5 ms·

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government repres

by jmyeet 4y ago

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems to think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day.

colechristensen 4y ago
>The demonization of unions is over the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It is possible to see unions as both the source of some and solution to other forms of abuse.
- marricks 4y ago
  Why are you saying this? It's what every single corporate pamphlet and forced talk says. No one is saying unions will bring everyone enlightenment and cure cancer. What people are saying is workers need a say in how the workplace is run and companies spending millions convincing folk otherwise should be forced to stop.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Few people are able to view unions objectively instead of picking a side, a union comes with tradeoffs not universal goods or evils. There are plenty of examples of unions fixing things and plenty examples of them making things worse, your opinion of a union shouldn't be based on keeping score but actually looking at the risks and rewards. Unless an organization is particularly nice, unions make a lot of sense for low skill, high turnover jobs in large corporations; unless a organization is particularly bad, unions don't make sense in high skill professional positions.
    - marricks 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
- version_five 4y ago
  Yes I wanted to say something very similar. The idea of having an organization that collectively represents my interests against things I oppose (like this) feels good. Unfortunately unions will not represent my interests in a huge swath of other areas (meritocracy, politics, etc). So choosing a union just trades one set of shitty things for another. For all but unskilled workers, the benefits are basically an illusion imo
  - KyeRussell 4y ago
    Another case where Americans seem more than willing to ignore the experiences of the rest of the world. Many workforces in Australia are highly unionised. Unions have been largely effective - even in recent years - at using their collective bargaining power for the good of the worker. Hell, our ruling political party is literally called the Labor party. It has strong union ties and a history of passing pro-worker legislation. Union corruption exists as it exists in all areas where power can be had, but in Australia’s case you’d truly be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by saying “unions are bad!”, even in industries like tech where we’ve never really sought collective bargaining on a large scale, the universal protections ushered in by the union movement benefit all workers here. It sounds like you’ve fallen for the same propaganda as everyone else but you particularly think that you have “smarter” reasons. You don’t.
    - version_five 4y ago
      Anyone who thinks differently than you is "falling for propaganda". Got it.
nightski 4y ago
Already saved from this sort of thing by just being self employed for the past 10 years. I get paid for every hour of work with no spying and just a weekly status update with my clients. It's a simple relationship and I am honestly not sure I could ever go back.
mc32 4y ago
Doesn’t some of this stuff add some legal liability to organizations? Like if a manager learns something and takes action because of it? Or learning about employee behavior and sentiment and using that information to suppress promotions… Or being informed of employee misbehavior and not taking action against it…
_jal 4y ago
> The demonization of unions is over the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century Ever notice how unions are somehow all the same entity, and seem to have to answer for things completely different unions in completely different industries did? Nobody treats corporations this way, even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some industries...
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > Nobody treats corporations this way... Oh yes they do. "All corporations are evil exploitive money-grubbing polluting anti-democratic anti-worker..." I've seen it, here on HN, on the regular. I don't recall if I've seen it today, but I see it a lot. > ... even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some industries... The AFL-CIO looks (or at least looked) like the same thing, but for unions.
  - _jal 4y ago
    > Oh yes they do You can nutpick to find people saying anything, of course. Show me someone in a position of power saying that. I think they closest you'll find is someone like AOC, who has gone nowhere near that. > The AFL-CIO looks (or at least looked) like the same thing, but for unions. The AFL-CIO has been in decline for several decades. If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in the 60s, you're just making my point for me.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      > nutpick I don't know whether that was a typo or deliberate, but it's beautiful. I'm stealing it. Yes, you absolutely can find a nut who will say anything - even several nuts. Absolutely. But in this case, I think it's a bit stronger than that. I see it too often. It could be just a few loudmouths saying the same thing over and over, but to me it feels more like, say, 5% of HN users actually believe that. True, that's far less than the number who believe "all unions are evil", but it still seems to me to be enough people to be significant. > If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in the 60s, you're just making my point for me. Well, I didn't want to do that, so don't put that on me. All I wanted to say is that, as corporations can collude (or at least appear to), so can unions, and we have historical examples of it happening - and, unlike corporate collusion, happening formally and in the open.
gruez 4y ago
>The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. >The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. You realize that the power/existence of "labor organization ie unionization" is dependent on the government? Without government protection labor unions don't stand a chance.
- cma 4y ago
  The government stops them through things like outlawing secondary strikes.
- simoom22 4y ago
  You realize that historically labor unions predated government laws about labor unions, right?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Sure, before labor unions existed, there were no laws about labor unions - why would there be? But there were laws allowing freedom of association, so something like unions were default allowed, in the absence of any other laws.
    - jmyeet 4y ago
      You're missing the point of the comment you're replying to: labor organization does not require government permission to exist. It existed long before any sort of government quasi-protection. There are many examples of this including Solidarity [1] and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 [2] following attempts to freeze wages following the Black Death where demand suddenly exceeded supply and pushed up wages. And this isn't even counting the cases where peasant and worker uprisings that led to revolutions. The concept of a general strike is a relatively modern one but an extremely powerful one regardless of any legalities. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
daenz 4y ago
>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- themitigating 4y ago
  I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason. For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'll be rich.
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    That’s assuming people can’t be purely altruistic and principled and they must hold every position they do for personal gain.
    - AndyNemmity 4y ago
      It would not be altruistic to be for a person with a monopoly of assets to hold more of those assets while other people don't have homes. Principled makes sense though.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    > For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). Top 1% earns 21% or income, pays ~40% of taxes (has ~34% of wealth): https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...
jll29 4y ago
Emacs would never spy on you like that, would it?
- AlexeyBrin 4y ago
  Emacs is open source and you can modify it, so even if it would spy on you, you can in theory remove the offending code yourself or wait for someone else to do it and publish the patch. Good luck doing that with Office 365.
- jes 4y ago
  M-x psychoanalyze-microsoft-pinheads
hereforphone 4y ago
I shouldn't have to belong to a particular organization (especially a politically active one) in order to have a job in my field.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  You shouldn't, nor should organizations push the limits of what people accept before they snap. But here we are.

by jmyeet 4y ago

colechristensen 4y ago

>The demonization of unions is over the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It is possible to see unions as both the source of some and solution to other forms of abuse.

marricks 4y ago
Why are you saying this? It's what every single corporate pamphlet and forced talk says. No one is saying unions will bring everyone enlightenment and cure cancer. What people are saying is workers need a say in how the workplace is run and companies spending millions convincing folk otherwise should be forced to stop.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Few people are able to view unions objectively instead of picking a side, a union comes with tradeoffs not universal goods or evils. There are plenty of examples of unions fixing things and plenty examples of them making things worse, your opinion of a union shouldn't be based on keeping score but actually looking at the risks and rewards. Unless an organization is particularly nice, unions make a lot of sense for low skill, high turnover jobs in large corporations; unless a organization is particularly bad, unions don't make sense in high skill professional positions.
  - marricks 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
version_five 4y ago
Yes I wanted to say something very similar. The idea of having an organization that collectively represents my interests against things I oppose (like this) feels good. Unfortunately unions will not represent my interests in a huge swath of other areas (meritocracy, politics, etc). So choosing a union just trades one set of shitty things for another. For all but unskilled workers, the benefits are basically an illusion imo
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  Another case where Americans seem more than willing to ignore the experiences of the rest of the world. Many workforces in Australia are highly unionised. Unions have been largely effective - even in recent years - at using their collective bargaining power for the good of the worker. Hell, our ruling political party is literally called the Labor party. It has strong union ties and a history of passing pro-worker legislation. Union corruption exists as it exists in all areas where power can be had, but in Australia’s case you’d truly be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by saying “unions are bad!”, even in industries like tech where we’ve never really sought collective bargaining on a large scale, the universal protections ushered in by the union movement benefit all workers here. It sounds like you’ve fallen for the same propaganda as everyone else but you particularly think that you have “smarter” reasons. You don’t.
  - version_five 4y ago
    Anyone who thinks differently than you is "falling for propaganda". Got it.

nightski 4y ago

Already saved from this sort of thing by just being self employed for the past 10 years. I get paid for every hour of work with no spying and just a weekly status update with my clients. It's a simple relationship and I am honestly not sure I could ever go back.

mc32 4y ago

Doesn’t some of this stuff add some legal liability to organizations? Like if a manager learns something and takes action because of it? Or learning about employee behavior and sentiment and using that information to suppress promotions… Or being informed of employee misbehavior and not taking action against it…

_jal 4y ago

> The demonization of unions is over the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century Ever notice how unions are somehow all the same entity, and seem to have to answer for things completely different unions in completely different industries did? Nobody treats corporations this way, even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some industries...

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> Nobody treats corporations this way... Oh yes they do. "All corporations are evil exploitive money-grubbing polluting anti-democratic anti-worker..." I've seen it, here on HN, on the regular. I don't recall if I've seen it today, but I see it a lot. > ... even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some industries... The AFL-CIO looks (or at least looked) like the same thing, but for unions.
- _jal 4y ago
  > Oh yes they do You can nutpick to find people saying anything, of course. Show me someone in a position of power saying that. I think they closest you'll find is someone like AOC, who has gone nowhere near that. > The AFL-CIO looks (or at least looked) like the same thing, but for unions. The AFL-CIO has been in decline for several decades. If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in the 60s, you're just making my point for me.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > nutpick I don't know whether that was a typo or deliberate, but it's beautiful. I'm stealing it. Yes, you absolutely can find a nut who will say anything - even several nuts. Absolutely. But in this case, I think it's a bit stronger than that. I see it too often. It could be just a few loudmouths saying the same thing over and over, but to me it feels more like, say, 5% of HN users actually believe that. True, that's far less than the number who believe "all unions are evil", but it still seems to me to be enough people to be significant. > If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in the 60s, you're just making my point for me. Well, I didn't want to do that, so don't put that on me. All I wanted to say is that, as corporations can collude (or at least appear to), so can unions, and we have historical examples of it happening - and, unlike corporate collusion, happening formally and in the open.

gruez 4y ago

>The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. >The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. You realize that the power/existence of "labor organization ie unionization" is dependent on the government? Without government protection labor unions don't stand a chance.

cma 4y ago
The government stops them through things like outlawing secondary strikes.
simoom22 4y ago
You realize that historically labor unions predated government laws about labor unions, right?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Sure, before labor unions existed, there were no laws about labor unions - why would there be? But there were laws allowing freedom of association, so something like unions were default allowed, in the absence of any other laws.
  - jmyeet 4y ago
    You're missing the point of the comment you're replying to: labor organization does not require government permission to exist. It existed long before any sort of government quasi-protection. There are many examples of this including Solidarity [1] and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 [2] following attempts to freeze wages following the Black Death where demand suddenly exceeded supply and pushed up wages. And this isn't even counting the cases where peasant and worker uprisings that led to revolutions. The concept of a general strike is a relatively modern one but an extremely powerful one regardless of any legalities. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

daenz 4y ago

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
themitigating 4y ago
I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason. For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'll be rich.
- l33t2328 4y ago
  That’s assuming people can’t be purely altruistic and principled and they must hold every position they do for personal gain.
  - AndyNemmity 4y ago
    It would not be altruistic to be for a person with a monopoly of assets to hold more of those assets while other people don't have homes. Principled makes sense though.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  > For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). Top 1% earns 21% or income, pays ~40% of taxes (has ~34% of wealth): https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...

jll29 4y ago

Emacs would never spy on you like that, would it?

AlexeyBrin 4y ago
Emacs is open source and you can modify it, so even if it would spy on you, you can in theory remove the offending code yourself or wait for someone else to do it and publish the patch. Good luck doing that with Office 365.
jes 4y ago
M-x psychoanalyze-microsoft-pinheads

hereforphone 4y ago

I shouldn't have to belong to a particular organization (especially a politically active one) in order to have a job in my field.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
You shouldn't, nor should organizations push the limits of what people accept before they snap. But here we are.