other news story in the news today, about someone at Google who made a notification about something to do with labor organizing I guess. I read the blog post and the news article, and I'm just not convinced by the union-busting argument. I keep seeing things like "X behavior is like posting a flyer on a public bulletin board". So where are the articles talking about people getting fired for actually putting up flyers on a public bulletin board? That's the thing I don't understand. There is a startling lack of unionizing going on in these supposed cases of union busting. To bring it back to this article, do I think the ruling is bad? Yeah I do. I disagree with the ruling a lot. Maybe there should be some kind of organization where workers could fight against that sort of thing... Hmmm...
tssva 7y ago
Supposedly being fired for unionizing. I have yet to see any case where there has been compelling evidence of such.