5 ms·

> but it also requires to schedule pretty much any interaction. This is another positive. > So any gossip or informal catch up, or sharing real “corporate inc

> but it also requires to schedule pretty much any interaction. This is another positive. > So any gossip or informal catch up, or sharing real “corporate incorrect” opinion is out of the door (if you work for any large organisation). I'm not sure what "corporate incorrect" means here, but gossip is generally a net negative in the workplace that tends to build cliques and factions that often manifest in a bigger problem. Assuredly there are other non-company channels to do those things, but the question is ... why?

wizzwizz4 5y ago
A problem for whom? Unionisation is a net positive for everyone not interested in profit; a good union ensures good working environments which improve efficiency (amount achieved per time spent), and it reduces worker exploitation (e.g. fairer compensation for labour). How do you arrange something like that behind your boss's back if you can only communicate with your colleagues via corporate-approved communication channels?
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  I use my personal communnications devices to communicate with colleagues when communicating in a personal context. I use my work communications devices to communicate with colleagues when communicating in a work context. I suppose some people may have employers that prohibit them from having personal communication devices in their place of residence, but that's going to be a very different high-security type environment anyway. I don't have a problem with asking a colleague to give me their personal cell number on a work communications channel. I don't think I'd want to work in a place where doing so was prohibited.
- gbear605 5y ago
  Technically planning unionizing inside of the workspace has always been legally dangerous - the correct way to do it is to meet outside of work, at say a cookout or over drinks. Those methods can work too, although being remote can make them impossible. Unfortunately a fully remote company is much more union-proof, and that’s a very sad tradeoff.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    It's not legally dangerous. Legally, you have the right to discuss unionization with your co-workers and your employer is legally forbidden from preventing it or retaliating. It's dangerous for practical purposes, because that law is not well enforced.
- golergka 5y ago
  Unionization is not net positive for everyone. Why are you looking at "good union" examples instead of much more realistic "bad" ones?
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Because I'm not an American business owner, nor cheering for one.
    - golergka 5y ago
      Why does it cause you to pick the evidence that confirms what you already believe in? Do you think that being blind to reality is good for your "team"?
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        I'm not being blind to reality. The only unions I have ever interacted with have been good ones. I've only ever heard about bad unions on Hacker News; even police unions are good at being unions (though when you're unionising against the people, that's an inversion of the power dynamics a union is meant to promote, so I still don't like police unions). Believing second-hand rumours on the internet would be less intellectually honest than believing my anecdotal evidence.
        triceratops 5y ago
        > even police unions are good at being unions Right?! They suck for everyone else, but as far as looking out for their members' interests, they're pretty much the gold standard.
        jholman 5y ago
        > The only unions I have ever interacted with have been good ones. Wild. As a non-American non-employer, my current job is unionized, and I believe that union to be a major factor in the rampant dysfunction, though probably not the driving factor. I think that every time I've had a friend or family member working in a union environment that wasn't more-or-less minimum wage (e.g. unionized Starbucks workers are a counter-example to the pattern I'm describing) they've had similar observations. I'm still very hesitant to attack unions in general, because as a student of history it's pretty clear that the situation we have now is better than the situation without unions. So I'd rather live in a unionized society than a non-unionized society, but I'd rather work for a non-unionized employer than a unionized employer.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > How do you arrange something like that behind your boss's back if you can only communicate with your colleagues via corporate-approved communication channels? I'm a Betriebsrat, a Germany-specific "workers council", member at my employer. By law, the company is mandated to provide us with the resources we need (e.g. access to company wide email distribution lists, a private MS Teams channel, private folders on the file servers, a locked office for personal meetings of the council and with staff members) and is prohibited from interfering with all our duties. Any form of censorship or surveillance would be a big no-no which could even land our execs behind bars.
  - htrp 5y ago
    workers councils are a great thing.... too bad they're only in Europe
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> gossip is generally a net negative in the workplace that tends to build cliques and factions that often manifest in a bigger problem It isn’t useful at lower levels. It’s pretty much the definition of senior management. I wouldn’t have wanted to discuss replacing a senior person, whom I found to be ineffective, on corporate Zoom, for example. That said, temporary hierarchical rigidity and some people explicitly opting out of the promotion race isn’t a bad thing.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

A problem for whom? Unionisation is a net positive for everyone not interested in profit; a good union ensures good working environments which improve efficiency (amount achieved per time spent), and it reduces worker exploitation (e.g. fairer compensation for labour). How do you arrange something like that behind your boss's back if you can only communicate with your colleagues via corporate-approved communication channels?

oarsinsync 5y ago
I use my personal communnications devices to communicate with colleagues when communicating in a personal context. I use my work communications devices to communicate with colleagues when communicating in a work context. I suppose some people may have employers that prohibit them from having personal communication devices in their place of residence, but that's going to be a very different high-security type environment anyway. I don't have a problem with asking a colleague to give me their personal cell number on a work communications channel. I don't think I'd want to work in a place where doing so was prohibited.
gbear605 5y ago
Technically planning unionizing inside of the workspace has always been legally dangerous - the correct way to do it is to meet outside of work, at say a cookout or over drinks. Those methods can work too, although being remote can make them impossible. Unfortunately a fully remote company is much more union-proof, and that’s a very sad tradeoff.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  It's not legally dangerous. Legally, you have the right to discuss unionization with your co-workers and your employer is legally forbidden from preventing it or retaliating. It's dangerous for practical purposes, because that law is not well enforced.
golergka 5y ago
Unionization is not net positive for everyone. Why are you looking at "good union" examples instead of much more realistic "bad" ones?
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Because I'm not an American business owner, nor cheering for one.
  - golergka 5y ago
    Why does it cause you to pick the evidence that confirms what you already believe in? Do you think that being blind to reality is good for your "team"?
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I'm not being blind to reality. The only unions I have ever interacted with have been good ones. I've only ever heard about bad unions on Hacker News; even police unions are good at being unions (though when you're unionising against the people, that's an inversion of the power dynamics a union is meant to promote, so I still don't like police unions). Believing second-hand rumours on the internet would be less intellectually honest than believing my anecdotal evidence.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        > even police unions are good at being unions Right?! They suck for everyone else, but as far as looking out for their members' interests, they're pretty much the gold standard.
      - jholman 5y ago
        > The only unions I have ever interacted with have been good ones. Wild. As a non-American non-employer, my current job is unionized, and I believe that union to be a major factor in the rampant dysfunction, though probably not the driving factor. I think that every time I've had a friend or family member working in a union environment that wasn't more-or-less minimum wage (e.g. unionized Starbucks workers are a counter-example to the pattern I'm describing) they've had similar observations. I'm still very hesitant to attack unions in general, because as a student of history it's pretty clear that the situation we have now is better than the situation without unions. So I'd rather live in a unionized society than a non-unionized society, but I'd rather work for a non-unionized employer than a unionized employer.
mschuster91 5y ago
> How do you arrange something like that behind your boss's back if you can only communicate with your colleagues via corporate-approved communication channels? I'm a Betriebsrat, a Germany-specific "workers council", member at my employer. By law, the company is mandated to provide us with the resources we need (e.g. access to company wide email distribution lists, a private MS Teams channel, private folders on the file servers, a locked office for personal meetings of the council and with staff members) and is prohibited from interfering with all our duties. Any form of censorship or surveillance would be a big no-no which could even land our execs behind bars.
- htrp 5y ago
  workers councils are a great thing.... too bad they're only in Europe

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> gossip is generally a net negative in the workplace that tends to build cliques and factions that often manifest in a bigger problem It isn’t useful at lower levels. It’s pretty much the definition of senior management. I wouldn’t have wanted to discuss replacing a senior person, whom I found to be ineffective, on corporate Zoom, for example. That said, temporary hierarchical rigidity and some people explicitly opting out of the promotion race isn’t a bad thing.