4 ms·

For a union, it's concerning when some things are more tailored to the whims, edge cases, personal niches of the most vocal, rather than shielding the common de

For a union, it's concerning when some things are more tailored to the whims, edge cases, personal niches of the most vocal, rather than shielding the common denominator of the cooperative from management's business decisions. I'd like to explain what I like, and what I'm concerned about: > Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues, Very union related, that's what unions are for. > including sexual assault and harassment, Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system. > ageism, That's vague, but there are protections against this > unequal pay, Not sure what this means, pay between workers of the same level of seniority performing the same responsibilities? Overtime? A lot of things factor into equal pay. A junior employee isn't going to make as much as a 20 year employee. > “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking), Looks right. These are covered in union contracts > poor treatment of contract workers, If they have union membership? Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is? > inadequate racial and gender diversity, What does that mean? Inadequate to whom? What makes those characteristics worthy but other characteristics not? I find it very hurtful and insensitive to people who struggle, suffer, overcome odds, from difficult upbringings, but not member of some class or facet. Why reduce the struggle, character, and worth of someone down to those things? Where does this come from? What does this say to your colleagues who don't have these traits? Do they have life easy? Have you walked a mile in their shoes? > and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Though if a larger organization wanted to allow someone to move somewhere else in the org, that seems fair

Apocryphon 7y ago
> Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system. > That's vague, but there are protections against this > Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is? Unions can be an additional safety net/layer of protection/tool against these discriminations and abuses. In a time when HR departments are often derided as existing to protect the company instead of workers, and it often takes either media exposure or self-publishing (as with Susan Fowler) for discrimination against protected classes to be acknowledged, a union could be a place for the discriminated to turn to where HR reps fail. At least then you don't have to hire your own lawyer. > unequal pay, This might be a gender gap criticism meaning unequal pay between workers with the same title but of different genders. > That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general?
- ColonelSanders 7y ago
  > Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general? Basically, no. That's what's management is for. They can become manager's if they want to impact that, though. Are they qualified to understand what they're talking about? If they have a disagreement, is there a reason why they wouldn't raise it via proper channels rather than effect other things that are vital to the organization? Are they big picture thinkers that have taken the time to digest the system, uninfluenced by social pressures? Some people don't care about their organization's goals, their coworkers, and decide to act out for their own vanity, at everyone else's expense. And that is one reason why management exists. To answer your question, while they may be wrong, there's a purpose in shielding decision making away from those who lose sight of the org's goals. The point of the union is when management makes decisions, which can be unfair and uncaring to the worker, that their rights, safety, and livelihood also are represented with fairness. The alternative I offered to you was, in an organization large enough, they could request to move to a different project.
  - fogetti 7y ago
    Saying that they can become managers is like saying they can become the president of the U.S. The point is that you cannot become a manager at all if you disagree with management in the first place (and that doesn't mean you don't have the chops). Also the number of management seats are limited. The number of union seats has no upper limit.
    - ColonelSanders 7y ago
      > Saying that they can become managers is like saying they can become the president of the U.S. I don't think that analogy is proportional, since that'd make a manager at a furniture store on par with a head of state. But I get it, there isn't unlimited management roles. Because if there were, everyone would be on their own. If you want to influence and shape business decisions - you want to be a manager. How do you become one? By showing competence as an employee and joining a lower management position. Successes are how they climb the ladder. Yes, they definitely can innovate, and they can also play it safe. People in upper management also hop between companies and have similar positions.

Apocryphon 7y ago

> Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system. > That's vague, but there are protections against this > Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is? Unions can be an additional safety net/layer of protection/tool against these discriminations and abuses. In a time when HR departments are often derided as existing to protect the company instead of workers, and it often takes either media exposure or self-publishing (as with Susan Fowler) for discrimination against protected classes to be acknowledged, a union could be a place for the discriminated to turn to where HR reps fail. At least then you don't have to hire your own lawyer. > unequal pay, This might be a gender gap criticism meaning unequal pay between workers with the same title but of different genders. > That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general?

ColonelSanders 7y ago
> Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general? Basically, no. That's what's management is for. They can become manager's if they want to impact that, though. Are they qualified to understand what they're talking about? If they have a disagreement, is there a reason why they wouldn't raise it via proper channels rather than effect other things that are vital to the organization? Are they big picture thinkers that have taken the time to digest the system, uninfluenced by social pressures? Some people don't care about their organization's goals, their coworkers, and decide to act out for their own vanity, at everyone else's expense. And that is one reason why management exists. To answer your question, while they may be wrong, there's a purpose in shielding decision making away from those who lose sight of the org's goals. The point of the union is when management makes decisions, which can be unfair and uncaring to the worker, that their rights, safety, and livelihood also are represented with fairness. The alternative I offered to you was, in an organization large enough, they could request to move to a different project.
- fogetti 7y ago
  Saying that they can become managers is like saying they can become the president of the U.S. The point is that you cannot become a manager at all if you disagree with management in the first place (and that doesn't mean you don't have the chops). Also the number of management seats are limited. The number of union seats has no upper limit.
  - ColonelSanders 7y ago
    > Saying that they can become managers is like saying they can become the president of the U.S. I don't think that analogy is proportional, since that'd make a manager at a furniture store on par with a head of state. But I get it, there isn't unlimited management roles. Because if there were, everyone would be on their own. If you want to influence and shape business decisions - you want to be a manager. How do you become one? By showing competence as an employee and joining a lower management position. Successes are how they climb the ladder. Yes, they definitely can innovate, and they can also play it safe. People in upper management also hop between companies and have similar positions.