5 ms·

What a beautiful example of false equivalence. Union literature has special protection because it's a certain type of literature. You cannot just "replace" with

What a beautiful example of false equivalence. Union literature has special protection because it's a certain type of literature. You cannot just "replace" with what you want. Certain things are protected by law. That's how laws work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_o...

nerpderp82 5y ago
The comments in this whole thread point on a severe lack of understanding around labor laws and ethics. At the same time it attracts the archetypal free-market laissez faire pseudo intellectual.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  I don't know what it is about software engineers, but it seems like there's a whole lot of them who seem to think you can learn everything you need to know about the world from one or two volumes of libertarian polemics.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Tech culture is infested with Horatio Alger stories of supposedly hard work, grit and gumption leading to success and riches. When you get Sand Hill Road investors they constrict an origin story with you that follows this path. So luck and pre-existing family wealth and connections get written out of the stories of people like Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, you name it. The true believers get drawn into tech. Only after careful readings do you get to "wow this rich smart kid was incredibly lucky" Instead, all these things work together to promote an illusion of unbiased meritocracy where if you got a clever idea and work hard you'll make it. The rich, smart, and luck get scrubbed out and replaced with a "Flowering of New England" Protestant Work Ethic. For the more cynical people they go to the likes of Christensen, Geoffrey Moore, Drucker, Steve Blank, Ries & Trout, Blanchard, etc who are certainly not critical of free markets, labor or capitalism in any way. You walk away from them with a less trusting and more cut throat version of essentially the same story. So it's constantly reinforced which is why it's really not that surprising that programming has a lot of people who frankly believe in essentially free market magic, unfounded hogwash and other nonsense, it's the only thing on offer. The myth of fantastic riches that avail themself to those who struggle is essentially one of the most common narrative archetypes there is. It's thousands of years old, even the cornerstone of many religions.
- awsthro00945 5y ago
  Ironic, because the comment you are replying to is completely wrong. Labor laws are stupidly complicated and a single one liner from an HN comment is almost guaranteed to be wrong in some way. You shouldn't believe anything you read in an HN comments thread about them, on either side of the issue (including this one, because I'm probably wrong in some fashion too!)
awsthro00945 5y ago
In this particular example, it's not a false equivalence at all. The NLRB specifically does not give special protection to union literature. As long as the employer treats all literature equally (such as soccer literature, harry potter literature, etc), they are allowed to ban non-work literature in work areas during work time. Union literature does not get any special treatment. see: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-union-related-conversations-activities-work.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio...
- cratermoon 5y ago
  Yes, they can ban all literature, or they can ban none of it. They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here.
  - awsthro00945 5y ago
    How do you know that's what happened here? The OP linked article does not contain such information.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      I don't know why anyone would bother to engage on this subject with an account named 'awsthro00945' that was created 44 days ago. Is this one of those infamous Amazon fc ambassador astroturf accounts we were reading about a year ago?
      - awsthro00945 5y ago
        I create various accounts for posting on HN that I cycle through, because there are some individuals on HN that participate in ingenuine ad-hominen attacks (case and point) rather than actually engaging in the discussion at hand. Because of this, I try to limit my personal details shared via HN accounts. This particular account was created because it was a throwaway to respond to a post regarding working conditions at AWS, hence the name. I am not shy about the fact that I work at AWS, and if you read my comment history you'll find that I think it's a garbage company that I am currently trying to leave, and I support unionization of workers. But none of that actually addresses the question that was asked of you. Where are you getting your information that "They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here."? Because that information is not in the article, and it seems like you're just making it up. If there is such information available somewhere else, I'd like to read about it. If you have an actual answer to the question at hand rather than trying to avoid the question and make dumbass assumptions based on my username, please do respond. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks because you don't actually have any facts to back you up.

nerpderp82 5y ago

The comments in this whole thread point on a severe lack of understanding around labor laws and ethics. At the same time it attracts the archetypal free-market laissez faire pseudo intellectual.

tablespoon 5y ago
I don't know what it is about software engineers, but it seems like there's a whole lot of them who seem to think you can learn everything you need to know about the world from one or two volumes of libertarian polemics.
- kristopolous 5y ago
  Tech culture is infested with Horatio Alger stories of supposedly hard work, grit and gumption leading to success and riches. When you get Sand Hill Road investors they constrict an origin story with you that follows this path. So luck and pre-existing family wealth and connections get written out of the stories of people like Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, you name it. The true believers get drawn into tech. Only after careful readings do you get to "wow this rich smart kid was incredibly lucky" Instead, all these things work together to promote an illusion of unbiased meritocracy where if you got a clever idea and work hard you'll make it. The rich, smart, and luck get scrubbed out and replaced with a "Flowering of New England" Protestant Work Ethic. For the more cynical people they go to the likes of Christensen, Geoffrey Moore, Drucker, Steve Blank, Ries & Trout, Blanchard, etc who are certainly not critical of free markets, labor or capitalism in any way. You walk away from them with a less trusting and more cut throat version of essentially the same story. So it's constantly reinforced which is why it's really not that surprising that programming has a lot of people who frankly believe in essentially free market magic, unfounded hogwash and other nonsense, it's the only thing on offer. The myth of fantastic riches that avail themself to those who struggle is essentially one of the most common narrative archetypes there is. It's thousands of years old, even the cornerstone of many religions.
awsthro00945 5y ago
Ironic, because the comment you are replying to is completely wrong. Labor laws are stupidly complicated and a single one liner from an HN comment is almost guaranteed to be wrong in some way. You shouldn't believe anything you read in an HN comments thread about them, on either side of the issue (including this one, because I'm probably wrong in some fashion too!)

awsthro00945 5y ago

In this particular example, it's not a false equivalence at all. The NLRB specifically does not give special protection to union literature. As long as the employer treats all literature equally (such as soccer literature, harry potter literature, etc), they are allowed to ban non-work literature in work areas during work time. Union literature does not get any special treatment. see: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-union-related-conversations-activities-work.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/shop-talk-rules-unio...

cratermoon 5y ago
Yes, they can ban all literature, or they can ban none of it. They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here.
- awsthro00945 5y ago
  How do you know that's what happened here? The OP linked article does not contain such information.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    I don't know why anyone would bother to engage on this subject with an account named 'awsthro00945' that was created 44 days ago. Is this one of those infamous Amazon fc ambassador astroturf accounts we were reading about a year ago?
    - awsthro00945 5y ago
      I create various accounts for posting on HN that I cycle through, because there are some individuals on HN that participate in ingenuine ad-hominen attacks (case and point) rather than actually engaging in the discussion at hand. Because of this, I try to limit my personal details shared via HN accounts. This particular account was created because it was a throwaway to respond to a post regarding working conditions at AWS, hence the name. I am not shy about the fact that I work at AWS, and if you read my comment history you'll find that I think it's a garbage company that I am currently trying to leave, and I support unionization of workers. But none of that actually addresses the question that was asked of you. Where are you getting your information that "They can't ban some and allow some, which is what happened here."? Because that information is not in the article, and it seems like you're just making it up. If there is such information available somewhere else, I'd like to read about it. If you have an actual answer to the question at hand rather than trying to avoid the question and make dumbass assumptions based on my username, please do respond. Otherwise, I'll just assume that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks because you don't actually have any facts to back you up.