4 ms·

Isn't the strike to prevent other people from selling their data? You don't have to go on strike to not sell your own data.

• dkh 3y ago
  They are a union. They negotiate as a collective. And its members voted to the tune of 98% in favor of the strike.
  • __loam 3y ago
    I often see anti-union sentiment in tech circles which is hilarious considering how companies like Apple and Microsoft have already tried to fuck us with non-competes.
    • pierat 3y ago
      But you know 100x hyper-libertarian-48lawsofpower-dude can definitely negotiate better than a dirty liberal... Union! (I swear, I've had that exact conversation here, with nearly that same tone. And of course, verbal contortions that they are somehow better individuals with 'special skills'. They're just more meat for the grinder.)
      • __loam 3y ago
        Honestly hoping AI destroys programming first because we absolutely deserve to get hoisted by our own petard here.
      • golergka 3y ago
        Until union tries to force people to become members or force companies to only hire members, it's a completely valid libertarian concept. It’s essentially a cartel of employees. The only people who should have something against it are those who think that monopolies should be broken down.
        • pierat 3y ago
          The NLRB forces unions to also negotiate for non-union members. When the NLRB no longer requires negotiating for free-loaders, sure. But if I'm part of a union, you damn straight if you're getting the benefits and getting negotiation, I want you to pay your share.
          • Aloisius 3y ago
            Got a source for that? That seems counter to the fact that the NLRB has allowed different benefits and pay for union vs. non-union employees.
            • pierat 3y ago
              Gladly! https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-fair-representation https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... I would have to dig for the exact USC codes that construct the below paragraph taken from said website. I don't have that on hand. "Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. This duty applies to virtually every action that a union may take in dealing with an employer as your representative, including collective bargaining, handling grievances, and operating exclusive hiring halls. For example, a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. But the duty does not ordinarily apply to rights a worker can enforce independently - such as filing a workers' compensation claim - or to internal union affairs - such as the union's right to discipline members for violating its own rules."
              • Aloisius 3y ago
                Surely that's all employees in the bargaining unit, not literally all employees. Executives are employees too after all. Though certainly non-members should not be forced into bargaining units and in turn, unions for those bargaining units should not have to represent them. It would allow a lot more micro-unions, but eh.
    • ars 3y ago
      You misinterpret my message. It's union irrelevant. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717457 where I flesh out what I'm saying. These unions are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
• throwaway14356 3y ago
  strikes are to bargain collectively. The individual formula will only work for some employees and gradually erode as more are sucked into the void. The choice in this case eventually becomes one between paying or not paying at all which is a completely hilarious deal. You won't have to do any work tho, you will be working elsewhere
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]