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
in one of the WAN shows he went on a big handwringing tirade about how "unions means I'm a failure as an employer" with undertones of "You wouldnt want to make me a failure by unionizing, right?"
Okay. So I'm not missing something. I guess I heard him say that it "would be a personal failure for him as an employer" as him taking personal responsibility for his employees' treatment. A charitable interpretation, but just a difference of opinion.
I can see how people can interpret what he says as soft anti-union, it's just weird to see you and others say things like this as if he's sober sort of Robber Baron.
Edit: I'm not going to double down. This was a blind spot for me, maybe because my union is already established and fairly strong, but I'll hold this L and learn from it
Employers by nature seek profit above all.
Unions by nature seek improved wages and conditions for the employees above all.
Since the positions are diametrically opposed, we must evaluate all employer speech concerning unionization through this lens.
What I see is an employer trying to keep his reputation use deceptive doublespeak to discourage unionization among his employees.
That's may be true for publicly traded companies, but for privately owned companies, that's not necessarily true, especially owner-operated businesses like LMG (I know he hired a CEO, but Linus seems to be very involved still). Profit is certainly a concern, and it needs to be a concern for the long-term viability of the company, but employers can be driven by something else. For example:
LMG could absolutely fit that mold. He seems to still have a passion for the tech first, though he has been shilling his merch a lot harder over the last couple years, so maybe his mindset is changing.
My point is that companies don't necessarily seek profit above all else, but they do need to seek profit at some level to maintain the long-term viability of the company. That said, most companies do seek profit above all else, and you should absolutely have that be your default assumption, but leave room for owner-operated shops to actually care about their products and customers above profit.
Again, I disagree. Maybe unions start that way, but they operate like any other political entity where they largely want employees to keep paying the union dues, and the union management likely wants to increase their own salaries. So their focus is on doing something so they can convince members to increase their dues, and that something doesn't necessarily have to be in the best interests of the members, it only needs to be convincing enough that people will agree to the dues increase.
That said, unions are probably more likely to seek improved conditions for their employees than an employer, just make sure your union leadership is good so you don't get screwed over by nonsense. Some unions operate more like HOAs, where it's more of a power trip than an actual mutually-beneficial relationship.
I see the same, but that's because when in doubt, I prefer to side with the weaker party. I still want to see more facts emerge before I start urging others to avoid LMG, I'm not going through that effort on a hunch.
You are a union man? Go speak with your fellow union people who work with negotiations and forming chapters and ask them what it means when a company says "we are pro unions but we feel it isn't a good fit for us and we would have failed as a company if our employees would feel like they would need one".
Hint: it's something like "get the fuck out with the union shit, I'll fire y'all"
Fair enough. I'm not going to double down. This was a blind spot for me, maybe because my union is already established and fairly strong, but I'll hold this L and learn from it
I would just like to give props to you for owning up and listening to the information. I do not in any way think that you were wrong in your reasoning, just that there was more context that is likely relevant which you hadn't been privy to, and once you were informed of it you reevaluated. Not everyone does that and I think a very valuable part of this community is when people do that (I know I'm not always particularly good at it myself).
Yeah, for me, a company having a union shouldn't really have much of an effect if they are actually treating their employees well.
What wage discrepancies would there be to negotiate? Why would there be any arguing over allotted sick time? Why would an employee have a grievance against a company that they would need legal support for?
A company that truly wants to treat it's employees well should already be on board with all of that stuff. In fact, I'd almost even argue that they should want a union.
Definitely charitable. My interpretation of his statement is that his idea of failure is unions because his idea of success is screwing over his employees.
Nah, don't take an L. Some people who say that genuinely mean it, and I think an owner-operator business like LTT might fit the bill for someone who does actually mean it.
That said, it's the same weasel-language that many corporations use that are actually anti-union and would be willing to squash a union if people started to unionize. I see some of that at my place of work (I'm not in a union, no talk of a union), but again, I know my immediate leadership to know that their heart is in the right place, but that they could be forced to do something they don't like from higher-ups (e.g. we are going from 2-days in-office to 3-days in-office due to higher-ups, we'll see if my boss actually campaigns for going back to 2-days in-office once the initial fervor dies down).
Yeah I remember listening to that WAN show, double speak for sure.
Yep, he got caught with his manipulative word play this time by GN, but it also gives context for everything he's said in the past and puts new light on them, because this isnt something people just wake up and decide to do one day. Its something they do their entire life.
Why would "you wouldn't want to make me a failure by unionizing" convince anyone not to unionize? You think poorly treated employees give a shit about their boss' feelings? Put down the armchair psychology textbook and listen to the guy, he flat out says he supports unions and workers' right to organize against antagonistic leadership.
he said he supported unions, but doesnt want a union at his business.
he said we should call out bad companies, until its his company thats being called out.
Says he cares about employees, but ignores sexual harassment, abuse, and overworks them beyond capacity.
He says a lot of shit, until hes on the receiving end of it.
Are you dense? He doesn't want a union because in his mind, correctly, it would mean he's a terrible person. Not every workplace needs a union.
He types all this out, but has the audacity to call me the dense one.
I swear to god, these linus fart huffers..