23 ms·

> Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals

> Even in the "good old days", labor in the U.S. won a rather Pyrrhic victory in that organizing became shoehorned in a narrow legal framework with narrow goals. One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. The 40 hour week, overtime, workers comp, etc. Not that these haven't been substantially eroded... If they pull this off it will be remarkable. The president of the Teamsters is an accomplishment free 80 year old product of institutional nepotism that's been warming the chair for almost a quarter century. I'm not holding my breath.

6f8986c3 5y ago
You know, I'd call myself a hard-core capitalist... and I hope that the Teamsters succeed. It is my dream, my hope beyond hope, that full unionization lands at FAANG, and lands hard. Shit, I might even donate to the effort. Amazon works people to death for a pittance. Apple will fire you for being Jewish. Google fired a dude for the thinnest possible "misogyny", but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned, right along with his fat compensation package. Unions, strong ones, unions that will stop work when the coffee isn't quite good enough, unions that will prevent even the lowest performer in the company from ever being fired, are absolutely fitting punishment for the Lords of Silicon Valley.
- Sekhmet 5y ago
  > but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned I think I’ve heard different story involving Head of Diversity, nowhere close to “kill all Jews”. Do you have source on that?
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defence of myself," https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967
    - verbify 5y ago
      That's a pretty bad statement, but not close to "kill the Jews".
      - AzzieElbab 5y ago
        Start by dehumanizing, right?
        BobbyJo 5y ago
        "Start by breathing" would be just as applicable and useless. A necessary precursor to an offense is not equal to an offense.
        AzzieElbab 5y ago
        HN posters whose names start with a B should be concerned about their insatiable appetite for war and killing. Is this more useful? How about the fact that the whole thing is based on a lie to begin with?
        sfeng 5y ago
        It sounds like when someone says something bad about women you don’t care, but when they say something bad about the Jewish people you do care, and you are mad that anyone would think differently than you?
        AzzieElbab 5y ago
        I am genially confused here. What are you trying to say?
        canadianfella 5y ago
        Genially?
        5y ago
- vmception 5y ago
  I was pretty pleased that Google was able to resist Jewish collective pressure for arbitrary outcomes actually. Hope to see more of that. If you also dont like cancel culture then arbitrary cancellings wont happen. For Americans, Jewish/Israel nationalist topics have always had consequences that were incongruent with other assurances of expression so I would like to see that incongruence stamped out and completely ignored. I understand there is a segment of the Jewish population that feels they have an “eternal debt” involving upholding the image of Israel, but that country just had regime change from recognizing that this obsession has unnecessarily damaged the image of Israel and Jewish national ideas. Lets normalize ignoring them because they cant even uphold their own image politically. Its not a US problem and people in the US are going to say uncomfortable things. I’m over it. I like this direction.
  - adriancr 5y ago
    > I was pretty pleased that Google was able to resist Jewish collective pressure for arbitrary outcomes actually. ...since when did these sort of posts pop up here?... can I ask mods to consider a ban on this user?
    - chasd00 5y ago
      Seconded, I haven’t seen these kind of blatant trolls here before.
      - vmception 5y ago
        There nothing to invalidate about that post Google obviously felt the same way as me They rolled their eyes to placate a mob and just moved that person away from a public facing role, that mob is not placated and is just ignored I would like to see more of that
    - dang 5y ago
      If you want to ask us something the only reliable way to do that is to email hn@ycombinator.com. Everything else is random.
  - 5y ago
- bennysomething 5y ago
  Except that in the long run it's the employees that get punished in overly unionised industry.
  - 6f8986c3 5y ago
    Exactly.
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    Why? I would argue rhat the consumer might get harmed (higher prices) or the business (higher wage costs) but the employee? How?
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Because US-style unions are bad for top performers. Incompetent employees don’t get fired and seniority takes priority over skills. Overall, this encourages everyone to act in the bare minimum fashion and the business will suffer when pitted against a motivated workforce at a competitor. Unless the business has a very big moat, it will collapse under the union bloat.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > US-style unions are bad for top performers Not necessarily. It just institutionalises office politics. If you’re in a customer-facing role, the skills that make you successful at lobbying customers and lobbying your union might be identical.
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        Is the screen actor's guild a US style union? Because it seems to be working just fine for their top performers.
        flir 5y ago
        Every counterexample will be a special case for some reason. Police unions?
- zapdrive 5y ago
  You wouldn't been down voted so harshly if you didn't bring "misogyny" into the argument. Don't you know it's a sin to talk against the feminist propaganda in a world full of simps and cucks?
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  >Apple will fire you for being Jewish [citation needed]
Ericson2314 5y ago
I'm not saying hold your breath either > One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. Right so now that workers don't have much real power, it is nice we have the legal remnants of power in the past. But given what I am saying, this should be seen as a Faustian bargain: it's not worth sacrificing power now (via legalization-ossification), to have some remnant influence later. Moreoever, having complex erodable things enshrined in a law doesn't work well as a "rachet". The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization --- don't let the red scare take all your best organizers in the 1940s-1950s interested in the real goal of workplace democracy! And if you do go for laws, make them really simple things (40 hour workweek is better than NLRB recognition, but still too complex. Maybe UBI would be the best).
- topspin 5y ago
  > The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization Union power is a function of the demand for labor. You can rah-rah all day long, but when the demand for labor is low unions have little influence. If you want empowered workers seek to increase demand for labor. If the policies necessary to achieve that are abhorrent to you; impeding offshoring, limiting immigration, reducing regulatory burden, etc. then understand that it is you that defangs unions. As for the "real goal" workers seek prosperity which includes minimizing hours and maximizing income, benefits, safety and other quality of life factors. If your goal is "workplace democracy" or some other abstraction no one will listen. Perhaps you think they should, and you may be plausibly correct, but they wont.

6f8986c3 5y ago

You know, I'd call myself a hard-core capitalist... and I hope that the Teamsters succeed. It is my dream, my hope beyond hope, that full unionization lands at FAANG, and lands hard. Shit, I might even donate to the effort. Amazon works people to death for a pittance. Apple will fire you for being Jewish. Google fired a dude for the thinnest possible "misogyny", but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned, right along with his fat compensation package. Unions, strong ones, unions that will stop work when the coffee isn't quite good enough, unions that will prevent even the lowest performer in the company from ever being fired, are absolutely fitting punishment for the Lords of Silicon Valley.

Sekhmet 5y ago
> but "kill all the jews" merely resulted in their Head of Diversity getting reassigned I think I’ve heard different story involving Head of Diversity, nowhere close to “kill all Jews”. Do you have source on that?
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defence of myself," https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57342967
  - verbify 5y ago
    That's a pretty bad statement, but not close to "kill the Jews".
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      Start by dehumanizing, right?
      - BobbyJo 5y ago
        "Start by breathing" would be just as applicable and useless. A necessary precursor to an offense is not equal to an offense.
        AzzieElbab 5y ago
        HN posters whose names start with a B should be concerned about their insatiable appetite for war and killing. Is this more useful? How about the fact that the whole thing is based on a lie to begin with?
        sfeng 5y ago
        It sounds like when someone says something bad about women you don’t care, but when they say something bad about the Jewish people you do care, and you are mad that anyone would think differently than you?
        AzzieElbab 5y ago
        I am genially confused here. What are you trying to say?
        canadianfella 5y ago
        Genially?
        5y ago
vmception 5y ago
I was pretty pleased that Google was able to resist Jewish collective pressure for arbitrary outcomes actually. Hope to see more of that. If you also dont like cancel culture then arbitrary cancellings wont happen. For Americans, Jewish/Israel nationalist topics have always had consequences that were incongruent with other assurances of expression so I would like to see that incongruence stamped out and completely ignored. I understand there is a segment of the Jewish population that feels they have an “eternal debt” involving upholding the image of Israel, but that country just had regime change from recognizing that this obsession has unnecessarily damaged the image of Israel and Jewish national ideas. Lets normalize ignoring them because they cant even uphold their own image politically. Its not a US problem and people in the US are going to say uncomfortable things. I’m over it. I like this direction.
- adriancr 5y ago
  > I was pretty pleased that Google was able to resist Jewish collective pressure for arbitrary outcomes actually. ...since when did these sort of posts pop up here?... can I ask mods to consider a ban on this user?
  - chasd00 5y ago
    Seconded, I haven’t seen these kind of blatant trolls here before.
    - vmception 5y ago
      There nothing to invalidate about that post Google obviously felt the same way as me They rolled their eyes to placate a mob and just moved that person away from a public facing role, that mob is not placated and is just ignored I would like to see more of that
  - dang 5y ago
    If you want to ask us something the only reliable way to do that is to email hn@ycombinator.com. Everything else is random.
- 5y ago
bennysomething 5y ago
Except that in the long run it's the employees that get punished in overly unionised industry.
- 6f8986c3 5y ago
  Exactly.
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Why? I would argue rhat the consumer might get harmed (higher prices) or the business (higher wage costs) but the employee? How?
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Because US-style unions are bad for top performers. Incompetent employees don’t get fired and seniority takes priority over skills. Overall, this encourages everyone to act in the bare minimum fashion and the business will suffer when pitted against a motivated workforce at a competitor. Unless the business has a very big moat, it will collapse under the union bloat.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > US-style unions are bad for top performers Not necessarily. It just institutionalises office politics. If you’re in a customer-facing role, the skills that make you successful at lobbying customers and lobbying your union might be identical.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Is the screen actor's guild a US style union? Because it seems to be working just fine for their top performers.
      - flir 5y ago
        Every counterexample will be a special case for some reason. Police unions?
zapdrive 5y ago
You wouldn't been down voted so harshly if you didn't bring "misogyny" into the argument. Don't you know it's a sin to talk against the feminist propaganda in a world full of simps and cucks?
layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
>Apple will fire you for being Jewish [citation needed]

Ericson2314 5y ago

I'm not saying hold your breath either > One factor in the fate of on organizing is that much of the agenda was codified into law. Right so now that workers don't have much real power, it is nice we have the legal remnants of power in the past. But given what I am saying, this should be seen as a Faustian bargain: it's not worth sacrificing power now (via legalization-ossification), to have some remnant influence later. Moreoever, having complex erodable things enshrined in a law doesn't work well as a "rachet". The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization --- don't let the red scare take all your best organizers in the 1940s-1950s interested in the real goal of workplace democracy! And if you do go for laws, make them really simple things (40 hour workweek is better than NLRB recognition, but still too complex. Maybe UBI would be the best).

topspin 5y ago
> The most important thing is to sustain power and sustain politicization Union power is a function of the demand for labor. You can rah-rah all day long, but when the demand for labor is low unions have little influence. If you want empowered workers seek to increase demand for labor. If the policies necessary to achieve that are abhorrent to you; impeding offshoring, limiting immigration, reducing regulatory burden, etc. then understand that it is you that defangs unions. As for the "real goal" workers seek prosperity which includes minimizing hours and maximizing income, benefits, safety and other quality of life factors. If your goal is "workplace democracy" or some other abstraction no one will listen. Perhaps you think they should, and you may be plausibly correct, but they wont.