Good for them. I’m a huge supporter of unions. Union busting is quite different here in the UK, so I should imagine they’ll successfully join the union without too much fuss.
That sounds like a good way to get fired for cause. I doubt any worker rights protections that apply to acts of "organizing" in the workplace extend as far as protecting clearly malicious acts.
you appear to have changed the word "subtly" to "clearly". i guess intentionally?
the bigger and more complex the software project, the more scope there is for completely deniable fuckups to creep in.
sometimes it's as simple as not pushing back on an obviously bad idea pushed from up above. or it could be spotting a problem and just not doing anything about it.
these small changes compound over time.
the idea of doing this would of course be massively offensive to anybody who was against unionization on principle, a number of whom comment on hacker news. that doesn't, of course, mean it wouldn't work.
If your vector for leverage is that subtle it’s going to be completely useless as a negotiation tool. Unionizing is about outcomes for workers, not retribution.
> you appear to have changed the word "subtly" to "clearly". i guess intentionally?
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion? I'm not sure how an action that is subtle enough that the perpetrator isn't recognised as having done anything would be useful in negotiations.
There is such a concept as "work-to-rule", that is, follow the letter of your contract and instructions from management and go no further than that. Is that the kind of action you're referring to?
Good for them. I’m a huge supporter of unions. Union busting is quite different here in the UK, so I should imagine they’ll successfully join the union without too much fuss.
rather than striking theyd be much more likely to achieve results by subtly fucking up gemeni.
This is their main axis of leverage.
That sounds like a good way to get fired for cause. I doubt any worker rights protections that apply to acts of "organizing" in the workplace extend as far as protecting clearly malicious acts.
you appear to have changed the word "subtly" to "clearly". i guess intentionally?
the bigger and more complex the software project, the more scope there is for completely deniable fuckups to creep in.
sometimes it's as simple as not pushing back on an obviously bad idea pushed from up above. or it could be spotting a problem and just not doing anything about it.
these small changes compound over time.
the idea of doing this would of course be massively offensive to anybody who was against unionization on principle, a number of whom comment on hacker news. that doesn't, of course, mean it wouldn't work.
If your vector for leverage is that subtle it’s going to be completely useless as a negotiation tool. Unionizing is about outcomes for workers, not retribution.
No, it isnt.
> you appear to have changed the word "subtly" to "clearly". i guess intentionally?
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion? I'm not sure how an action that is subtle enough that the perpetrator isn't recognised as having done anything would be useful in negotiations.
There is such a concept as "work-to-rule", that is, follow the letter of your contract and instructions from management and go no further than that. Is that the kind of action you're referring to?
>Perhaps I misunderstood
It looked like you just swapped the word subtle for clearly and declared it wouldnt work.
>I'm not sure how an action that is subtle enough that the perpetrator isn't recognised
The perpetrator is everyone.
>There is such a concept as "work-to-rule"
Now you're getting it. There are some subtleties to work to rule so i wouldnt necessarily rush to conclusions a second time also.