5 ms·

The imbalance of power is simply too great. Even for high-value positions, and even in times of high job availability, employers can always afford (by every con

The imbalance of power is simply too great. Even for high-value positions, and even in times of high job availability, employers can always afford (by every conceivable definition of "afford") to harm employees more than employees can afford to harm employers. Edit: A healthy society is a high-trust society where the employee-employer relationship is more balanced due to the regular old humanity that you would expect by default from humans, rather than pure economics. You can't regulate the fundamentals of societal health. When people have less and less cultural attachment to each other and to the societies in which they operate; and less and less respect for the idea of plain humanity; this is the result. The US seems to have been historically above average in this regard, but is coming down fast. A few European countries seem to be at the top of this (highly subjective) ranking.

lukev 3y ago
Unless employees unionize.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Exactly. Unions exist for exactly this purpose and have legal powers no employee will ever have.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  Yes, though it really only helps so much with the broader problem.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    It's the main building block of any broader solution. You need to have large, pro-worker organizations in play in order to fight for large scale change, whether that's in a figurative sense in the courts and legislature, or in a literal sense, in the streets of Krakow or Barcelona.
- jessehorne 3y ago
  Let's do it. My contact information is in my description.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    https://code-cwa.org/ https://code-cwa.org/ https://code-cwa.org/organize https://code-cwa.org/organize
- outworlder 3y ago
  There's been a lot of effort to demonize unions. Many employees won't even try because they think "unions are bad" without ever been in one.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  Everyone loves unions during layoffs. But when times are flush they don't want their bonus hindered or to "protect bad apples" or "lazy workers". Being in a union involves give and take.
  - vasco 3y ago
    I was curious so I went to see what is there in terms of data and found: 1. "Firms and Layoffs: The Impact of Unionization on Involuntary Job Loss" - (2003 with data from 1997) https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html > Results show that the impact of unionization is not significant except for (1) establishments that operate in the non-manufacturing sector; and (2) establishments operating in industries that have major collective bargaining agreements which contain moderate employment security provisions. Under those conditions, unionization decreases layoff rates; otherwise, unionization has no effect on layoff rates. Does anyone have anything more recent about this?
    - anamexis 3y ago
      Point number 2 in particular strikes me as circular - unions did not impact layoff rates except in industries where the unions protected against layoffs.
  - lukewrites 3y ago
    This understanding of unions is as common as it is wrong. A union allows workers to negotiate contracts, meaning workers can have a say in how performance is assessed and how things like bonuses are handed out. I am in a non-union workspace. There's no transparency on how bonuses or stock refreshers are handed out. A union contract could codify it. The owner class wants workers to think unions will hurt our earnings because when workers are structurally unable to shape company policy the bosses can do whatever they want...and what they want is to maximize profits. (Like Elon Musk said: You don't need a union, I'll put in an soft serve machine for you.)
- lnsru 3y ago
  I can repeat as long as one needs. I work in Germany. Every big company is unionized. And guess what!? Bosses told, that 20% of the company will be laid off and it was ok for all union members. Packages were offered in few rounds. Home office forbidden. I didn’t got package, I left for a company with liberal home office ruling. Unions are beautiful cosmetics. When layoff happens it happens just like that.
  - Tainnor 3y ago
    Even for non-unionised people, labour protection laws in Germany are completely incomparable to the US: 1. Mandatory notice periods (3 months is customary, mimumum 1 month) 2. "Social selection", i.e. you're not allowed to lay off a pregnant person etc. unless you have demonstrated that there were no other people you could have let go instead 3. There needs to be cause. Downsizing can still mean you get laid off, but you can't just fire a team or an individual because you don't like them etc. Of course, if you left a company because you didn't agree to their rules instead of being laid off, none of these protections apply to you - why would they?
    - lnsru 3y ago
      Not completely true. It depends on company size. Big ones have always good lawyers for these times
      - Tainnor 3y ago
        The law is incredibly clear on these things, lawyers can't help you. The only thing they can do is confuse people who don't actually know the law and their legal rights - that does sometimes happen, but I'd say a small company is just as likely to do so.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      Yeah, employees are kinda unfirable which has good sides and bad sides. People don't have to worry about their existencr, but that also means you don't need to do more than the bare minimum. Which many do, and in some way it's a comfortable lifestyle. OTOH you won't find any German companies paying close to what Netflix pays.
Findeton 3y ago
Unless employees save up money, then you are always prepared.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  Still harms the employee. Preparation isn’t free, and even if you’re prepared, you’re still harmed. This isn’t some moral lesson on independence and discipline. Companies don’t need any single employee as much as that employee needs their job.
  - Findeton 3y ago
    You think you are harmed but if you recognized the alternative you wouldn’t be saying that. Countries with higher protections for employees have WAY lower salaries for everyone.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      What if I told you salaries could go up if shareholder profits and management pay packages went down? You're operating from the idea that people with outsized pay packages are exceptional, when more often then not, they are lucky people benefiting from a dysfunctional system. Certainly, skill is involved, but you are weighing it too much from an outcome perspective. I am a lucky person, but I see it for what it is, not that I am special or exceptional. A lottery ticket is not something you can base broad policy on, most especially considering the aggregate harm being incurred. If you are not interested in a union, that is fine, it only takes a majority to win a union and 30% to hold a vote. Do you think 51% are making outsized comp and vote no? I'm interested to find out too as someone very curious. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-right-to-form-a-union https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-americans-support-unions https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-a... https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-education-and-ideological-divides-behind-gen-zs-union-movement/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-...
ycdxvjp 3y ago
Tech that works over time is supposed to reduce the Price of a good or service. Tech workers and their lifestyles are not sustainable if the Tech actually does that.
pizzafeelsright 3y ago
I think the power balance is fine compared to what once was or even could be. Do you give Netflix 180 days notice or additional payments when you quit their service? I am a W2/FTE and I have a job that I can leave with zero notice or consequence. If I was to get laid off I would imagine I would get some type of severance - even if only two weeks as that would be more than agreed upon. There is no whip if I fail. No debt incurred if I fail to deliver on my "promises". I could definitely harm my employer with substantial consequences and I think the worst they could do is report my activities to the authorities.

lukev 3y ago

Unless employees unionize.

withinboredom 3y ago
Exactly. Unions exist for exactly this purpose and have legal powers no employee will ever have.
happytoexplain 3y ago
Yes, though it really only helps so much with the broader problem.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  It's the main building block of any broader solution. You need to have large, pro-worker organizations in play in order to fight for large scale change, whether that's in a figurative sense in the courts and legislature, or in a literal sense, in the streets of Krakow or Barcelona.
jessehorne 3y ago
Let's do it. My contact information is in my description.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  https://code-cwa.org/ https://code-cwa.org/ https://code-cwa.org/organize https://code-cwa.org/organize
outworlder 3y ago
There's been a lot of effort to demonize unions. Many employees won't even try because they think "unions are bad" without ever been in one.
itsoktocry 3y ago
Everyone loves unions during layoffs. But when times are flush they don't want their bonus hindered or to "protect bad apples" or "lazy workers". Being in a union involves give and take.
- vasco 3y ago
  I was curious so I went to see what is there in terms of data and found: 1. "Firms and Layoffs: The Impact of Unionization on Involuntary Job Loss" - (2003 with data from 1997) https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/03-09.html > Results show that the impact of unionization is not significant except for (1) establishments that operate in the non-manufacturing sector; and (2) establishments operating in industries that have major collective bargaining agreements which contain moderate employment security provisions. Under those conditions, unionization decreases layoff rates; otherwise, unionization has no effect on layoff rates. Does anyone have anything more recent about this?
  - anamexis 3y ago
    Point number 2 in particular strikes me as circular - unions did not impact layoff rates except in industries where the unions protected against layoffs.
- lukewrites 3y ago
  This understanding of unions is as common as it is wrong. A union allows workers to negotiate contracts, meaning workers can have a say in how performance is assessed and how things like bonuses are handed out. I am in a non-union workspace. There's no transparency on how bonuses or stock refreshers are handed out. A union contract could codify it. The owner class wants workers to think unions will hurt our earnings because when workers are structurally unable to shape company policy the bosses can do whatever they want...and what they want is to maximize profits. (Like Elon Musk said: You don't need a union, I'll put in an soft serve machine for you.)
lnsru 3y ago
I can repeat as long as one needs. I work in Germany. Every big company is unionized. And guess what!? Bosses told, that 20% of the company will be laid off and it was ok for all union members. Packages were offered in few rounds. Home office forbidden. I didn’t got package, I left for a company with liberal home office ruling. Unions are beautiful cosmetics. When layoff happens it happens just like that.
- Tainnor 3y ago
  Even for non-unionised people, labour protection laws in Germany are completely incomparable to the US: 1. Mandatory notice periods (3 months is customary, mimumum 1 month) 2. "Social selection", i.e. you're not allowed to lay off a pregnant person etc. unless you have demonstrated that there were no other people you could have let go instead 3. There needs to be cause. Downsizing can still mean you get laid off, but you can't just fire a team or an individual because you don't like them etc. Of course, if you left a company because you didn't agree to their rules instead of being laid off, none of these protections apply to you - why would they?
  - lnsru 3y ago
    Not completely true. It depends on company size. Big ones have always good lawyers for these times
    - Tainnor 3y ago
      The law is incredibly clear on these things, lawyers can't help you. The only thing they can do is confuse people who don't actually know the law and their legal rights - that does sometimes happen, but I'd say a small company is just as likely to do so.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    Yeah, employees are kinda unfirable which has good sides and bad sides. People don't have to worry about their existencr, but that also means you don't need to do more than the bare minimum. Which many do, and in some way it's a comfortable lifestyle. OTOH you won't find any German companies paying close to what Netflix pays.

Findeton 3y ago

Unless employees save up money, then you are always prepared.

vineyardmike 3y ago
Still harms the employee. Preparation isn’t free, and even if you’re prepared, you’re still harmed. This isn’t some moral lesson on independence and discipline. Companies don’t need any single employee as much as that employee needs their job.
- Findeton 3y ago
  You think you are harmed but if you recognized the alternative you wouldn’t be saying that. Countries with higher protections for employees have WAY lower salaries for everyone.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    What if I told you salaries could go up if shareholder profits and management pay packages went down? You're operating from the idea that people with outsized pay packages are exceptional, when more often then not, they are lucky people benefiting from a dysfunctional system. Certainly, skill is involved, but you are weighing it too much from an outcome perspective. I am a lucky person, but I see it for what it is, not that I am special or exceptional. A lottery ticket is not something you can base broad policy on, most especially considering the aggregate harm being incurred. If you are not interested in a union, that is fine, it only takes a majority to win a union and 30% to hold a vote. Do you think 51% are making outsized comp and vote no? I'm interested to find out too as someone very curious. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-right-to-form-a-union https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/conduct-elections https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-americans-support-unions https://newrepublic.com/post/175274/gallup-poll-two-thirds-a... https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-education-and-ideological-divides-behind-gen-zs-union-movement/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-closing-gender-...

ycdxvjp 3y ago

Tech that works over time is supposed to reduce the Price of a good or service. Tech workers and their lifestyles are not sustainable if the Tech actually does that.

pizzafeelsright 3y ago

I think the power balance is fine compared to what once was or even could be. Do you give Netflix 180 days notice or additional payments when you quit their service? I am a W2/FTE and I have a job that I can leave with zero notice or consequence. If I was to get laid off I would imagine I would get some type of severance - even if only two weeks as that would be more than agreed upon. There is no whip if I fail. No debt incurred if I fail to deliver on my "promises". I could definitely harm my employer with substantial consequences and I think the worst they could do is report my activities to the authorities.