this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
1225 points (94.2% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
1 users here now

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

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kovu@lemmy.world 249 points 2 years ago (5 children)

remember when linus spoke out against unionizing :)

[–] sparky1337@ttrpg.network 170 points 2 years ago

That and the “We don’t discuss wages.” remark. Screw that mentality. And from what Madison wrote, If promissory estoppel is a thing in Canada, then it sounds like she had a strong case. Especially if there was any paperwork.

There’s tons of shit they could get LMG for. But it seems that they intentionally hired people that don’t know any better, and it’s no real fault of their own since they just are appearing to use predatory hiring processes. It’s ridiculous to think everyone young should know employment law.

[–] TheWorstMailman@lemm.ee 54 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

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

[–] nonearther@lemmy.ml 73 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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.

[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] TheWorstMailman@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

It's not unusual for several people to have the same rational thought process. That's why it's "classic".

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

An genuine employer who isn't against unions and has their employees wellbeing as a top priority should encourage the employees to unionize.

[–] TheWorstMailman@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fair point, well made. I would love to live in a world like this one day

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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..

[–] TheWorstMailman@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

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

[–] snor10@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] RedDoozer@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wow, that would be the last straw. You have a link to his comments?

[–] socphoenix@midwest.social 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It was a wan show a while back if I remember right (not op), but basically trashed unions and said businesses should do better and vaguely acted like all the employees of the world could just quit and find something better on a whim if things were actually bad where they worked.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Which is all fine. His position was literally "I can't and won't do anything to stop it except for treating everyone to enough money that they won't bother to do it"

That's about as inoffensive as you can get. You're twisting it into being some anti union thing.

[–] RedDoozer@lemmy.zip 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Unions are not just for getting higher wages. They're not even just for when conditions start to get worse. Unions should be there for the best as well as the worst working conditions. Unions serve to maintain good and improve bad conditions, it's not about going against the "boss", it's about actively or passively defending the workers' conditions.

Would you trust your boss' lawyer saying "the trial will be fair, you won't need a lawyer"?

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social -5 points 2 years ago

And none of what Linus said goes against that. The employees are fine to form a union if they ever feel the need.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago

They always say that.

[–] ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 years ago

"Honestly, my stance on this isn't gonna change. If people felt like we weren't taking care of them, yeah, I would feel like we failed. If you wanna interpret that as a bad thing, you can, but you're reaching pretty hard."

Yeah, I'd say it's about time for LTT staff to unionise.

I think that "taking care of people" smacks of the same rhetoric as "we're like a family" and "I like to think that all staff are considered equals here" and just about any other lie I've heard from exploitative upper management types.

[–] magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh 2 points 2 years ago

Pepperige farm remembers.