4 ms·

If I were to join a union it would have to have the following: 1. No protection for incompetent people 2. No seniority based pay or privileges 3. Narrow focu

If I were to join a union it would have to have the following: 1. No protection for incompetent people 2. No seniority based pay or privileges 3. Narrow focus on comp and quality of life Any of these would be a deal breaker for me. And I just don't see it happening. The people who seem to be into unions are the type of people that can't STFU about politics at the office. And if I hear one word about pronouns instead of a raise, I'm out.

__float 5y ago
Who decides who is "incompetent"? What do pronouns have to do with anything? I don't really see how this is related to the post.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > What do pronouns have to do with anything? Unfortunately way too much, some of the people who advocate for them the loudest are very political people of a particular polarization that makes a big deal about pronouns. Take this Google union I found from another comment here: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/ https://alphabetworkersunion.org/. Take a look at what they have at the top of their homepage. The forth word is "BIPOC," towards the middle it says "believe in social justice." Those are polarizing political shibboleths. Frankly, unions will not get off the ground without solidarity across worker political factions, and injecting polarizing ideology not strictly necessary for unionization does the same union-busting job as Google's consultants.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    The fact that in the US, treating minorities (BIPOC or otherwise) fairly is polarizing is sad.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > The fact that in the US, treating minorities (BIPOC or otherwise) fairly is polarizing is sad. It is, however "fairly" is a pretty loaded word that leaves too much unspecified. It's important to emphasize that "BIPOC" is a shibboleth, and you can be for "treating minorities fairly" without being aligned with the ideological faction the use of "BIPOC" indicates. And just to be clear, a union effort will almost certain fail if it goes down political rabbit holes that are not strictly necessary for its function, even if those rabbit holes are righteous issues.
      - __float 5y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-california-dfeh-black-female-employee-harassment-discrimination-investigation https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-californ... > According to a diversity report Google released earlier this year, Black women make up around 1.8 percent of its workforce and departed the company at a higher than normal rate. In the report, the company said it had “room for improvement” when it came to keeping underrepresented talent. How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here. What are you talking about? The "actual topic at hand" is unionization, not the digression you're trying to pull it to. You also appear to be exhibiting a pretty polarized way of thinking, by assuming (falsely, I add) I take some "other side" position because I'm not hitting all your myside notes. The point is that if you use polarized shibboleths [1] in your unionization drive, you're doing the union-busting consultants' work for them (specifically, enabling a divide and conquer strategy). If you want to succeed with unionization, broadly, you have to be very, very careful not to do that, since the playing field is already tilted against you. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth, if you're unaware of the meaning, which your scare-quotes lead me to suspect.
        __float 5y ago
        I'm aware the topic at hand is unionization. You turned it into something about shibboleths and polarization - while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media - and implied I'm using scare quotes because I don't know what it means. I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further. You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right.
  - __float 5y ago
    That's a rotating list of groups, "BIPOC" is one example in a list that settles on "Alphabet Workers". It should not be polarizing to emphasize that all workers, regardless of full time or contractor status, or race/ethnicity, etc. are intended to be included in the union. I think Google has been in the news many times now for having an incredibly low number of Black employees - Google's diversity efforts have not done really anything to change that, even though publicly they pretend to be doing a lot. I think it's quite reasonable for a union to question why those efforts have failed so miserably, since historically these same marginalized groups are paid less, given fewer opportunities for advancement, etc.
weakfish 5y ago
brightstep 5y ago
It won't happen because those criteria are antithetical to the purpose of a union. Unions are about solidarity as a working class against corporations. It doesn't work unless members see eachother as on the same side regardless of perceived competence
- fallingknife 5y ago
  I'm not on the side of the dead weight I have to pull at work. Not ever. I'm not on the side of the useless union official who makes a multiple of my salary (taken out of my paycheck) for preaching "solidarity" to me. Results or GTFO. Union people talk like you, which is why Google doesn't need to convince me that unions are bad. Unions have already done the work for them.
  - lovich 5y ago
    Are you fine being left high and dry if you get hurt and cannot perform as well anymore?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    It might be interesting to have a union that functions sort of like a cooperative consulting/contracting company with an exclusive contract: the employer pays the union, but the union itself performs hiring, firing, performance evaluations, etc. such that it's beneficial to the union itself to drop freeloaders. Obviously there'd be a lot of complicated details to work out so the employer can't actually treat the union like it would a regular contracting company (e.g. a tool to keep its responsibilities to labor at even greater length, and fire with even less care).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jimbob45 5y ago
I've been doing some thinking and I think union lifetime limits might adequately cover your concerns. If a union is incompetent (e.g. protecting lazy workers, is corrupt, is more focused on political ambitions rather than the workers), then the workers can simply vote to kill the union. A five-year lifespan on unions would put pressure on unions to meet their lofty claims rather than the current state of things where it is universally known that unions are a permanent haven for the lazy.

__float 5y ago

Who decides who is "incompetent"? What do pronouns have to do with anything? I don't really see how this is related to the post.

tablespoon 5y ago
> What do pronouns have to do with anything? Unfortunately way too much, some of the people who advocate for them the loudest are very political people of a particular polarization that makes a big deal about pronouns. Take this Google union I found from another comment here: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/ https://alphabetworkersunion.org/. Take a look at what they have at the top of their homepage. The forth word is "BIPOC," towards the middle it says "believe in social justice." Those are polarizing political shibboleths. Frankly, unions will not get off the ground without solidarity across worker political factions, and injecting polarizing ideology not strictly necessary for unionization does the same union-busting job as Google's consultants.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  The fact that in the US, treating minorities (BIPOC or otherwise) fairly is polarizing is sad.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > The fact that in the US, treating minorities (BIPOC or otherwise) fairly is polarizing is sad. It is, however "fairly" is a pretty loaded word that leaves too much unspecified. It's important to emphasize that "BIPOC" is a shibboleth, and you can be for "treating minorities fairly" without being aligned with the ideological faction the use of "BIPOC" indicates. And just to be clear, a union effort will almost certain fail if it goes down political rabbit holes that are not strictly necessary for its function, even if those rabbit holes are righteous issues.
    - __float 5y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-california-dfeh-black-female-employee-harassment-discrimination-investigation https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-californ... > According to a diversity report Google released earlier this year, Black women make up around 1.8 percent of its workforce and departed the company at a higher than normal rate. In the report, the company said it had “room for improvement” when it came to keeping underrepresented talent. How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here. What are you talking about? The "actual topic at hand" is unionization, not the digression you're trying to pull it to. You also appear to be exhibiting a pretty polarized way of thinking, by assuming (falsely, I add) I take some "other side" position because I'm not hitting all your myside notes. The point is that if you use polarized shibboleths [1] in your unionization drive, you're doing the union-busting consultants' work for them (specifically, enabling a divide and conquer strategy). If you want to succeed with unionization, broadly, you have to be very, very careful not to do that, since the playing field is already tilted against you. [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shibboleth, if you're unaware of the meaning, which your scare-quotes lead me to suspect.
        __float 5y ago
        I'm aware the topic at hand is unionization. You turned it into something about shibboleths and polarization - while BIPOC is regularly used in mass media - and implied I'm using scare quotes because I don't know what it means. I don't think you're having this discussion with anything near a neutral viewpoint, and I don't really want to engage further. You've said in the past you're not a Trumper, but you definitely appear to lean quite far right.
- __float 5y ago
  That's a rotating list of groups, "BIPOC" is one example in a list that settles on "Alphabet Workers". It should not be polarizing to emphasize that all workers, regardless of full time or contractor status, or race/ethnicity, etc. are intended to be included in the union. I think Google has been in the news many times now for having an incredibly low number of Black employees - Google's diversity efforts have not done really anything to change that, even though publicly they pretend to be doing a lot. I think it's quite reasonable for a union to question why those efforts have failed so miserably, since historically these same marginalized groups are paid less, given fewer opportunities for advancement, etc.

weakfish 5y ago

brightstep 5y ago

It won't happen because those criteria are antithetical to the purpose of a union. Unions are about solidarity as a working class against corporations. It doesn't work unless members see eachother as on the same side regardless of perceived competence

fallingknife 5y ago
I'm not on the side of the dead weight I have to pull at work. Not ever. I'm not on the side of the useless union official who makes a multiple of my salary (taken out of my paycheck) for preaching "solidarity" to me. Results or GTFO. Union people talk like you, which is why Google doesn't need to convince me that unions are bad. Unions have already done the work for them.
- lovich 5y ago
  Are you fine being left high and dry if you get hurt and cannot perform as well anymore?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  It might be interesting to have a union that functions sort of like a cooperative consulting/contracting company with an exclusive contract: the employer pays the union, but the union itself performs hiring, firing, performance evaluations, etc. such that it's beneficial to the union itself to drop freeloaders. Obviously there'd be a lot of complicated details to work out so the employer can't actually treat the union like it would a regular contracting company (e.g. a tool to keep its responsibilities to labor at even greater length, and fire with even less care).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jimbob45 5y ago

I've been doing some thinking and I think union lifetime limits might adequately cover your concerns. If a union is incompetent (e.g. protecting lazy workers, is corrupt, is more focused on political ambitions rather than the workers), then the workers can simply vote to kill the union. A five-year lifespan on unions would put pressure on unions to meet their lofty claims rather than the current state of things where it is universally known that unions are a permanent haven for the lazy.