7 ms·

I full on support their goal to clean up their yard before moving somewhere else. Employees are stakeholders and can use their leverage as they please. You some

I full on support their goal to clean up their yard before moving somewhere else. Employees are stakeholders and can use their leverage as they please. You somehow cast a negative moral light on workers for using this leverage when every other stakeholder, managment, stockholders, board members, government agencies, voters all use their leverage to change the ecosystem. Entitlement? You are entitled to what you can get the world to render for you. Not asking is allowing others to over entitle and enritch themselves at your loss.

panarky 6y ago
This shows how deeply ingrained right-wing ideology has become in America. Outside America it is obvious that billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs wield power in their own self-interest, and that workers benefit from collective action in their own self-interest. But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them. No compensation is too high for billionaires, but if some workers make a good salary, that's seen as extravagant, and the workers should be extra grateful and stop asking for better working conditions, too. It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.
- scsilver 6y ago
  Hey thats protestantism for you...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- spicybright 6y ago
  Don't know why this is down voted, because it's spot on. It's what gives us advantages in areas like medical/technical research, powerful mega corporations that can effect global markets, and schooling. All at the cost of the lives of people that crank the cogs forward to maintain it all.
  - prox 6y ago
    Edit : See comment below
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      Seriously?[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-cr...
      - prox 6y ago
        I was actually agreeing with that comment, but I can see how it got misconstrued. There really aren’t any good arguments against a union, if done (regulated) well.
- briandear 6y ago
  “Workers” aren’t some monolithic group. Individuals can certainly optimize for their own best interests. We don’t see ourselves as victims in a collective but individuals all pursuing our own goals. My goals aren’t necessarily the same as the person sitting next to me. Why should that guy have a voice in my compensation?
  - minimuffins 6y ago
    > “Workers” aren’t some monolithic group Yes they are. We're all individuals and have different goals, wear different clothes, read different books, code in different editors, whatever, but objectively we all have something in common by way of being workers in the first place: we rely on wage labor to live. And crucially: we don't own the means of production (or we'd be owners and not workers). Why should "that guy" have a voice? Because our fortunes rise and fall together. Frankly it boggles my mind to no end that tech workers, just because they're contingently pretty comfortable while riding the wave of an advantageous labor market that gives them a lot of (contingent) leverage at the moment, don't understand that they (as single, individual people !) aren't standing as equals against like Alphabet, Inc. an institution that brings in double digit billions per year, increasingly has its hands on levers of policy and culture around the world, etc.
    - brippalcharrid 6y ago
      > We don't own the means of production You're going to have to break that down for a 21st century software developer on a SV messageboard. Aren't the means of production increasingly our own brains? Can't computing resources be rented cheaply enough for the average person to bootstrap their own business ideas if they're worth pursuing? I'm puzzled to see stuff like this in the present day, I thought it had been discredited within Marx's own lifetime.
      - minimuffins 6y ago
        I wish there was a term for "means of production" that was clearer or more succinct but I don't know one. The term is sometimes a discourse killer because it triggers a kind of (understandable) reflexive distaste for extremism and a certain kind of annoying radical personality or whatever. But whatever synonym we use for it, MoP is a concept that you can't really dispense with if you want to talk about this stuff productively. You don't have to buy into a Marxist worldview to use it. I'll take a crack at a definition: The means of production is the conditions required for making the things that the economy makes, whatever that is. For oil production, it's land and mineral rights in oil rich areas, oil derricks, trucks, private roads, refineries, all the plant equipment to make a refinery work, tools, maintenance equipment, barrels..., I'm sure there's 65,000 more things...whatever happens to be required to convert dead dinosaurs into 10W30. It sounds Marx-y, but it's a simple, straightforward idea. In tech, MoP is things like intellectual property, data centers, etc. The lines are blurred a bit because when work takes place inside a worker's brain instead of in a mine or on a factory floor where workers push things around with brute physical force, it's not exactly clear who owns what. In my view that ambiguity is something employers have used to mystify the relationship between employer and worker. They try to convince us that we are all just working together to make the world better, and anyway, we're paid well enough so why complain and rock the boat? But in the end the rules are the same. You can't make it in this system unless you own some means of production (or get access to them by starting a company of your own and becoming a capitalist yourself--which is fine, but by definition not everyone can do it), or you work for someone who has them. A related point is tech production is not actually as ethereal and abstract as it sounds. Yes, code is just a bunch of immaterial mental abstractions, in some sense, but it's useless without a shockingly large array of computers, buildings, massive data centers which are expensive, difficult and labor intensive to secure and maintain. They suck up a ton of electricity and water and require armed guards, etc. There's a huge amount of hidden physical infrastructure and somebody is going to own it. Whoever does will wield a ton of power in our society, especially as we become increasingly reliant on tech in our everyday lives.
- sidlls 6y ago
  This comment does not deserve these downvotes. Not only is it not aggressively, negatively contentious or malicious, but it’s a thoughtful commentary on the state of worker/owner relations that has direct and specific relevance to tech work in general.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > negatively contentious ...did you miss the first sentence?
    - sidlls 6y ago
      There's nothing negatively contentious in that sentence. It may be debatable.
      - Izkata 6y ago
        The line has a built-in assumption that "the right" is bad, without realizing that half the country is (and had pretty much always been) on the right.
- mattmcknight 6y ago
  A union is not a competitive market force. It is a means to force an employer to use a monopoly supplier of labor. It's anti-competitive.
  - tcgv 6y ago
    This is only one side of the coin. Unions can go that way, sure, and it should be avoided through regulation. Unions are a way of balancing the power equation between companies and workers. Neither side should be in disadvantage.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      Why should the buyers of labor be forced to compete amongst each other but not the sellers of labor? In order to truly even the playing field, Facebook, google, apple, and the rest should unionize together to effectively negotiate with labor.
      - tcgv 6y ago
        Good question. From my point of view it's because megacorps are already too powerful entities with whom individual workers have little leverage for negotiating or influencing business decisions in favor of improved working environment and socially responsible company conduct. If FAANGS were to unionize together the field would be even more imbalanced. For instance, Apple already makes US$ 1.9 million per employee [1] which is 19x its average worker salary [2]. Nothing wrong about that, it's a profitable company, but it doesn't strike me as if they're in a unfavorable position. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-employee-of-selected-tech-companies https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo... [2] https://www.zippia.com/apple-careers-825/salary/ https://www.zippia.com/apple-careers-825/salary/
  - fckthisguy 6y ago
    That's not always the case though. There's plenty of industries and workplaces the world over that benefit from unions whilst still maintaining the discretion to hire who they will. I've worked in a company with both union and non union staff and I believe the union benefited all of us without limiting the company in any meaningfully negative way. Contrast this with shareholders and C level execs who have immense power and often world it to the detremen of the workers. That same company was literally bought out and our office was shuttered. Unionising allowed us to collectively bargain for better severance pay and allowed us to prioritize those of us who had additional family/visa considerations.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers. Forming a union is not competitive, it’s the opposite. When you gather up all of the suppliers of something (in this case employees are supplying labor) and collectively fix a price that is exactly what anti-trust legislation is trying to prevent. It’s not a cultural taboo to be pro-union on the left because it’s not free market. It is a cultural taboo on the right precisely because they are seen as discouraging competition and rewarding tenure over competence.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I’m not sure you understand how collective bargaining works. A company enters into a contract with a union. Contracts are not anti-market. Edit: Downvotes are fine, but at least have the courtesy of adding to the discussion by explaining why the above point misses the mark
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      Unions are cartels by design , which is anti-market in and of itself. The only way unions could exist while being pro-market is if they competed with each other, which they don't. There is only one teamsters. There is only one auto workers union. There is only one longshoreman's union. Following your logic, if your ISP has a total monopoly, and you sign a contract with them, that is pro-market transaction. Of course, we both know it isn't. Contracts aren't what makes a market. Competition is. And unions have no competition with each other.
      - bumby 6y ago
        Except a company does not have to enter a contract with a union as well as the fact there are more right-to-work states than not. Extending your analogy, if there is no monopolistic suppression of competition, entering a contract with an ISP is not anti-competition. The contract is not the determining factor, the anti-competition is. Lack of competition shouldn’t be conflated with suppression of competition. Unions don’t have to compete with other unions to still have competition. They have to compete with non-union workers. There are laws prohibiting strike lines from allowing non-union workers through, for example
- LMYahooTFY 6y ago
  I disagree that this is clearly indicative of anything. >But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them. I've spent my life living in different parts of America, and this sounds very out of touch. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/02/most-americans-point-to-circumstances-not-work-ethic-as-reasons-people-are-rich-or-poor/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/02/most-america... I've come across other polling that indicates similar trends.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Reminds me of when American Airlines gave their workers a raise[1] resulting in financial analysts saying things like: > “This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again,” wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a widely circulated note. “Shareholders get leftovers.” Pretty amazing that someone could write this without a hint of irony. [1] https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-airlines-raise https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-ai...
  - ghufran_syed 6y ago
    You mean a note written to help determine the value of a stock focuses on the effect of a decision on that stock rather than something else that you (a non-shareholder possibly?) find important? Do you really find that surprising? Should be no more surprising than the idea that an internal union communication would focus more on benefits to workers instead of benefits to shareholders. Neither of the above is meant to be some kind of ethical treatise, why would we expect them to be so?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers. yep. Class consciousness exists in the US, but predominantly among billionaires and celebrities.

panarky 6y ago

This shows how deeply ingrained right-wing ideology has become in America. Outside America it is obvious that billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs wield power in their own self-interest, and that workers benefit from collective action in their own self-interest. But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them. No compensation is too high for billionaires, but if some workers make a good salary, that's seen as extravagant, and the workers should be extra grateful and stop asking for better working conditions, too. It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.

scsilver 6y ago
Hey thats protestantism for you...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spicybright 6y ago
Don't know why this is down voted, because it's spot on. It's what gives us advantages in areas like medical/technical research, powerful mega corporations that can effect global markets, and schooling. All at the cost of the lives of people that crank the cogs forward to maintain it all.
- prox 6y ago
  Edit : See comment below
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    Seriously?[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-cr...
    - prox 6y ago
      I was actually agreeing with that comment, but I can see how it got misconstrued. There really aren’t any good arguments against a union, if done (regulated) well.
briandear 6y ago
“Workers” aren’t some monolithic group. Individuals can certainly optimize for their own best interests. We don’t see ourselves as victims in a collective but individuals all pursuing our own goals. My goals aren’t necessarily the same as the person sitting next to me. Why should that guy have a voice in my compensation?
- minimuffins 6y ago
  > “Workers” aren’t some monolithic group Yes they are. We're all individuals and have different goals, wear different clothes, read different books, code in different editors, whatever, but objectively we all have something in common by way of being workers in the first place: we rely on wage labor to live. And crucially: we don't own the means of production (or we'd be owners and not workers). Why should "that guy" have a voice? Because our fortunes rise and fall together. Frankly it boggles my mind to no end that tech workers, just because they're contingently pretty comfortable while riding the wave of an advantageous labor market that gives them a lot of (contingent) leverage at the moment, don't understand that they (as single, individual people !) aren't standing as equals against like Alphabet, Inc. an institution that brings in double digit billions per year, increasingly has its hands on levers of policy and culture around the world, etc.
  - brippalcharrid 6y ago
    > We don't own the means of production You're going to have to break that down for a 21st century software developer on a SV messageboard. Aren't the means of production increasingly our own brains? Can't computing resources be rented cheaply enough for the average person to bootstrap their own business ideas if they're worth pursuing? I'm puzzled to see stuff like this in the present day, I thought it had been discredited within Marx's own lifetime.
    - minimuffins 6y ago
      I wish there was a term for "means of production" that was clearer or more succinct but I don't know one. The term is sometimes a discourse killer because it triggers a kind of (understandable) reflexive distaste for extremism and a certain kind of annoying radical personality or whatever. But whatever synonym we use for it, MoP is a concept that you can't really dispense with if you want to talk about this stuff productively. You don't have to buy into a Marxist worldview to use it. I'll take a crack at a definition: The means of production is the conditions required for making the things that the economy makes, whatever that is. For oil production, it's land and mineral rights in oil rich areas, oil derricks, trucks, private roads, refineries, all the plant equipment to make a refinery work, tools, maintenance equipment, barrels..., I'm sure there's 65,000 more things...whatever happens to be required to convert dead dinosaurs into 10W30. It sounds Marx-y, but it's a simple, straightforward idea. In tech, MoP is things like intellectual property, data centers, etc. The lines are blurred a bit because when work takes place inside a worker's brain instead of in a mine or on a factory floor where workers push things around with brute physical force, it's not exactly clear who owns what. In my view that ambiguity is something employers have used to mystify the relationship between employer and worker. They try to convince us that we are all just working together to make the world better, and anyway, we're paid well enough so why complain and rock the boat? But in the end the rules are the same. You can't make it in this system unless you own some means of production (or get access to them by starting a company of your own and becoming a capitalist yourself--which is fine, but by definition not everyone can do it), or you work for someone who has them. A related point is tech production is not actually as ethereal and abstract as it sounds. Yes, code is just a bunch of immaterial mental abstractions, in some sense, but it's useless without a shockingly large array of computers, buildings, massive data centers which are expensive, difficult and labor intensive to secure and maintain. They suck up a ton of electricity and water and require armed guards, etc. There's a huge amount of hidden physical infrastructure and somebody is going to own it. Whoever does will wield a ton of power in our society, especially as we become increasingly reliant on tech in our everyday lives.
sidlls 6y ago
This comment does not deserve these downvotes. Not only is it not aggressively, negatively contentious or malicious, but it’s a thoughtful commentary on the state of worker/owner relations that has direct and specific relevance to tech work in general.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > negatively contentious ...did you miss the first sentence?
  - sidlls 6y ago
    There's nothing negatively contentious in that sentence. It may be debatable.
    - Izkata 6y ago
      The line has a built-in assumption that "the right" is bad, without realizing that half the country is (and had pretty much always been) on the right.
mattmcknight 6y ago
A union is not a competitive market force. It is a means to force an employer to use a monopoly supplier of labor. It's anti-competitive.
- tcgv 6y ago
  This is only one side of the coin. Unions can go that way, sure, and it should be avoided through regulation. Unions are a way of balancing the power equation between companies and workers. Neither side should be in disadvantage.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Why should the buyers of labor be forced to compete amongst each other but not the sellers of labor? In order to truly even the playing field, Facebook, google, apple, and the rest should unionize together to effectively negotiate with labor.
    - tcgv 6y ago
      Good question. From my point of view it's because megacorps are already too powerful entities with whom individual workers have little leverage for negotiating or influencing business decisions in favor of improved working environment and socially responsible company conduct. If FAANGS were to unionize together the field would be even more imbalanced. For instance, Apple already makes US$ 1.9 million per employee [1] which is 19x its average worker salary [2]. Nothing wrong about that, it's a profitable company, but it doesn't strike me as if they're in a unfavorable position. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-employee-of-selected-tech-companies https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo... [2] https://www.zippia.com/apple-careers-825/salary/ https://www.zippia.com/apple-careers-825/salary/
- fckthisguy 6y ago
  That's not always the case though. There's plenty of industries and workplaces the world over that benefit from unions whilst still maintaining the discretion to hire who they will. I've worked in a company with both union and non union staff and I believe the union benefited all of us without limiting the company in any meaningfully negative way. Contrast this with shareholders and C level execs who have immense power and often world it to the detremen of the workers. That same company was literally bought out and our office was shuttered. Unionising allowed us to collectively bargain for better severance pay and allowed us to prioritize those of us who had additional family/visa considerations.
kortilla 6y ago
> But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers. Forming a union is not competitive, it’s the opposite. When you gather up all of the suppliers of something (in this case employees are supplying labor) and collectively fix a price that is exactly what anti-trust legislation is trying to prevent. It’s not a cultural taboo to be pro-union on the left because it’s not free market. It is a cultural taboo on the right precisely because they are seen as discouraging competition and rewarding tenure over competence.
- bumby 6y ago
  I’m not sure you understand how collective bargaining works. A company enters into a contract with a union. Contracts are not anti-market. Edit: Downvotes are fine, but at least have the courtesy of adding to the discussion by explaining why the above point misses the mark
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Unions are cartels by design , which is anti-market in and of itself. The only way unions could exist while being pro-market is if they competed with each other, which they don't. There is only one teamsters. There is only one auto workers union. There is only one longshoreman's union. Following your logic, if your ISP has a total monopoly, and you sign a contract with them, that is pro-market transaction. Of course, we both know it isn't. Contracts aren't what makes a market. Competition is. And unions have no competition with each other.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Except a company does not have to enter a contract with a union as well as the fact there are more right-to-work states than not. Extending your analogy, if there is no monopolistic suppression of competition, entering a contract with an ISP is not anti-competition. The contract is not the determining factor, the anti-competition is. Lack of competition shouldn’t be conflated with suppression of competition. Unions don’t have to compete with other unions to still have competition. They have to compete with non-union workers. There are laws prohibiting strike lines from allowing non-union workers through, for example
LMYahooTFY 6y ago
I disagree that this is clearly indicative of anything. >But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them. I've spent my life living in different parts of America, and this sounds very out of touch. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/02/most-americans-point-to-circumstances-not-work-ethic-as-reasons-people-are-rich-or-poor/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/02/most-america... I've come across other polling that indicates similar trends.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
AlexandrB 6y ago
Reminds me of when American Airlines gave their workers a raise[1] resulting in financial analysts saying things like: > “This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again,” wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a widely circulated note. “Shareholders get leftovers.” Pretty amazing that someone could write this without a hint of irony. [1] https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-airlines-raise https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-ai...
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  You mean a note written to help determine the value of a stock focuses on the effect of a decision on that stock rather than something else that you (a non-shareholder possibly?) find important? Do you really find that surprising? Should be no more surprising than the idea that an internal union communication would focus more on benefits to workers instead of benefits to shareholders. Neither of the above is meant to be some kind of ethical treatise, why would we expect them to be so?
Barrin92 6y ago
>It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers. yep. Class consciousness exists in the US, but predominantly among billionaires and celebrities.