Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Linus "spoke out" against unionizing by saying that he couldn't legally do anything to stand in the way of his employees unionizing and wouldn't want to stand in their way if they ever decided to. But he wants to make a workplace where people don't feel the need to and if they did then he would see it as a personal failure.
There's plenty to criticize Linus for right now, but I don't think that his "anti-union" stance is one of them
Edit: in the context of these allegations, then yes, his employees certainly should unionize if the actual criminal crimes in this thread are even partially true. And if that happens then I will be singing Solidarity Forever for the LMG employees, but until that happens and we see how Linus responds to that this is just not a good read on Linus' stance towards unions.
Edit2: it feels weird to have posted what could be seen as a defense of Linus under this particular post. I'm not a Linus Stan, Just a union advocate that wants criticism to be levied where it's actually called for and this doesn't seem like it is
I'm not saying he meant anti-union by that line, but that's classic anti-union line saying my employees don't need unions.
Very much in line of "unions means less money for you" statement.
Yeah the whole "I love unions, but we at this company are a family so we don't need that", is peak anti-union talk. Throughout history it's been used by people who are horrible to their employees.
Exactly. If I was really concerned about my employees etc. I would want them to have a union with power that could match mine to argue their needs and concerns. If he had a union a lot of these problems and mistakes that he's having likely wouldn't have occurred.
True. If he said that line in response to a statement about wages. I can't say that I exactly remember the context in which he made that statement, but I believe that it (ironically, given this post) had more to do with workplace culture than wages.
It's not unusual for several people to have the same rational thought process. That's why it's "classic".
An genuine employer who isn't against unions and has their employees wellbeing as a top priority should encourage the employees to unionize.
Fair point, well made. I would love to live in a world like this one day
If I ever start a corporation and if for some reason it isn't a workers co-op, I will make the employees unionize. I see little reason other than absolute profit maximization to not treat your employees as a great asset, assuming they're doing reasonably well. But I'm a dirty socialist so..
Dirty? Nah, you're fresh as hell, comrade. Workers co-ops are great
I guess I have my own special version of pessimism where if I see an employer not actively hiring Pinkertons I think if it add a little w for workers these days
I'm not convinced.
I have two uncles who worked for the same company, in different departments but in similar roles. Both were engineers, one was a CAE, and the other an ME. The CAE was not part of a union, and the ME was. They had a comparable lifestyle, so I assume they made a comparable salary (they live about a mile from each other, in a similarly sized house, drive similar cars, take similar amounts of vacations, etc).
Here's the work history of my unionized uncle:
And here's the work history of my non-unionized uncle:
This is obviously a very small sample, so it's hardly enough evidence to say whether unions are a net positive or net negative. So whether a union is better for you depends on a lot of factors, such as:
But one thing that should be universally true is that openly anti-union employers should be avoided.
That wasn't quite the point. What would be a good reason for a well meaning, rocking employer to not encourage unionization?
Lots of reasons:
An awesome employer shouldn't discourage unionization, and ideally they'd encourage attempts to unionize, but they wouldn't recommend unionization, assuming the employer intended to maintain control and monitor managers throughout the chain. If the employer can provide all of the benefits employees would get through unionization, unionizing merely adds extra BS that employees and employers need to deal with.
Alright, so let's take a look.
No escaping this one.
What does the employer have to go through the union for?
If the employer is rocking, why would union members vote to strike?
This doesn't feel right but I can't quite put my finger on why so I'll reserve judgement for now. 😄
I can see the extra layer of overhead in the case when everything is perfect, but given the incentives in traditional for-profit corporations I can't see that case ever being realistic. In addition, even if a company is perfect today, the way corporations are structured makes it incredibly easy for that to change especially if there's no worker-controlled counterbalance to such change. So just on the basis of that, if I'm an awesome, perfect employer, and I presumably want this to go on, because that really is part of being awesome, I should want to create this counterbalance against change for the worse. Assuming a for-profit, not-a-co-op corporation that is. It looks to me like this overhead is the price of preserving this perfect environment over the long term. Doesn't that make sense?
Benefits, and depending on the union's rules, salary adjustments. Some unions also require informing them of schedule changes.
The reverse is also true, employees may need to go through the union depending on the union's rules.
Idk, perhaps communication issues w/ management? Over-zealous union leadership?
The point is, the employee isn't empowered here, they're subject to whatever the union agrees to do.
My uncle went through multiple strikes, few (if any) he actually agreed with, but had to deal with being out of work. He wished he wasn't union so he could just continue working.
Sure, which is why it absolutely depends on the type of organization. Something owner-operated has a much lower risk of unexpected awful changes than something publicly traded.
A lot of owner-operated businesses don't intend to sell to someone else, the owner will just shut it down when they're done operating it. So "long term" in this sense is until the owner retires. And if they do intend to sell, they could at that point encourage the employees to make any employment adjustments needed.
Lol, sounds like what someone with a reputation to uphold would say if he hated the idea of his workers unionizing.
It's manipulative doublespeak meant to discourage unionization.
The employer is by nature profit-seeking and all communication must be viewed through this lens.