16 ms·

> 1. Why do tech workers need a union? I don't know if a union is the answer, but tech workers aren't immune to management hi-jinks: "Apple and Google's wage-

> 1. Why do tech workers need a union? I don't know if a union is the answer, but tech workers aren't immune to management hi-jinks: "Apple and Google's wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees" https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage...

save_ferris 7y ago
It’s not just wage-fixing, tech companies wield an absurd amount of power in other aspects of people’s lives. I was once let go due for “performance” reasons that involved major company politics behind the scenes. I’d just gotten my annual review from my boss emailed to my work email about a week before my termination, which showed stellar performance across the board. When I looked into filing for unemployment, I discovered that I needed to dispute the reason for my dismissal since I was let go for cause, which required me to submit evidence. Who doesn’t have access to work emails? Fired people don’t. My employment agreement stipulated that the employer maintained all rights to my emails, so I was completely SOL.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Leave money negotiations off the table, and you could have a union establish a single consistent process for firing practices that'd protect someone like James Damore from being arbitrarily fired. I don't agree with what Damore had to say, but that shouldn't matter! I would absolutely support a union-backed fair process for evaluating his or anyone's continued employment, whatever controversial things they write about. "Union stops arbitrary firing of controversial high-performer Damore" would bring a tear to my eye, no matter who it is.
  - throwGuardian 7y ago
    The most likely outcome is the election of a far-left socialist/communist to the helm, because everyone else will be bullied out of power with accusations of "racism". Once the unions become this way, do you really believe the communist-far-left types care for freedom of speech of an employee whose views they disagree with? Part of me is extremely happy with this trend, because silicon valley tech types tend to shill for extreme socialist political positions that are in stark contrast with their status quo(these people take home $500K, live in multi-million dollar homes, work for offshore-tax dodging capitalist giants like Google, Appl, etc. but somehow their politics is socialist.)
    - Osiris 7y ago
      This kind of comment is unproductive here. There are no communists running for president. You're exaggerating for dramatic effect. Please review the HN guidelines.
      - throwGuardian 7y ago
        Ironic. The comment is a case of a union supporter calling for tone policing of a critic, almost proving the supposition of the parent comment.
        dang 7y ago
        Please don't use HN for political or ideological warfare. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - coredog64 7y ago
      AIUI, failing to represent a union member would be a short, fast path to getting a union decertified. This is one of the major differences between the US and say Germany. There, the union can decide someone is a butthead and decline to help. US unions have no such flexibility. This is down to shenanigans in the 50s involving racial discrimination.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    James Damore was fired for perpetuating gender stereotypes, which he agreed he wouldn't do in the Google code of conduct. Even Damore confirmed this with the press. How would being unionized change that?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- djsumdog 7y ago
  You should be able to subpoena those e-mails and other documents. Depending on your municipality, there is usually a court/tribunal process just for unemployment claims, or you could get an employment lawyer. It is going to eat up some of that unemployment, but it's worth it to not let a company get away with that kind of shit.
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    > but it’s worth it Is it, though? I chose to focus on finding the next gig and luckily got one in a couple weeks. The emotional toll of subjecting yourself to the legal system against an entity with a team of lawyers sounds absolutely horrible.
    - learc83 7y ago
      In most states unemployment hearings are heavily biased towards the employee, and many times they are just phone conferences. It's very easy to fight.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      It's worth it. If there is an actual violation, the company didn't just steal money from you. They defrauded the state labor board and the taxpayers of the state. And that's the sort of thing that government lawyers are very interested pursuing.
    - mst 7y ago
      It probably isn't worth it. But it might be satisfying enough for you to decide to do it anyway.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  For future reference, being fired because of performance or incompetency is unlikely to be a valid "for cause" firing that disqualifies one from unemployment benefits. If a person is fired because the employer claims they suck at the job (whether its true or not), they still get unemployment. Your mileage may vary depending on local laws or recent changes to employment law.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Yeah, I was going to say. "For cause" is usually things like theft or not showing up for work. Failing to perform to a certain standard might be applicable if you just started, but if you've been there for years, it becomes a bit more shaky.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Being let go for "performance" reasons is not "for cause" in CA. For cause means something serious that violates the employment agreement, like criminal behavior or sexual harassment. Companies generally don't fire people "for cause" absent cause because that's the best way to guarantee a lawsuit (because as you've pointed out, it has financial repercussions like cutting off the availability of unemployment, and reputational damage to the former employee).
- yellowapple 7y ago
  If this was in California, you absolutely could have filed for unemployment, even if you were unemployed for performance reasons. Worst that could've happened is that the unemployment office could've rejected the application. In this case, they likely would've called to interview you and get a statement on why you were terminated, in which case a verbal description would do the trick (mentioning that you had received an excellent performance review just the week before would've been enough for the interviewer). Source: I've been fired (for "performance") once and laid off twice, for all of which I've applied for unemployment benefits (approved the first two times; rejected the third because I was a contractor and not eligible to be treated as employee-equivalent). I didn't have any written evidence for the "performance" one; I just told the interviewer that after I was terminated my former supervisor had to hire multiple people in my place (which was true). Long story short: always file for unemployment, even if the chances of approval are slim. The worst they can do is say no.
shadowgovt 7y ago
This is an excellent example, because the key thing is: the companies involved weren't even thinking of it as wage-fixing. They were thinking of it as avoiding disruption to launch schedules by not churning people with low bus-factor. Employees and management have different perspectives on the work agreement and management's is over-represented because they set most of the company policy. An amplified employee voice can lead to better workplace design in general.
- Frondo 7y ago
  The companies can call it whatever they want, but it reflects the power imbalance between worker and employer that unions exist solely to re-balance. Some managers in a board room somewhere made a decision that depressed the wages for how many thousands of workers, and what can those workers do about it? Jump ship to...the other companies that colluded to depress their wages? This whole "you're paid enough so don't unionize" thing is so weak, when obviously people could be paid a lot more, but aren't, because, surprise, the companies still hold all the cards.
  - daemin 7y ago
    > This whole "you're paid enough so don't unionize" thing is so weak Exactly, even Hollywood actors have a union! Although I would wager most of them aren't the high paying variety.
bearmcbearsly 7y ago
I dunno... I was a victim of this wage-fixing scheme, as were all of my coworkers at the time. And I don't know of a single one who would have preferred to have a union collectively negotiating wages. The whole scheme was that the companies stopped their recruiters from cold-calling each others' employees. That kept wages down by reducing the opportunities for people to get a better salary by moving between companies (or threatening to). If wages were collectively negotiated, those opportunities would not exist in the first place.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Collective bargaining does not necessarily include collective negotiation of wages.
  - djrogers 7y ago
    Can you point to an example of a large US union that doesn't collectively bargain wage scales?
    - Herrin 7y ago
      The Screen Actors Guild, and the players unions for most professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc). They recognize that their members have different levels of talent, and allow the stars to make more, while still ensuring basic rights for every member.
      - bearmcbearsly 7y ago
        And how's that working out for them? The median SAG/AFTRA member makes less than $1,000 per year from acting. And the pro sports players associations are tiny -- they exclude the much larger group of athletes who try to make a living playing sports but don't make the big leagues.
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        Lesser leagues also have unions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 And those that don't, want them: https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-minor-league-baseball-union-phpa https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-min... https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionization-efforts-project-spearhead-leslie-smith https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionizatio...
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
That’s already illegal and was punished accordingly, so no need for a union. Labor laws are a better tool.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  This is a pretty specious argument. Murder is illegal and punished severely, yet we still try and avoid getting killed. I would posit that it is the same here; wage fixing is bad and punished, but wouldn't it be better if we had a faster mechanism for guaranteeing equity in treatment by corporations?
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    No. That’s more like saying we should join a union so we can put rules in place that say employers aren’t allowed to murder us. It’s already illegal, and people who don’t care about the law won’t care about a union agreement either. The same court battle and settlement process would result. Or worse, everyone would be forced to strike, and all employees are legally barred from working.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      > No. That’s more like saying we should join a union so we can put rules in place that say employers aren’t allowed to murder us. I love that people are so ignorant of the history of labor struggle in the US that they don’t know that people actually did form unions to prevent their employers from murdering them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_...
      - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
        Before you call anybody ignorant, maybe stop and think about the last time a tech employer murdered people. That historical factoid is completely irrelevant when discussing solutions for today. Guess what, we don’t need to wear chain mail while riding a horse to work anymore either. Progress!

save_ferris 7y ago

It’s not just wage-fixing, tech companies wield an absurd amount of power in other aspects of people’s lives. I was once let go due for “performance” reasons that involved major company politics behind the scenes. I’d just gotten my annual review from my boss emailed to my work email about a week before my termination, which showed stellar performance across the board. When I looked into filing for unemployment, I discovered that I needed to dispute the reason for my dismissal since I was let go for cause, which required me to submit evidence. Who doesn’t have access to work emails? Fired people don’t. My employment agreement stipulated that the employer maintained all rights to my emails, so I was completely SOL.

Frondo 7y ago
Leave money negotiations off the table, and you could have a union establish a single consistent process for firing practices that'd protect someone like James Damore from being arbitrarily fired. I don't agree with what Damore had to say, but that shouldn't matter! I would absolutely support a union-backed fair process for evaluating his or anyone's continued employment, whatever controversial things they write about. "Union stops arbitrary firing of controversial high-performer Damore" would bring a tear to my eye, no matter who it is.
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  The most likely outcome is the election of a far-left socialist/communist to the helm, because everyone else will be bullied out of power with accusations of "racism". Once the unions become this way, do you really believe the communist-far-left types care for freedom of speech of an employee whose views they disagree with? Part of me is extremely happy with this trend, because silicon valley tech types tend to shill for extreme socialist political positions that are in stark contrast with their status quo(these people take home $500K, live in multi-million dollar homes, work for offshore-tax dodging capitalist giants like Google, Appl, etc. but somehow their politics is socialist.)
  - Osiris 7y ago
    This kind of comment is unproductive here. There are no communists running for president. You're exaggerating for dramatic effect. Please review the HN guidelines.
    - throwGuardian 7y ago
      Ironic. The comment is a case of a union supporter calling for tone policing of a critic, almost proving the supposition of the parent comment.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't use HN for political or ideological warfare. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - coredog64 7y ago
    AIUI, failing to represent a union member would be a short, fast path to getting a union decertified. This is one of the major differences between the US and say Germany. There, the union can decide someone is a butthead and decline to help. US unions have no such flexibility. This is down to shenanigans in the 50s involving racial discrimination.
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  James Damore was fired for perpetuating gender stereotypes, which he agreed he wouldn't do in the Google code of conduct. Even Damore confirmed this with the press. How would being unionized change that?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
djsumdog 7y ago
You should be able to subpoena those e-mails and other documents. Depending on your municipality, there is usually a court/tribunal process just for unemployment claims, or you could get an employment lawyer. It is going to eat up some of that unemployment, but it's worth it to not let a company get away with that kind of shit.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > but it’s worth it Is it, though? I chose to focus on finding the next gig and luckily got one in a couple weeks. The emotional toll of subjecting yourself to the legal system against an entity with a team of lawyers sounds absolutely horrible.
  - learc83 7y ago
    In most states unemployment hearings are heavily biased towards the employee, and many times they are just phone conferences. It's very easy to fight.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    It's worth it. If there is an actual violation, the company didn't just steal money from you. They defrauded the state labor board and the taxpayers of the state. And that's the sort of thing that government lawyers are very interested pursuing.
  - mst 7y ago
    It probably isn't worth it. But it might be satisfying enough for you to decide to do it anyway.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
For future reference, being fired because of performance or incompetency is unlikely to be a valid "for cause" firing that disqualifies one from unemployment benefits. If a person is fired because the employer claims they suck at the job (whether its true or not), they still get unemployment. Your mileage may vary depending on local laws or recent changes to employment law.
- refurb 7y ago
  Yeah, I was going to say. "For cause" is usually things like theft or not showing up for work. Failing to perform to a certain standard might be applicable if you just started, but if you've been there for years, it becomes a bit more shaky.
gamblor956 7y ago
Being let go for "performance" reasons is not "for cause" in CA. For cause means something serious that violates the employment agreement, like criminal behavior or sexual harassment. Companies generally don't fire people "for cause" absent cause because that's the best way to guarantee a lawsuit (because as you've pointed out, it has financial repercussions like cutting off the availability of unemployment, and reputational damage to the former employee).
yellowapple 7y ago
If this was in California, you absolutely could have filed for unemployment, even if you were unemployed for performance reasons. Worst that could've happened is that the unemployment office could've rejected the application. In this case, they likely would've called to interview you and get a statement on why you were terminated, in which case a verbal description would do the trick (mentioning that you had received an excellent performance review just the week before would've been enough for the interviewer). Source: I've been fired (for "performance") once and laid off twice, for all of which I've applied for unemployment benefits (approved the first two times; rejected the third because I was a contractor and not eligible to be treated as employee-equivalent). I didn't have any written evidence for the "performance" one; I just told the interviewer that after I was terminated my former supervisor had to hire multiple people in my place (which was true). Long story short: always file for unemployment, even if the chances of approval are slim. The worst they can do is say no.

shadowgovt 7y ago

This is an excellent example, because the key thing is: the companies involved weren't even thinking of it as wage-fixing. They were thinking of it as avoiding disruption to launch schedules by not churning people with low bus-factor. Employees and management have different perspectives on the work agreement and management's is over-represented because they set most of the company policy. An amplified employee voice can lead to better workplace design in general.

Frondo 7y ago
The companies can call it whatever they want, but it reflects the power imbalance between worker and employer that unions exist solely to re-balance. Some managers in a board room somewhere made a decision that depressed the wages for how many thousands of workers, and what can those workers do about it? Jump ship to...the other companies that colluded to depress their wages? This whole "you're paid enough so don't unionize" thing is so weak, when obviously people could be paid a lot more, but aren't, because, surprise, the companies still hold all the cards.
- daemin 7y ago
  > This whole "you're paid enough so don't unionize" thing is so weak Exactly, even Hollywood actors have a union! Although I would wager most of them aren't the high paying variety.

bearmcbearsly 7y ago

I dunno... I was a victim of this wage-fixing scheme, as were all of my coworkers at the time. And I don't know of a single one who would have preferred to have a union collectively negotiating wages. The whole scheme was that the companies stopped their recruiters from cold-calling each others' employees. That kept wages down by reducing the opportunities for people to get a better salary by moving between companies (or threatening to). If wages were collectively negotiated, those opportunities would not exist in the first place.

freeone3000 7y ago
Collective bargaining does not necessarily include collective negotiation of wages.
- djrogers 7y ago
  Can you point to an example of a large US union that doesn't collectively bargain wage scales?
  - Herrin 7y ago
    The Screen Actors Guild, and the players unions for most professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc). They recognize that their members have different levels of talent, and allow the stars to make more, while still ensuring basic rights for every member.
    - bearmcbearsly 7y ago
      And how's that working out for them? The median SAG/AFTRA member makes less than $1,000 per year from acting. And the pro sports players associations are tiny -- they exclude the much larger group of athletes who try to make a living playing sports but don't make the big leagues.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        Lesser leagues also have unions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359888 And those that don't, want them: https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-minor-league-baseball-union-phpa https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/6/5/17251534/mlb-draft-min... https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionization-efforts-project-spearhead-leslie-smith https://www.theringer.com/2019/1/23/18193121/ufc-unionizatio...

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

That’s already illegal and was punished accordingly, so no need for a union. Labor laws are a better tool.

wbronitsky 7y ago
This is a pretty specious argument. Murder is illegal and punished severely, yet we still try and avoid getting killed. I would posit that it is the same here; wage fixing is bad and punished, but wouldn't it be better if we had a faster mechanism for guaranteeing equity in treatment by corporations?
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  No. That’s more like saying we should join a union so we can put rules in place that say employers aren’t allowed to murder us. It’s already illegal, and people who don’t care about the law won’t care about a union agreement either. The same court battle and settlement process would result. Or worse, everyone would be forced to strike, and all employees are legally barred from working.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    > No. That’s more like saying we should join a union so we can put rules in place that say employers aren’t allowed to murder us. I love that people are so ignorant of the history of labor struggle in the US that they don’t know that people actually did form unions to prevent their employers from murdering them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_...
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      Before you call anybody ignorant, maybe stop and think about the last time a tech employer murdered people. That historical factoid is completely irrelevant when discussing solutions for today. Guess what, we don’t need to wear chain mail while riding a horse to work anymore either. Progress!