Grindr employees have 2 weeks: agree to move across the country+RTO or lose jobs
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
50/50 there are time-limit rules that make formally unionizing inside two weeks impossible.
[edit: from multiple law firms websites it sounds like you don't need a union to strike, but the process of striking is also not as simple as just not working. That's important, you can be fired/punished for not working, but not for striking, so if you are serious you should talk to an attorney (this is something your union would help you with if you had one)]
There is nothing to stop you and your colleagues from simply declining to log in until the company's attitude improves. They can threaten to fire you, but they were already playing that card, and they can't sail a ship if they kick all the sailors out.
Simply stopping work doesn't count, it sounds like you have to go through a formal process of notice, including collective demands, and an agreement to return to work following agreement or a good faith negotiated contract. Of course the benefit of unions is that they have experience in ensuring a strike is legal, and providing legal assistance - in some cases unions can provide financial support for strikers (otherwise you trivially get to a "I just hold out until they lose their homes/children starve" state where strikes are irrelevant)
From various legal firms it _sounds_ like you don't need a union to strike, but your strike still needs to be legal (there are illegal strikes).
Of course it goes without saying, but I am not a lawyer, and am just going from the NLRB site and various law firms websites (on both worker and employer sides).
Grindr is a US company, even if it weren't the employees in question are in the US, so subject to US employment law, which is what my comment revolves around.
The NLRB site explicitly states that striking is a legal action employees can take ('“Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike'[1], 'Employees at union and non-union workplaces have the right to help each other'[2])
The NLRB site explicitly states that firing an employee due to them striking is illegal ('You cannot be fired for participating in a protected strike or picketing, depending on the purposes and means of the strike action.'[3])
The NLRB site, and numerous law firms (on both sides) seem to say that you can't just "not work", there is some formal process.
If you want to go on strike you should talk to either an employment attorney, or your union if you're in one.
I am genuinely curious, if you're down voting my comment, I'd love to know why.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
[2] https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb
[3] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...
strikes are pretty effective, that's why the devil in the details isn't trying to go around a strike. It's to either rule a strike a illegal, or try and prevent a union from forming to begin with.
I see that statement as pretty much true... once you can establish the union. And I see it as a proper response to "well you don't need a union to strike". Of course no one can make you work if you stop going to work, and you can't be arrested for refusing to work unless you are military (AWOL) or very specific, specialized professions. But that misses the point of a union.
the idea behind a Union is that they can't retaliate agaisnt you once you formally announce a legal strike. It's a term written in a contract that the company agrees to. Breaking it is the same as any other contract breech, which should have enough sanctions to make it the worst option.
That's how congress ruled those railroad strikes as "illegal". When they do that you can still "technically" strike, but you're no longer being paid and/or are at risk of being fired. Maybe that still is an avenue to look into, but many cannot take that risk.
It seems like a "union busting" type of tactic, of the "get in early" kind. ;)
"The CWA has also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board as a result of the return to office order, arguing that it is retaliation against union organizing."
Even if they threaten firing people for participating in some sort of collective action, you were already going to get fired.
Though, I have no idea how unions work in the states. It sounds like they may be somehow barred from any collective action somehow?
full timeline here: https://twitter.com/GrindrUnited/status/1687803784251031552
Yeah I can’t even pay the mortgage with Florida’s unemployment. They like us poor and stupid. Meanwhile my homeowner’s insurance goes up each year even though my area hasn’t been hit by a hurricane. Fun fact, Jacksonville FL gets fewer direct strikes from hurricanes than New Jersey.
But on the other hand. I did save around $1000 a month by not having to pay state taxes…
Tech workers who think unemployment is going to be a savior or even a trickle in their budget if they are unemployed are going to be very disappointed
Two weeks to decide if they can move, with RTO work starting in October.
Still bad, but not terrible.
https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ckgch7tn6a09...
In fact, French labor law is quite archaic on remote work ("telework"), so it's odd that they you chose them, of all "progressive" countries, as your comparison point.
Additionally, those same engineers would, statistically, be earning ~33-50% (before tax) what they do now, if they were in France.
I always find it odd when people disfavorably compare STEM fields in NA to the EU; as they're the few fields the US/Canada are almost undoubtedly better to work in (there's exceptions, of course).
Employers just set the terms and conditions of how remote working is organised, within the framework of social dialogue (ie with employee representatives). The guidelines remind employers that they must ensure collective links are maintained within the company and prevent the risks linked to the isolation of employees working remotely.
There’s a difference between it’s no longer required to require remote and forced RTO.
To make it opaque for you: remote work provisions were required because French labor law defaults to employees not only being in the office, but that being the preferred status.
OP could have, instead, used a genuinely remote-friendly nation, like Norway or Sweden, if they knew what they were talking about. But they didn't, which is the point; instead posting an ignorant and biased kneejerk response.
> I made 22kUSD last year in Kiev. I think my colleague on same team in USA was making 65kUSD. Not SWE, just comparing numbers. I was also paid more than the average for my position/geography.
Which seems to reinforce my point, if anything? Since the rest has to do with France, specifically.
Maybe what looks archaic to you is that under French labor law, employees can’t be treated differently if they have the same type of contract. Meaning one individual can’t work two days from home and another three. Or one person can’t just have their travel expenses to and from the office payed, unless all employees with the same contract have that too.
I believe this is why they had to introduce the new contract for remote work. With this, their strong worker protections stay in tact while still allowing for more modern ways of working.
What is archaic is their bloody governmental control system. There is an inspector for every stupid thing you can imagine and it is an enormous waste if time and money.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
isn't that the case already?
>Grindr employees working from home were given 2 weeks to decide to move across the country to work in person or lose their jobs
>Grindr employees have 2 weeks to move across the country, RTO or lose their jobs
I'm not sure I see the difference. Has the HN title changed since your comment?
EDIT: Oh, I get it. They don't have to move right away, but they have to decide now and then move in October.
the pro/cons also depend a lot like the timelines for dismissal.
Great, they've been given the time to do it - if they decide to. It's still a tire fire placed in your lap
I'd find something new, absolutely no way I'd wear this leash
>In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
- “A Level of Fuck You”, John Goodman, The Gambler
[0]https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjv3gm/grindr-tells-unionizi...
Even with a subscription you constantly get nagged with micro transaction shit (e.g. put your profile in front of others for a short while on the distance based gris)
It's practically extortion considering a substantial chunk of the gay male population no longer go to bars to find dates anymore because of the apps to begin with. Another big tech bait & switch
Grindr has 273.
And apparently Tinder has 809.
How???
I imagine two devs could maintain the app. I've certainly managed more complex apps myself.
Perhaps the algorithm is infact incredible (I doubt it?) and requires a large team of data scientists, developers and sys admins.
There is of course people to deal with spam protection and abuse.
But then what? Is the rest all marketing and ads sales?
What about backend and database etc? it’s not that simple app
Do you believe that only developers are employed at the company?
Having 273 employees seems like a reasonable number to handle tasks such as development, marketing, and ensuring the overall success of a legitimate business. Consider roles like executives, lawyers, accountants, human resources personnel, payroll administrators, marketing and sales professionals, customer service, designers, web developers, database administrators, development operations experts, and cloud infrastructure specialists. Additionally, there would be managers overseeing various teams dedicated to different features, working to retain existing customers and attract new ones each quarter.
If you find the idea of 273 individuals handling all these responsibilities unreasonable, I’m genuinely interested in hearing how you would envision the organizational structure for such a company.
If so, compliance can become quite difficult
And sure, most businesses have some bloat too once they get to a certain size. But there's a lot of legitimate need, too.
The frontend is your product, but the backend is your _business_.
Who's closest and not blocked. That's the algorithm.
Your key (incorrect) assumption is that these apps are for some reason in maintenance mode. These are international apps on various platforms with new features and various business requirements. I can, off the top of my head, think of teams like security, advertising, analytics, marketing, devops, infra, CX, etc. etc.
I'd love you see you try and run just their CX team by yourself and another person, much less the rest of the org.
to be fair, it's been clear that companies overhired like crazy over the pandemic, simply because they could. They may know more, but their calculus isn't as simple as operating for the lowest cost for the biggest money. So many companies over the pandemic were trying to take advantadge and grow like crazy, so they essentially gambled.
But sure, when the front facing user value is a slightly fancy chat app, it can be easy to underestimate the scope of the app, or its advertising.
What I find more interesting, is with that amount of employees, you barely hear any kind of leaks, not necessarily the technical type too, it feels like it’s a blackbox of employees unlike other apps say twitter etc., you never get to interact with a “tinder ex-employee” or such, kind of weird, especially when they are treated like that, I expect someone to go out and speaks up about some internal policies, or anonymously leaking some emails, how actually the algorithm works that obviously destroys dating scene so you can pay them more, and so on.
It also doesn't help that while 800 is a lot, there's probably less than a few dozen who would be managing those policies. I'm sure those employees are compensated (or threatened) more than enough to stay shut.
There's always a guy like you on threads like this. You are either incredibly naive or think way too much about yourself.