Hacker News Reader

Comment by segmondy | Hacker News Reader

Give me a break, some people are pro union, companies are not. pro union folks campaign to get folks to join, companies campaign to stop that. Delta didn't say anything along the line of if you join you will loose your job or some subtle threat. They said spending $700 on video game sounds more fun than union dues. I personally think it's funny. If anyone is going to be swayed by that, then that person probably shouldn't join a union or can just as easily be swayed by a union with something silly and more catchy than Delta's campaign.

View on HN

People shouldn't be swayed by that, and in my opinion, Delta shouldn't put it out there, either. Delta is in a much stronger position than most of its employees.

The fact Delta makes an appeal on that level is disappointing to me.

There's a common sentiment that fools should be taken as such. I don't subscribe to it, for the most part. I think that's brutish business.

Not that it excuses Delta's terrible behavior but other companies also put out anti-union propaganda [1] [2] [3] and it's also terrible behavior.

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/how-wal...

2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2018/09/27/amazons-...

3: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/target-anti...

Comments like this make me wonder what the economic philosophies of the average HN commenter is. I see a lot of things that seem pretty pro-capitalist, neo-liberal, etcetera. But I've always viewed the bulk of who's visiting and viewing to be mostly working, middle, or upper middle class. There's remarkably few people who benefit from the no-union position (even if Delta's messaging was legal). Of course your company is going to protect its own interests, but I'm surprised how frequently I see pro-employer comments at the top, rather than pro-worker.

Personally, I dis-like Delta's messaging because it equates one of the last vestiges we have of worker's rights -- the union -- to a video game console. It's absolutely insulting to the worker, to suggest the people that work for you are dumb enough to believe that argument. It's fine for the employer to have an opinion on unions, but this is tasteless.

A lot of people on HN are entrepreneurial, and have started their own businesses or have worked at a small one and understand the perspective of management. I do not want employees, no matter how low level, to view their employers antagonistically. Unions foster a sense of antagonism and inflexibility, which makes hard but necessary decisions more difficult. Ultimately it will kill the business, which helps no one.

Do unions practically matter to entrepreneurs? You'd might be better served worrying about whether your business will crash and burn (as most do in the first N years).

Once you have a thousand people, then really think of the implications of unions. To have a dozen people and worrying about your totally-gonna-happen-exponential-growth and the consequential unionization seems like a short-sighted use of limited hours you have in ensuring your startup's success.

I’m saying you get an appreciation for management. You can steal the golden goose’s eggs for only so long, which is part of the reason why Delta acquired the unionized company in the first place - it was weak.

--> "I do not want employees, no matter how low level, to view their employers antagonistically"

The problem is, at its core, the employer-employee relationship is a type of exploitation. Exploitation of any kind generally does not come without antagonism.

If you find it exploitative, try living without an employer, hustling for every customer. You'll learn how much of a service employers provide by providing a steady paycheck just for showing up.

Politically, spaces full of techies have traditionally been an uneasy truce between progressivism (as you'd expect from high-income, high-education white-collar professionals) and libertarianism (from the entrepreneurial and anti-authoritarian segment of the population), with both sides represented in roughly equal numbers. About 80% of the time, these two sides see eye-to-eye, so places like HN can seem more monolithic in opinion than they actually are.

IMHO the "average HN commenter" is more likely to not just straightforwardly share in the popular consensus. One doesn't have to be anti-union to write the comment you're responding to - aggressively pro-union with an attitude of "let them try, we'll do it in spite of them" gets to the same place, even if it's a bit naive.

It is definitely Orwellian to be continually subjected to messages directly contrary to your self-interest/well-being. But unfortunately this is the same setup we see across all of wider society - whenever someone stands to make a buck through some psychological failing of yours, they buy advertising to induce that. Philosophically, why would union membership be any different?

It's the generally condescending tone of the posters that people are reacting to most strongly, I would imagine.

You're implying that unions and companies have equal power over the employees, when this is pretty obviously not the case.

Selling out a citizen's responsibility to engage in government in exchange for a bit of cash has a sordid history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine

Makes a lot of sense. I don't understand why you're being downvoted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com