So, we're currently voting on a union contract at my work. It is a kind of terrible, but not too bad contract. It gives way too little (raises are just under inflation). But Cuomo refuses to fund higher education in NY, so there is no money for anything better. People are threatening to vote against the contract, but I'm wondering if it's just the louder voices that are against it while the majority are just quiet and vote for it. Guess we'll see when voting wraps up.
The question is "how many angry parents does it take to make him break" isn't it?
It's CUNY, so colleges. And more non-traditional/ first gen students, so.. who knows. Adjuncts are getting a really raw deal, though.
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
So, we're currently voting on a union contract at my work. It is a kind of terrible, but not too bad contract. It gives way too little (raises are just under inflation). But Cuomo refuses to fund higher education in NY, so there is no money for anything better. People are threatening to vote against the contract, but I'm wondering if it's just the louder voices that are against it while the majority are just quiet and vote for it. Guess we'll see when voting wraps up.
The question is "how many angry parents does it take to make him break" isn't it?
It's CUNY, so colleges. And more non-traditional/ first gen students, so.. who knows. Adjuncts are getting a really raw deal, though.
From what I understand that's just adjuncts in general. I have a friend with a genetics PhD who is looking for the exit because of trends in college employment. Which is a shame because he's a good teacher but I suspect he'd like to someday own a house or something like that.
Maybe now libertarian techbros will realize they're no more secure than home healthcare workers.
And in unsurprising follow-up, Google has fired four employees involved in organizing recent employee action, trying to dump it in the Thanksgiving week news void.
My understanding is that some types of interfering in unionizing efforts can lead to an automatic union vote if it can be proven.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
There are rules about when you can conduct/discuss union business at work. You need to keep that stuff off the clock and super low key if it comes up at a break or lunch.
It can be difficult to get people to keep from getting worked up about organizing. The enthusiasm is fantastic but if it interrupts work you can face discipline just like anything else. If you're trying to organize and it's known, it's really easy to be put under a microscope.
Ah so that is why they bring in a specalized firm to handle it. Makes sense.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Somehow the idea that people can't or shouldn't talk about unionizing on work time because it "interrupts work" gets less than no sympathy from me.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Somehow the idea that people can't or shouldn't talk about unionizing on work time because it "interrupts work" gets less than no sympathy from me.
If people are standing around talking about the latest episode of Game of Thrones instead of doing their job or arguing about politics and taking too long on breaks it's the same deal. The difference is in the incentive the employer has in discouraging the discussion. As a practical matter it's best done off the clock and with discretion until you can get a vote.
Yeah, you should be able to do whatever you want on a break. There's no real reason talking about a union while still performing whatever task you have should be actionable but this is still the United States and labor just isn't that strong. In many work environments managers are encouraged to have some disciplinary action documented for every employee, no matter how insignificant just so they can threaten termination and avoid giving a raise. Google doing what they're doing should only be a surprise to people who were naive enough to think big tech was somehow not a standard business.
If you are thinking of organizing, do it outside of work and keep your head down. That's all I'm saying.
So, we're currently voting on a union contract at my work. It is a kind of terrible, but not too bad contract. It gives way too little (raises are just under inflation). But Cuomo refuses to fund higher education in NY, so there is no money for anything better. People are threatening to vote against the contract, but I'm wondering if it's just the louder voices that are against it while the majority are just quiet and vote for it. Guess we'll see when voting wraps up.
The question is "how many angry parents does it take to make him break" isn't it?
It's CUNY, so colleges. And more non-traditional/ first gen students, so.. who knows. Adjuncts are getting a really raw deal, though.
From what I understand that's just adjuncts in general. I have a friend with a genetics PhD who is looking for the exit because of trends in college employment. Which is a shame because he's a good teacher but I suspect he'd like to someday own a house or something like that.
Yup, and adjuncts make up the majority of the college teaching workforce, so educators in general are getting shitted on. I could teach 11 classes a year and not take home 30k. To put it into perspective, most "full time" professors complain when they get a 3/2 workload, i.e. 5 classes a year. This is pretty normal if you want to survive as an adjunct and I'm glad I'm finally on my way out in January.
On the other, the Google union organizers were harvesting proprietary data and leaking it to the press because Google previously made work info very open to anyone. So they were shipping trade secrets to the press on work time with almost no control.
And then there's the whole Google employees being some of the most highly compensated in tech with extremely low involuntary separation. Making unionization still important, but not a dire situation.
It seems like a both sides the asshole moment, and it looks real bad for Google but I'm honestly not surprised based on what I'm reading that those four got fired.
On the other, the Google union organizers were harvesting proprietary data and leaking it to the press because Google previously made work info very open to anyone. So they were shipping trade secrets to the press on work time with almost no control.
And then there's the whole Google employees being some of the most highly compensated in tech with extremely low involuntary separation. Making unionization still important, but not a dire situation.
It seems like a both sides the asshole moment, and it looks real bad for Google but I'm honestly not surprised based on what I'm reading that those four got fired.
Heh the irony though
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
On the other, the Google union organizers were harvesting proprietary data and leaking it to the press because Google previously made work info very open to anyone. So they were shipping trade secrets to the press on work time with almost no control.
And then there's the whole Google employees being some of the most highly compensated in tech with extremely low involuntary separation. Making unionization still important, but not a dire situation.
It seems like a both sides the asshole moment, and it looks real bad for Google but I'm honestly not surprised based on what I'm reading that those four got fired.
Uh, let's remember that Google was one of the many members of the Silicon Valley "don't poach other people's employees" cartel that was suppressing these people's wages for years. These people likely got fucked by their employer just like everyone else.
On the other, the Google union organizers were harvesting proprietary data and leaking it to the press because Google previously made work info very open to anyone. So they were shipping trade secrets to the press on work time with almost no control.
And then there's the whole Google employees being some of the most highly compensated in tech with extremely low involuntary separation. Making unionization still important, but not a dire situation.
It seems like a both sides the asshole moment, and it looks real bad for Google but I'm honestly not surprised based on what I'm reading that those four got fired.
The bolded second paragraph is very very not proven, just FYI.
On the other, the Google union organizers were harvesting proprietary data and leaking it to the press because Google previously made work info very open to anyone. So they were shipping trade secrets to the press on work time with almost no control.
And then there's the whole Google employees being some of the most highly compensated in tech with extremely low involuntary separation. Making unionization still important, but not a dire situation.
It seems like a both sides the asshole moment, and it looks real bad for Google but I'm honestly not surprised based on what I'm reading that those four got fired.
Uh, let's remember that Google was one of the many members of the Silicon Valley "don't poach other people's employees" cartel that was suppressing these people's wages for years. These people likely got fucked by their employer just like everyone else.
They weren't just a member, but one of the founders.
In addition, these people had been organizing over the culture of sexual harassment at Google, where the company routinely covered up the abuses of executives.
There are rules about when you can conduct/discuss union business at work. You need to keep that stuff off the clock and super low key if it comes up at a break or lunch.
It can be difficult to get people to keep from getting worked up about organizing. The enthusiasm is fantastic but if it interrupts work you can face discipline just like anything else. If you're trying to organize and it's known, it's really easy to be put under a microscope.
Which seems like bullshit, since management can do all their stuff on company time. It'll probably never happen, but there should probably be an hour or so a week guaranteed paid (not from other break time) for any worker to discuss/handle union level type activities.
There are rules about when you can conduct/discuss union business at work. You need to keep that stuff off the clock and super low key if it comes up at a break or lunch.
It can be difficult to get people to keep from getting worked up about organizing. The enthusiasm is fantastic but if it interrupts work you can face discipline just like anything else. If you're trying to organize and it's known, it's really easy to be put under a microscope.
Which seems like bullshit, since management can do all their stuff on company time. It'll probably never happen, but there should probably be an hour or so a week guaranteed paid (not from other break time) for any worker to discuss/handle union level type activities.
There actually is steward time generally and if there are any disciplinary or contract related events then it's nearly always required that representation is made aware and can be present while on the clock.
The issue is that people get very worked up and talking about a union can result in one huge complainathon that has people standing around and talking about how shitty management or the union is. It's a lot like watching a live-action version of the YouTube comments section.
I've been going to union staffing meetings for 4 months twice a week to resolve some safe staffing issues. Every single meeting someone decides to just rant about completely off topic subjects because that's what angry people do. If it were happening during the workday while on the surgical floor I'd definitely want them disciplined and I'm pro-union. Does some patient rolling into an operating room really need to overhear that at the charge desk as they roll by? People get loud.
Yeah, asking someone to come to a meeting or reminding them to vote on a contract issue or something shouldn't be a big deal and usually isn't. Some topics definitely aren't mid-workday appropriate though.
This is all after you have a Union. The hard part is getting to that point. Until then it really is important to be discreet. Busting a union is hard, preventing one from ever being established is much easier.
Edit: For some reason all posts seem like quadruple spaced now when I use my phone to make them.
dispatch.o on
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I just realized I forgot to mention what happened in regards to the blockaded coal train in Kentucky, where miners who had been stiffed a month's pay when the company went bankrupt blocked the last coal train (with over a million dollars worth of coal loaded) until they got their pay.
I especially like the "dues are for the gym" one, because when I was working in a union shop I got gym membership ridiculously cheap. Back before Unions were de-empowered, unions ran their own free-to-members gyms.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+17
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Google has been trying to stomp out unionization, as we know, but since no one deigns pay attention to the help, the cafeteria workers did so successfully. About 2300 contractors working at the cafeterias at the various Google campuses have unionized, siting being overworked and underpaid, especially in the ridiculous Silicon Valley housing market.
The union that these contractors joined is the same one that a number of Facebook food service workers joined, and they successfully negotiated for a pay raise and health benefits. Good for them.
+44
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
In union busting news at cable network news, CNN got slapped with a significant fine for illegal union-busting activity. Turns out that no, actually, you can't fire your unionized contractors because they're unionized simply because you don't want to pay union-level wages to them.
In retrospect it would have been cheaper to simply pay them union rates when they asked for it instead of firing them and paying a bunch of lawyers to argue that NUH UH IT'S TOTALLY FINE. Dumbasses.
+7
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Ah, but in the long run, having legal precedent that you're able to fire people for being in a union would save them more money than the legal fees cost.
They also probably have attorneys on staff or retainer for handling these sorts of things (employee disputes, not necessarily union busting) and that money is basically already spent so might as well use it.
Ah, but in the long run, having legal precedent that you're able to fire people for being in a union would save them more money than the legal fees cost.
They would never get a ruling that it's okay to fire unionized employees because they're unionized. If it can't happen under Trump, it can't happen under the worst of any following barely legitimate administration.
So all they had to do was delete the tweets? Man, I wish our labor laws had more teeth.
It's not enough, but it's a little more than just the tweets.
Barstool Sports, Inc.—owned by investment firm the Chernin Group—didn’t admit fault for violating the National Labor Relations Act as part of the settlement, but it will notify employees of their right to unionize by email and physical postings. Notices of federal labor rights will be displayed for at least 60 days in Barstool Sports’ New York headquarters and its satellite offices in Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Watertown, Mass.
It's also nonsense that they don't have to admit fault, but Portnoy having to do this after his bullshit is about as good as we're gonna get at the moment.
So all they had to do was delete the tweets? Man, I wish our labor laws had more teeth.
It's not enough, but it's a little more than just the tweets.
Barstool Sports, Inc.—owned by investment firm the Chernin Group—didn’t admit fault for violating the National Labor Relations Act as part of the settlement, but it will notify employees of their right to unionize by email and physical postings. Notices of federal labor rights will be displayed for at least 60 days in Barstool Sports’ New York headquarters and its satellite offices in Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Watertown, Mass.
It's also nonsense that they don't have to admit fault, but Portnoy having to do this after his bullshit is about as good as we're gonna get at the moment.
I didn't realize that wasn't required. We have to have those displayed at my job. Things are worse than I thought
+1
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Yeah, apparently(?) not being able to leverage fines for breaking the law is pretty demoralizing
Is there a sense in which continued movement in this direction could largely obviate the existence of unions? It seems to me that if we had a co-op economy it would necessarily remove the antagonistic relationship between workers and owners (since the workers are the owners), and hence there would be no need to maintain the bureaucracy of worker organization separate from the workplace itself. It would be private ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves.
That's pretty awful shit but it's emails / tweets from the internet. Those people exist and Bernie should be standing with 226 simply because the behavior is unacceptable. I don't think fanatic tweeters represent general attitudes of Sanders supporters but it's still not a great look for the candidate to leave it unaddressed.
That's pretty awful shit but it's emails / tweets from the internet. Those people exist and Bernie should be standing with 226 simply because the behavior is unacceptable. I don't think fanatic tweeters represent general attitudes of Sanders supporters but it's still not a great look for the candidate to leave it unaddressed.
Sanders already said people should knock it off. There's also a letter/petition/whatever going around from Culinary226 rank and file expressing support for M4A. Tl;dr: labor stuff is messy by nature.
I kind of really hate "it is just from the internet" hen it comes to threats. Even threats you don't think will be acted on can be extremely damaging to you.
Arguello-Kline, asked whether there is more Sanders should have done to condemn the attacks, was indirect in her criticism.
“We respect Senator Sanders a lot. We do. We know he’s always been great with the labor and everything. But I think in situations like this he knows what’s going on in this country and he knows this is very dangerous,” Arguello-Kline said.
As far as Sanders’ decision to wait more than 24 hours to respond after the Culinary Union publicized the “vicious attacks” it was facing, she said that “sooner would’ve been better — less damage.” Khan did, however, note that after Sanders’ weighed in on the attacks that it seemed like the tweets the union was receiving started getting more civil and some old tweets had been deleted.
The two Culinary leaders say that the backlash won’t inhibit their get out the vote efforts but that it has taken a mental and emotional toll on them. Khan said that she has received calls from people telling her that she is “a fucking whore,” a “bitch,” and “an ignorant dumb fuck.”
“It derailed a 24-hour work day for me where I had to go home at 2 a.m. and then start working because I was constantly being called, being emailed, I couldn’t keep up on social media I would just get mentions and try to figure out what was happening,” Khan said. “And it’s disappointing when it’s supposed to be people who are on our side.”
Arguello-Kline said her personal information was shared online, causing her kids to fear for her safety. The Nevada Independent reviewed a thread where Redditors appeared to confirm that Arguello-Kline’s personal information had been shared, but was unable to find the exact instance of where it had been posted.
It's less that it's no threat, it's more that you can't control a certain population group so you have to go beyond and defend the attacked to excise them (the attackers) from the community.
I knew Sanders had told followers to knock it off. I was unaware of a petition. A blog post or tweet with no comment from Sanders' folks is kind of sensational non journalism that is intentionally oblivious to the way internet fuckwads work.
Is there a sense in which continued movement in this direction could largely obviate the existence of unions? It seems to me that if we had a co-op economy it would necessarily remove the antagonistic relationship between workers and owners (since the workers are the owners), and hence there would be no need to maintain the bureaucracy of worker organization separate from the workplace itself. It would be private ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves.
Germany has that now and the UK was toying with the idea before we realised we'd brought ourselves a first class ticket to Crazytown.
Europe is slightly different in that it generally has more direct ties between Labour Unions and the Parties, and also coalition governments, so you end up with Labour still often having a direct role in determining government policy (and therefore being attractive to workers) whilst also meaning those unions tend to be a bit more organised and better able to negotiate.
So the guys who are interacting with management to get you additional perks, are also a political organisation fighting to keep basic rights or make some of those perks the new standard.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
This is not going to become the new Primaries thread, so we're clear.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+3
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Posts
It's CUNY, so colleges. And more non-traditional/ first gen students, so.. who knows. Adjuncts are getting a really raw deal, though.
From what I understand that's just adjuncts in general. I have a friend with a genetics PhD who is looking for the exit because of trends in college employment. Which is a shame because he's a good teacher but I suspect he'd like to someday own a house or something like that.
And in unsurprising follow-up, Google has fired four employees involved in organizing recent employee action, trying to dump it in the Thanksgiving week news void.
There are rules about when you can conduct/discuss union business at work. You need to keep that stuff off the clock and super low key if it comes up at a break or lunch.
It can be difficult to get people to keep from getting worked up about organizing. The enthusiasm is fantastic but if it interrupts work you can face discipline just like anything else. If you're trying to organize and it's known, it's really easy to be put under a microscope.
If people are standing around talking about the latest episode of Game of Thrones instead of doing their job or arguing about politics and taking too long on breaks it's the same deal. The difference is in the incentive the employer has in discouraging the discussion. As a practical matter it's best done off the clock and with discretion until you can get a vote.
Yeah, you should be able to do whatever you want on a break. There's no real reason talking about a union while still performing whatever task you have should be actionable but this is still the United States and labor just isn't that strong. In many work environments managers are encouraged to have some disciplinary action documented for every employee, no matter how insignificant just so they can threaten termination and avoid giving a raise. Google doing what they're doing should only be a surprise to people who were naive enough to think big tech was somehow not a standard business.
If you are thinking of organizing, do it outside of work and keep your head down. That's all I'm saying.
Yup, and adjuncts make up the majority of the college teaching workforce, so educators in general are getting shitted on. I could teach 11 classes a year and not take home 30k. To put it into perspective, most "full time" professors complain when they get a 3/2 workload, i.e. 5 classes a year. This is pretty normal if you want to survive as an adjunct and I'm glad I'm finally on my way out in January.
On the other, the Google union organizers were harvesting proprietary data and leaking it to the press because Google previously made work info very open to anyone. So they were shipping trade secrets to the press on work time with almost no control.
And then there's the whole Google employees being some of the most highly compensated in tech with extremely low involuntary separation. Making unionization still important, but not a dire situation.
It seems like a both sides the asshole moment, and it looks real bad for Google but I'm honestly not surprised based on what I'm reading that those four got fired.
Heh the irony though
Uh, let's remember that Google was one of the many members of the Silicon Valley "don't poach other people's employees" cartel that was suppressing these people's wages for years. These people likely got fucked by their employer just like everyone else.
The bolded second paragraph is very very not proven, just FYI.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
They weren't just a member, but one of the founders.
In addition, these people had been organizing over the culture of sexual harassment at Google, where the company routinely covered up the abuses of executives.
Which seems like bullshit, since management can do all their stuff on company time. It'll probably never happen, but there should probably be an hour or so a week guaranteed paid (not from other break time) for any worker to discuss/handle union level type activities.
There actually is steward time generally and if there are any disciplinary or contract related events then it's nearly always required that representation is made aware and can be present while on the clock.
The issue is that people get very worked up and talking about a union can result in one huge complainathon that has people standing around and talking about how shitty management or the union is. It's a lot like watching a live-action version of the YouTube comments section.
I've been going to union staffing meetings for 4 months twice a week to resolve some safe staffing issues. Every single meeting someone decides to just rant about completely off topic subjects because that's what angry people do. If it were happening during the workday while on the surgical floor I'd definitely want them disciplined and I'm pro-union. Does some patient rolling into an operating room really need to overhear that at the charge desk as they roll by? People get loud.
Yeah, asking someone to come to a meeting or reminding them to vote on a contract issue or something shouldn't be a big deal and usually isn't. Some topics definitely aren't mid-workday appropriate though.
This is all after you have a Union. The hard part is getting to that point. Until then it really is important to be discreet. Busting a union is hard, preventing one from ever being established is much easier.
Edit: For some reason all posts seem like quadruple spaced now when I use my phone to make them.
It took a few months but they got their back pay.
I especially like the "dues are for the gym" one, because when I was working in a union shop I got gym membership ridiculously cheap. Back before Unions were de-empowered, unions ran their own free-to-members gyms.
The union that these contractors joined is the same one that a number of Facebook food service workers joined, and they successfully negotiated for a pay raise and health benefits. Good for them.
In retrospect it would have been cheaper to simply pay them union rates when they asked for it instead of firing them and paying a bunch of lawyers to argue that NUH UH IT'S TOTALLY FINE. Dumbasses.
They would never get a ruling that it's okay to fire unionized employees because they're unionized. If it can't happen under Trump, it can't happen under the worst of any following barely legitimate administration.
Full story from Bloomberg
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/barstool-sports-settles-with-labor-board-over-anti-union-tweets
So all they had to do was delete the tweets? Man, I wish our labor laws had more teeth.
It's not enough, but it's a little more than just the tweets.
It's also nonsense that they don't have to admit fault, but Portnoy having to do this after his bullshit is about as good as we're gonna get at the moment.
I didn't realize that wasn't required. We have to have those displayed at my job. Things are worse than I thought
Is there a sense in which continued movement in this direction could largely obviate the existence of unions? It seems to me that if we had a co-op economy it would necessarily remove the antagonistic relationship between workers and owners (since the workers are the owners), and hence there would be no need to maintain the bureaucracy of worker organization separate from the workplace itself. It would be private ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves.
This is utterly fucking unacceptable.
Sanders already said people should knock it off. There's also a letter/petition/whatever going around from Culinary226 rank and file expressing support for M4A. Tl;dr: labor stuff is messy by nature.
I knew Sanders had told followers to knock it off. I was unaware of a petition. A blog post or tweet with no comment from Sanders' folks is kind of sensational non journalism that is intentionally oblivious to the way internet fuckwads work.
Germany has that now and the UK was toying with the idea before we realised we'd brought ourselves a first class ticket to Crazytown.
Europe is slightly different in that it generally has more direct ties between Labour Unions and the Parties, and also coalition governments, so you end up with Labour still often having a direct role in determining government policy (and therefore being attractive to workers) whilst also meaning those unions tend to be a bit more organised and better able to negotiate.
So the guys who are interacting with management to get you additional perks, are also a political organisation fighting to keep basic rights or make some of those perks the new standard.