
Tech company Lanetix fired software engineers seeking to organize, union claims - knieveltech
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-tech-company-fired-software-engineers-seeking-12541301.php
======
tristanj
Also discussed here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16271005](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16271005)
(1 month ago, 268 points)

------
qsymmachus
The Tech Worker's Coalition organized a protest outside Lanetix's office this
morning; it had good turnout.

Edit: Check out
[https://techworkerscoalition.org/](https://techworkerscoalition.org/) if
you're interested in joining future actions.

------
booleandilemma
Software engineers and people who work in IT departments in general should
unionize, because outside of the big five tech companies, these employees are
mistreated relative to other employees at their company.

Consider:

1) Workers in IT departments are less likely to get bonuses.

2) They are often asked to put in longer hours than people in other
departments, because of deadlines.

3) They often have to work weekends because of “emergencies” and DevOps-
related tasks that can’t take place on weekdays. Guess who’s patching the
servers this Saturday? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Bob in Sales.

~~~
lolsal
> 1) Workers in IT departments are less likely to get bonuses.

Sincere question - why should they? Are they denied bonuses that they are
contractually obligated due to their compensation package?

> 2) They are often asked to put in longer hours than people in other
> departments, because of deadlines.

Sales people are often asked to travel away from their family and their homes.
To me this seems like a normal 'part of the job' you sign up for.

> 3) They often have to work weekends because of “emergencies” and DevOps-
> related tasks that can’t take place on weekdays. Guess who’s patching the
> servers this Saturday? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Bob in Sales.

Who else should do it? Isn't that factored into their compensation and
outlined in their responsibilities before they take the job? It seems like
it's part of their job to do that, more so than clicking around on HN or
Reddit during the week.

~~~
lovich
Those arguments could be used against any sort of worker mobilization ever. I
do agree that they aren't great reasons to unionize. The real reason the
workers should unionize is because they can, and if they do they can capture a
greater percentage of the profits that the company attempts to keep for
themselves

------
nimbius
Quitting to start your own business is lauded in the annals of Americana
because it positively reinforces certain tenets capitalism that are valued by
the ruling class.

Organizing a labor union however is vilified in American society as it
directly challenges the inherent class structure of capitalism. Workers in the
past have been beaten, murdered, and imprisoned not because they sought better
pay and more amicable working hours, but because they dared to challenge the
success and profit of the classes above them.

~~~
emerged
Tyranny of the many has dangers just as does tyranny of the few. There can be
significant downsides to unions, so it's a bit reductive to think they're a
universal good and that to disagree with them in any case is necessarily about
"the inherent class structure of capitalism"

~~~
pdkl95
Unions (or similar labor organizations) are not only a universal good,
capitalism only works when ^both* labor _and_ capital keep each other
restrained. The problems start when _either_ side is allowed to "win". Power
always needs to be restrained with checks and balances.

~~~
conanbatt
Sure, and this is a good case of things being kept in check.

A union that only subsists because it gets special state powers is not a
union, its government.

~~~
pdkl95
> special state powers

Like the limited liability granted to _corporations_?

~~~
pathseeker
I'm not sure you understand what that means. The limited liability applies to
the people. The corporation is still fully liable.

~~~
dragonwriter
The corporation is a legal fiction created by government to shield the people
from liability for harm those people cause through their agents while seeking
profits; it's the original (well, at least an early) manifestation of
socializing risk while privatizing gains, done through the power of the State.

------
ph0rque
Here's a tangentially-related question: if I want to start-up a consultancy or
agency for web development as a co-operative, are there any resources for
getting it organized as such?

~~~
ghthor
I'd start at Democracy at work. But in the end it comes down to how decisions
are made and what check and balances are placed on the elements of power, such
as who's an employee and what they get paid and how/what gets voted on, who
can start a vote, what each vote weighs. I'd also say that transparency of
execution is paramount so that members can verify that the actions/policies
they are voting on are being carried out as voted.

------
gojomo
…allegedly, in a complaint filed by a union. The company’s announcement of the
layoffs said it was for other business reasons.

~~~
mywittyname
Well, they wouldn't come out and say that it was due to illegal reasons.

Now, we can't prove intent, but we can look for evidence that supports their
statements. Such as, if other non-engineers were laid off, if these engineers
are eligible for rehire, if only people who signed the petition were let go,
or if there are open positions for engineers on their website, etc.

~~~
gojomo
Yes, but the HN submission headline (before ‘, union claims’ was added) didn’t
allow for a subtler interpretion. (And, the SFChron didn’t dig much into these
obvious followup details, for determining what really happened, before
reporting the allegations rather uncritically – maybe as a sort of punishment
for the company refusing to comment.)

In this and other coverage, it’s mentioned that more than just the employees
discussing a union were laid-off. There’s hints of layoffs being started, or
signalled, before union discussion began. That could mean the unionization
discussion was a reaction to immminent layoffs, rather than the other way
around.

------
conanbatt
Time to build Unions as a service. A VC backed startup that charges stock of
companies to unionize rivals.

------
friedButter
Shouldnt employers have the right to refuse to negotiate with a union and
instead hire non union employees if any are available?

~~~
overcast
[https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-
act](https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act)

National Labor Relations Act

———————————————————

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an
unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

——————————————

~~~
friedButter
Interesting.. thanks

I didnt realize employment was so heavily regulated in US

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
It isn’t. Not by a far stretch compared to other well-developed nations. The
rules about protected-classes are almost all the regulation there is.

~~~
friedButter
>Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have
the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section
8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it means that employers have no ability to stop
their employees from forming a union, to fire them for forming a union and to
hire non union employees without the unions approval. I can understand such
regulations in socialist countries like India (where other than IT, most
industries do have strong unions, with legal and politican support). However
it seems to be against the image US projects

~~~
pdeuchler
> and to hire non union employees without the unions approval

> socialist countries like India

Stop trolling

------
randyrand
What is the difference between a bunch of software engineers unionizing their
wages versus a bunch of small and large companies all agreeing to price-fix
their products? Nothing.

~~~
rexpop
The difference is that workers are people, and companies are not.

------
whoisjuan
2 words: "At-will employment." I empathize with their situation but sadly
there's nothing they can do about this. Kind of naive trying to attempt this
in a state like California.

~~~
calcsam
At-will employment has nothing to do with this. At-will employment just means
your employer has no contractual obligation to continue employing you for any
period of time. Certain actions are still illegal under state / federal law
such as firing you for:

* your sexual orientation

* race

* veteran status

* political views

* not sleeping with your boss

* etc

Organizing a union is one of these "protected" reasons why you cannot be
fired. Of course your employer can pick another reason and say that's why they
are firing you, which is what it looks like this company did. Whether that
defense will hold up in court is another matter entirely.

~~~
whoisjuan
This is more or less what I was trying to say with my original comment.

Although unionizing is protected, "at-will employment" also leaves a lot of
gray areas that can be leveraged for an employer to justify a termination. For
example insubordination. The employer can claim that an employee was being
hostile and creating a stressful work environment.

------
lolsal
A company firing people who are trying to unionize seems to be saying that the
value that the company gets for the cost of paying the employees will go down.
It seems unions or unionizing might have better luck if it was able to
position itself as a value increasing tool for both the company and the
worker.

