5 ms·

About the same reasons I never joined ones, when I had the option (which lets be honest in IT is not that often). Great ideas on paper, properly poor execution

About the same reasons I never joined ones, when I had the option (which lets be honest in IT is not that often). Great ideas on paper, properly poor execution that ends up in entrenched folks, power games and politics

lovich 4y ago
As opposed to the entrenched folks, power games, and politics that exist currently? Those don’t appear because a union is formed, you just have less of a say at the bargaining table without one Edit:removed an extra “don’t”
- klondike_klive 4y ago
  Forgive me, I'm struggling to parse that triple negative! Can I flip that to be "you have more of a say with one"? Or am I getting it wrong?
  - lovich 4y ago
    Fault was mine, had an extra “don’t” that made it a triple, rather than the intended double, negative. Your interpretation of that last sentence was correct
cma 4y ago
The ownership side is in a union whether employees are or not, with their own dollar-weighted democracy, legalized collusion between owners (say two restaraunts agree with each other to lower wages, that's illegal; say they both merge and become shareholders: a coordinated wage decrease across both restaraunts with the same two owners involved is now considered done by one entity).
- djbebs 4y ago
  There is nothing wrong with collusion, whether its from employees, or employers. The state should stay out of it, and the laws forcing negotiations, or giving either the company or the employees protections should not exist. If employees want to get together in a union and negotiate collectively, that's their right and they should not be legally barred from doing so. If companies want to fire the employees who do so, and not deal with a union in any way, that too is their right and they should not be legally barred from doing so. The primary purpose of labor laws should be to establish the expectations in the absence of an article in the contract establishing those expectations (ie: if the contract doesn't mention which safety procedures are to be followed in the steel foundry, the thing that's in the law prevails. If the contract outlines other procedures, then the contract prevails). A secondary purpose of the labor law is to enforce the contract. (Ie: if an employee doesn't get paid for hours worked, the courts should be therefore to enforce the payment) Anything else the state should stay out of.
  - lovich 4y ago
    That sounds like a quick path to having people sell them into slavery the first time the economy goes south and people get desperate
    - redeeman 4y ago
      why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot?
      - lovich 4y ago
        > why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees > if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? Observed behavior? Are you unfamiliar with the small businesses complaining about how “nobody wants to work” while offering minimum wage? Or in the tech industry how the majority of firms have settled on providing below market yearly salary increases and eating the replacement cost for employees rather than pay a few percent more to keep people from looking for new jobs. To the point that it’s commonly accepted for jobs to be 2-3 year stints instead of the lifelong careers of the past? > this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? You’re reading into it if you think I’m referring to just “working joes”. It’s what desperate people do in the rule set you propose. It’s how we had indentured servants in the American colonies. It’s how there were literally people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets in the Roman Empire. > is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot? If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they save up a decent enough buffer?
thesuitonym 4y ago
The moral of the story here is that HR tried to withold something they were already planning on doing to avoid paying employees more, and you think the answer is to just accept whatever management wants?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lovich 4y ago

As opposed to the entrenched folks, power games, and politics that exist currently? Those don’t appear because a union is formed, you just have less of a say at the bargaining table without one Edit:removed an extra “don’t”

klondike_klive 4y ago
Forgive me, I'm struggling to parse that triple negative! Can I flip that to be "you have more of a say with one"? Or am I getting it wrong?
- lovich 4y ago
  Fault was mine, had an extra “don’t” that made it a triple, rather than the intended double, negative. Your interpretation of that last sentence was correct

cma 4y ago

The ownership side is in a union whether employees are or not, with their own dollar-weighted democracy, legalized collusion between owners (say two restaraunts agree with each other to lower wages, that's illegal; say they both merge and become shareholders: a coordinated wage decrease across both restaraunts with the same two owners involved is now considered done by one entity).

djbebs 4y ago
There is nothing wrong with collusion, whether its from employees, or employers. The state should stay out of it, and the laws forcing negotiations, or giving either the company or the employees protections should not exist. If employees want to get together in a union and negotiate collectively, that's their right and they should not be legally barred from doing so. If companies want to fire the employees who do so, and not deal with a union in any way, that too is their right and they should not be legally barred from doing so. The primary purpose of labor laws should be to establish the expectations in the absence of an article in the contract establishing those expectations (ie: if the contract doesn't mention which safety procedures are to be followed in the steel foundry, the thing that's in the law prevails. If the contract outlines other procedures, then the contract prevails). A secondary purpose of the labor law is to enforce the contract. (Ie: if an employee doesn't get paid for hours worked, the courts should be therefore to enforce the payment) Anything else the state should stay out of.
- lovich 4y ago
  That sounds like a quick path to having people sell them into slavery the first time the economy goes south and people get desperate
  - redeeman 4y ago
    why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot?
    - lovich 4y ago
      > why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first? Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if things get that bad? If they didn’t provide legal protection for liability than most would just be privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the owner and employees > if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and they get to earn nothing? Observed behavior? Are you unfamiliar with the small businesses complaining about how “nobody wants to work” while offering minimum wage? Or in the tech industry how the majority of firms have settled on providing below market yearly salary increases and eating the replacement cost for employees rather than pay a few percent more to keep people from looking for new jobs. To the point that it’s commonly accepted for jobs to be 2-3 year stints instead of the lifelong careers of the past? > this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can someone listening to the argument interpret it as anything other than "those regular working joes are so stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the second a company talks sternly or the price of food increases!!!!" ? You’re reading into it if you think I’m referring to just “working joes”. It’s what desperate people do in the rule set you propose. It’s how we had indentured servants in the American colonies. It’s how there were literally people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets in the Roman Empire. > is it really that much to expect, that people individually take some responsibility, say no to conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at a reasonable spot? If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they save up a decent enough buffer?

thesuitonym 4y ago

The moral of the story here is that HR tried to withold something they were already planning on doing to avoid paying employees more, and you think the answer is to just accept whatever management wants?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]