
Notes from November 28 Meetup of Bay Area Tech Solidarity - stablemap
https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.htm
======
tzs
> The creation of a Muslim registry is obviously just the first step. It's a
> PR campaign to spread the idea that Muslims are a special group that can be
> discriminated against.

If this happens, I will seriously consider becoming Muslim, and urging other
irreligious people I know to consider doing the same, to dilute the database.
I'd remain an atheist, but I'd be a Muslim atheist instead of a Christian
atheist. I'd buy a Quran and read it once, then put it on the shelf and not
believe it, replacing the Bible that is currently on my shelf not being
believed. For local charity giving, I'd direct that to a local mosque instead
of a local church.

Only 0.9% of people in the United States are Muslim. Atheists and agnostics
make up about 7%, so if a large fraction of atheists and agnostics registered
as Muslims, it would greatly dilute the database. There are also a substantial
number who believe in some sort of spirituality but not in traditional gods,
and quite a few people who believe in gods but as a personal thing and not as
part of an organized religion. All of these together make up about 20% of the
population. If a lot of those people would register as Muslims, it would
really really dilute the database.

~~~
tingley
If you are interested in this type of activism, and live in a city that offers
its own form of ID (notably SF or LA), you can do this _now_ by signing up for
a city ID card. There is considerable concern that the city ID databases will
be used as registries of illegal immigrants, so the more legal residents who
take advantage of it, the weaker that signal becomes.

Plus, it's nice to have a second form of photo ID sometimes.

In SF, you need an appointment to get an ID. You can make one here:
[http://sfgov.org/countyclerk/sf-city-id-
card](http://sfgov.org/countyclerk/sf-city-id-card)

------
chrismealy
Forming a union and joining the labor movement would be a start. Oh sure
everybody hates unions, but there's not a progressive country in the world
without a strong labor movement. Without labor you're left with narrow-minded
plutocrats and unreliable technocrats to run everything.

~~~
sidlls
Good luck with that. This industry has too many people with egos far bigger
than their accomplishments justify, in my opinion. There is a tendency in this
field for folks to believe tech is about as close to a meritocracy as it gets,
and that unions or even a trade guild would just hold "the best" back.

~~~
twblalock
> There is a tendency in this field for folks to believe tech is about as
> close to a meritocracy as it gets, and that unions or even a trade guild
> would just hold "the best" back.

You don't have to be arrogant about your own abilities to realize that
promotion based on seniority would privilege longer-tenured workers over
better, lesser-tenured workers.

That doesn't just hurt the best workers -- it hurts anyone who is above the
average.

Promotion based on seniority is a common feature of union contracts, so it's a
valid concern.

Some people like seniority-based promotion because it can reduce
discrimination in promotion decisions. For example, a woman could be promoted
based on seniority even though her sexist boss might prefer a less-qualified,
less-tenured male candidate. That would certainly be unfair, and seniority-
based promotion could prevent that. However, the tech industry is currently
mostly men, which means that any female employee who joins a large company
will have at least a few decades' worth of men ahead of her in line for a
promotion, no matter how good she is at her job. Seniority-based promotion
would actually entrench gender diversity problems for at least 20 years,
rather than solve them. The only way it would have positive effects vis a vis
diversity would be to impose it on a workforce that is already diverse but has
discriminatory managers.

~~~
sidlls
Do you have evidence that seniority based promotion hurts above average
workers? Do you have good reason to suspect that seniority based promotion is
a likely enough feature of a union in this industry to warrant concern?

~~~
twblalock
Average is the break-even point.

If you are average: Given that most people are average (because that's what
average means), you aren't an outlier, so you wouldn't expect a faster or
slower promotion timeline in a meritocratic system than in a seniority based
system. After all, the majority of people more senior than you at any company
are likely to be average too (because that's what average means), unless the
company has an unusual distribution of employee skill across the tenure
spectrum. In a meritocratic system, you are still average, and you would still
have an average promotion timeline. If you are average, it doesn't much matter
what system you have.

If you are above average: Your talent will be recognized, and you will be
promoted faster than most of your peers in a meritocratic system. In a
seniority-based system, people who are not as good as you will be promoted
before you because they have worked at the company longer. This hurts you, and
it hurts the company, because both could do better under a meritocracy. You
should prefer a meritocratic system over a seniority-based system.

If you are below average: In a meritocratic system, you would be promoted as a
last resort, when better people are not available. In a seniority-based
system, you will be promoted just because you stuck around, even if you suck.
You should prefer a seniority-based system over a meritocratic system.

If you are a worker at any level, and you improve your job skills and your
value to the company, that will increase your promotion prospects in a
meritocratic system, but not change them in any way in a seniority-based
system. So why would anyone try to improve or work hard in a seniority-based
system?

~~~
sidlls
I have to object: you've provided a description of how you think seniority
based systems work, but no evidence to support your contention that it is, in
fact, the way they do.

~~~
twblalock
No evidence is needed. It's a self-defining term.

It's very simple: when a group of people are considered for a promotion, the
person who has the most seniority, i.e. has been at the company for the
longest time, will automatically be given the promotion.

That doesn't mean the guy in charge of the mail room is going to be promoted
to head of engineering because he's been there longer than any of the
engineers. Promotions happen within departments. But you can damn well bet
that the guy in charge of the mail room is the mail room employee who has been
at the company the longest, no matter how good he is at his job.

Any system that doesn't work like this is not a "seniority-based" system, and
is outside of the scope of the discussion.

~~~
sidlls
Well, when your argument is "I say so" then of course there is no discussion
to be had. How absurd.

~~~
twblalock
This is the same as asking for evidence that circles don't have corners ("do
they _really_ work that way?"). Seniority-based systems are _based on
seniority_. Systems that are not based on seniority are not seniority-based
systems, just as shapes with corners are not circles.

~~~
sidlls
No, it's not the same as asking for evidence that circles don't have corners,
because the latter is a strictly mathematical concept and the topic of
promotion schemes is not.

Can you provide empirical evidence with actual seniority based systems that
match the very strict description you've supplied? Because if not what you
have is an unsupported hypothesis, not a description of reality.

------
mc32
One important thing is a bit mischaracterized, Trump didn't claim he'd deport
11 million legal immigrants, he claimed he'd deport illegal immigrants. Even
Mexico deports illegal immigrants to its country. It's not something most
countries consider controversial.

As far as I know he didn't say he'd turn a blind eye to police violence. What
he said was essentially he wanted less antagonism toward police.

I think playing loose with words like this and confounding things kind of
elicits skepticism.

~~~
idlewords
60 Minutes interview, September 2015:

Pelley: "Eleven, 12 million illegal immigrants --"

Trump: "Or whatever the number is."

Pelley: "Still in the country, what do you do?"

Trump: "If they've done well, they're going out and they're coming back in
legally. Because you said it--"

Pelley: "You're rounding them all up?"

Trump: "We're rounding 'em up in a very humane way, in a very nice way. And
they're going to be happy because they want to be legalized. And, by the way,
I know it doesn't sound nice. But not everything is nice."

~~~
mc32
If he really wanted to keep out illegal immigrants he'd do what Japan or China
do. Require verification of legal residence from everyone for job, schools,
etc. No fences/walls needed.

Or he could ask someone to develop an app where people could report people who
are working without proper docs and fine the workplace and schools for
violations. It could even be incentivized and non false positives get rewards
of some sort --tax credit, whatever. False positives get demerits, etc.

That said, if employers are not willing to pay citizens a minimum wage of $15,
then we will need a way to allow cheap unskilled imported labor to work on
farms etc. Set up a system where you allow seasonal work visas. If you
overstay, you are out 5 years. If you want to stay past a season extend your
visa by exposing someone overstaying their visa so you get self policing.
However, since this creates underemployed citizens, tax the employers who
employ imported labor to underwrite citizen unemployment benefits.

~~~
postcarnival
Yes but since all of this fear-mongering is contrived by the liberal safe-
space culture that has bred groups like this and not based in reality, we
won't need to do any of that.

~~~
rtpg
Beyond the moral arguements, the real reason nothing has happened is that this
has absolutely no popular support in areas who actually have undocumented
immigrants.

People in these areas usually are fine with them because "who cares".
Businesses are fine because they usually represent cheap labor. Local
governments have a lot to do on their plate already, they don't want to go in
the immigration business.

These policies are basically "federal overreach". Feds fly in to do something
the locals do not want.

Do you think LA is a sanctuary city because of Obama? It's the will of the
people. Who cares what people in Iowa think?

~~~
idlewords
We're fine with them because they're our friends and neighbors.

~~~
x0x0
And republicans are fine with them because they need cheap workers they can
abuse who will never call OSHA, that they can steal wages from, and that they
can stiff on workers comp.

For just one of so many appalling stories:
[https://www.thenation.com/article/immigrant-workers-are-
bein...](https://www.thenation.com/article/immigrant-workers-are-being-
deported-being-injured-job/)

If we actually wanted to stop illegal immigration, getting serious about
e-verify and levying enormous fines on employers would get the job done.

~~~
mc32
Oh for sure. But the dimming of prospects for low skills Americans may have
the Repubs, with their newfound populism, find that to survive as a party they
will have to look out for the derided suburban worker instead of the guy or
gal who sit in corner offices.

~~~
x0x0
I will believe it when it happens (not that I would object, the middle class
needs all the help it can get).

But so far, the populism looks like hokum. For just one example, Carrier was
bribed to stay. And probably in a way that gets more money to the execs than
to the employees. My bet is grift all the way down...

~~~
mc32
It ain't going to happen but I'd love to see Bernie tapped for a labor dept
job. Get him in, co-opt him and have him go at the sellouts who move ops
overseas to save a few bucks.

------
mindslight
This is a fantastic result of Trump's election. You should have been thinking
this way for the past decade. Third party data silos are a grave liability -
it hardly matters if the acting threat is overt authoritarianism, progressive
totalitarianism, or plain old economics.

------
susan_hall
From the Notes, this is a very sad story:

"I am Muslim, born in Massachusetts. I love my faith. Muslims in the US are
very scared. Both my mom and wife wear the hijab, so I'm always worried
they'll be attacked in the street. Even in the Bay Area it's a concern. Of
course I encourage them to continue; it's important not to be affected. A few
years ago, my mom and sister were at a farmers' market in Boston, what seems
like a liberal setting. A big guy ran up and called them terrorists, started
spitting at them. My 60 year old mom and 20 year old sister were really
intimidated. My sister cried for the rest of the day. People stood by and
watched. I give them the benefit of the doubt; they were taken off guard. We
have to be aware of our surroundings and be ready to act. It takes mental
preparation, so you don't end up reacting like a deer in the headlights."

I am worried what happens to a diverse country, such as the USA, when it
elects a leadership that is vocally anti-immigrant. We are about to find out.
All of us need to do what we can to minimize the kind of bigotry that might
escalate under anti-immigrant leadership.

~~~
rubicon33
It's a potentially very scary time for minorities. The president sets the tone
of the country through their actions. A president being anti-immigrant could
bring that same quality out in others...

~~~
anigbrowl
That's already happening. I've witnessed people trying to intimidate minority
folk here in the East Bay, yelling 'you're going over the wall!' unprovoked at
people on the street for example.

------
hackermailman
I'm in a union (pension, can't give it up) and I work F/T for one of those
flat hierarchy startups, hired through a who's hiring post a few years ago. I
actually prefer the union environment even with it's many problems to having
no boss which is my other job. I now have to often depend on flaky coworkers
who disappear days at a time or spam me with memes all day on Slack, and
careless commits I have to fix repeatedly even after telling them the problem
each time. There's nobody for me to complain to since we don't have a boss,
there's an absentee founder somewhere and just every remote worker for
themselves.

The problems with a union is of course your dues being misspent on
administrative bloat, campaign donations, executive travel (go to any union
site and click on events, there's often 2-3 a month requiring travel), and
education costs for executive members. The actual organizers and shop stewards
aren't paid anything by the union, it's the top tier executives that pocket
the dues. What we tried to do was get them to take half for admin bloat, stop
the campaign donations nonsense, and put the rest into a strike fund to pay us
during lockouts something more than the picket line pay which is a paltry
$100/week. There is typically 4-6years between contracts, and we each pay them
$162 a month in dues.

Another problem is of course the adversarial situation that will inevitably
become your daily workplace. Your management is now the enemy, as they will
never capitulate to all your demands during collective bargaining so every
single work meeting you have with them is usually a fight. Everything you do
is now paid in time values, so if they ask you to do something that isn't
clearly spelled out in the collective agreement you don't do it because it's
free work, such as asking your contracted plumber to mow your lawn. This
creates many problems, as management repeatedly tries to implement ridiculous
new procedures that of course add time which is unpaid.

The positives with a union is you can directly confront coworkers if you have
issues with them that are work related (and not criminal such as sexual
harassment), so you don't have to go to management which could have them
fired. It's nice to work out petty disputes between a floor steward and your
coworker without the heavy hand of management adding complexity and fear into
the mix. Another positive is you are free to speak your mind directly to
management without fear of being arbitrarily terminated or screwed with. It's
common where I work to see somebody walk up to management and tell them their
attitude is disgusting to their face in front of everybody. Finally you get to
bid on everything, so the founder's cousin who started yesterday doesn't get
priority vacation over you.

Also goodbye implied forced Christmas parties, implied forced picnics with
some visiting sales manager or your boss on the weekend or forced team
building clownery outside of work hours, fake vacation policies that claim to
be 'unlimited', unpaid overtime, and idiotic work environments like cafes or
bars, my favorite idiocy being a historic theatre sized bank building
converted into a very loud cafe with wood benches roped off where everybody
was expected to work.

------
losteric
Where can I get information on a Seattle Tech Solidarity group?

~~~
idlewords
Contact me (my info is in the intro to the linked page). I'm hoping to set up
a Seattle meeting in January.

