WebProNews » Unions

Uloop Pulls A Trump Move

WebProNews Staff — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:55:02 +0000

The last time we heard any buzz about unions for online workers, it involved the ill-fated bloggers union. This time, it might not be so unfathomable since it could be a legitimate gripe. A pair of social networking employees allege they were fired for just mentioning the word "union."

Uloop Logo
(Photo Credit: Uloop)

Uloop.com is a website geared toward helping college students find campus-centric necessities like books, jobs, and rides. The site hires students as campus representatives to run forums in relation to these goals.

California State Polytechnic University of Pomona reps Austin Garrido and Sarah Doolittle allege a series of Uloop abuses in a complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board. They begin with an unannounced pay cut, which the students learned about by viewing their check stubs. Garrido and Doolittle found their pay decreased from $10 per hour to $8 per hour.

Upset by the drop in wages, Doolittle wrote a letter to the company and both proposed the idea of unionizing in the Uloop company forum, a move Sfist.com describes as "adorable." "It’s always cute to hear about dewy-fresh-out-college types whose souls have yet to be pulverized by the reality of the workplace."

In this case, they’re actually still in college, which is precisely why the website sort of needs them—student campus acclimation is the basis of the whole concept. Regardless, Doolittle and Garrido claim the union proposal thread was deleted and both of them were fired shortly after.

While it’s true that more seasoned workers would have conducted these measures in the shadows rather than in the spotlight, Uloop may find itself in violation of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which bars companies from intimidating workers who want to organize and from taking down employee-posted pro-union material from designated work areas.

As Valleywag reports, the case will hinge on whether trying to form a union online or posting in an employee forum is the same as tacking up a flyer in the break room. No matter how it turns out, it’s not very good PR for Uloop, which depends on students to make its social network a success.

Regardless of how the case goes, these same students can spread the word very quickly at Facebook or other sites that working as a campus representative for them will only earn them grief, either by unannounced pay cuts, or by unfair firings, making Uloop guilty in the online court of public opinion.

Uloop did not return request for comment in time for publication.

Facebook A Union Issue?

WebProNews Staff — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:12:57 +0000

Employers upset with the amount of time their employees are spending on Facebook want to ban access to the site and now union officials in Britain are stepping in, telling them to ease up.

Facebook A Union Issue?

A recent survey seems to be the culprit, suggesting that Britons spend a whopping three hours per month on Facebook, earning it the obligatory bastardization "Crackbook," according to the Telegraph’s Aislinn Simpson.

Excluding overtime, the time spent on the "crackberry" checking work-related email from home, answering phone calls while on vacation, the time lying awake worrying about work, lunch and the occasional coffee break, that averages out to just over 9.5 minutes per day spent on "Crackbook."

God what slackers.

It’s not clear from the Telegraph’s article if union leaders mentioned that Facebook is the new LinkedIn, making it, officially, as much a professional tool as a Rolodex, cell phone, phone, book, or business card, but they did say banning access to the site altogether was an "overreaction."

"Better to invest a little time in working out sensible conduct guidelines, so that there don’t need to be any nasty surprises for staff or employers," said Trade Union Congress General Secretary Brendan Barber.

Nonetheless, some employers remain stingy and miffed about all that lost productivity lost because they have to give lunch breaks. But you’ll never hear them complain when an employee cuts his lunch short to get a little extra work done.

Unions Call for Workplace Facebook Guidelines

Neville Hobson — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:01:17 +0000

The TUC, the organization representing trade unions in the UK, adds its voice to the big debate on what to do about Facebook and employee use.

In a practical approach to an issue that some companies see as a problem that can be solved only by banning it from the workplace, the TUC says that’s not the best approach:

[…] In guidance available on workSMART, its working life website, the TUC advises employers that they should have in place policies covering the use of email and the web, including social networking sites, at work, so that there are no nasty surprises for either employer or employee should things ever go wrong.

This is precisely the way to address an issue that isn’t going away and will truly become a problem for organizations unless it is addressed in the right way.

That right way isn’t just banning social networks, as I’ve been saying for a while; rather, it’s providing guidance to employees.

Although the power of unions in the UK has waned considerably over the past decade or so, the TUC is a major influencer and its call to action on this issue will stimulate further debate, which is good. (I wonder what the CBI, the organization representing many UK employers, will have to say.)

The TUC’s guidance on online social networking and work contains a series of questions and answers, all of which indicate that the author has a good sense of social networks and how they work.

Best of all is a concise but well-written briefing paper called Facing up to Facebook (PDF) which the TUC says is aimed at employers. Valid reading for employees, too.

The only niggle I have with the TUC’s approach is that it still looks upon social networks only as a workplace problem to be addressed. The quote above is a good example, talking about avoiding ‘nasty surprises.’

There are business benefits with places like Facebook that ought to be an equal element in overall discussion and debate.

Still, the TUC has added a powerful voice to the overall conversation with a sensible approach to a hot workplace topic.

[Later] Shel and I discussed Facebook and workplace issues in today’s episode #271 of the FIR podcast.

Related posts:

Don’t just ban Facebook, provide guidance

Facebook critique stretches credulity

The big ban on employees accessing Facebook

Comments

Do Bloggers Need To Unionize?

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:32:06 +0000

There have always been pro-union people and anti-union people, and you can usually guess who’s what depending on their individual caste. In this case, though it carries with it the same arguments, it will have to be decided first if an industry has emerged from nebulous existence and into a viable, thriving industry.

Do Bloggers Need To Unionize?

The burning question: Is there a need for a blogger’s labor union?

And your first thought, like mine, is quite likely, "huh?"

Labor unions are for steel workers and teachers, underpaid, over-skilled and overworked, who need collective bargaining power just to avoid a return to the 19th Century sweat-shop economy – that, and the ability to feed their kids.

(Note: I chose steel workers and teachers as examples only because the two make up about two-thirds of my own family. So that means, in general, I am pro-union, and by default, pro-American-made automobile.)

In the past two years, blogging, as a profession, has grown from geeky obscurity into a direct challenge to the journalism industry, even with bloggers’ reputation for being unruly, unvetted, grammatically and syntactically insufficient, and above all, a disorganized mess.

But that is sort of what (okay, completely what) made the medium so appealing. They answered to no one and therefore were accountable to no one; the individualist, populist, no-truth-barred approach both what propelled it and what held it back. Abused, sometimes inaccurate, sometimes out and out wrong, but for the most part, a development for the greater good, for freedom of speech, for information exchange, for the free market of ideas.

But organized? Isn’t that a kind of bloggers’ code sacrilege? Wouldn’t this be the same disorganized collective that railed against the idea of a Blogger’s Code of Conduct?

Don’t answer that. It’s too restrictive. Bloggers are all creeds, all different kinds of people.

So back to the real question:

With whom are bloggers bargaining, and why is there a need for them to bargain collectively?

The winning answer to that is blog publishers and blog network owners, who pay on a percentage basis rather than a per-post basis. Entrants to the "profession," and yes we must call it that now, claim to make pennies for hours of work, without health insurance and other benefits afforded to other workers.

I’m not taking sides here, just stating the crux of the matter. The issue was billed as a "liberal" movement, as you might imagine, as no business-minded, robber-baron conservative type would support unionization. I might have taken a side there, though. Again, I am generally pro-union, as it seems to me it’s either that or indentured servitude and tenant farming.

It’s billed as a liberal cause because it was "left-leaning bloggers" that brought it up, according to the Associated Press, but that might have been a disingenuous way to characterize it, by invoking the spirit of Norma Rae. It may have been better to hearken back to freelance writers unions and actors guilds, which isn’t mentioned until the second paragraph, thus producing the desired gut reaction from the anti-camp.

But let’s move away from the writer’s opinion, as he already has health insurance (much appreciated, boss). We should consult the blogosphere, where the stakeholders are, instead.

"The idea of a blogger labor union seems to make as much sense as having a union for people who sing in the shower," says Mike Pechar of the Jawa Report. "Typically, a labor union has some leverage by threatening to strike against management. Bloggers threatening to strike would probably be greeted with a ho-hum or maybe even applause."

That’s the cynic’s viewpoint, and a witty one. But there are pro bloggers out there the world (and publishers) would miss.

Marketing Pilgrim’s Andy Beal weighs in, numerically. The short and skinny of his argument is that the blogosphere is still too ill-defined, bloggers difficult to identify, difficult to assess on a quality basis. And again, the idea of a blogger picket line might be one that is not easy to get behind.

Ryan Caldwell though, at the Performancing blog, is more open to the idea, saying the blogosphere (and the real world) can make room for an organized blogging collective:

I don’t think that the goal should be to improve the quality of life for *all* bloggers who want to join a labor union.

Rather, I do think that the free markets could willingly support and encourage the development of a "Premium Blogger Collective" that organized the very best bloggers on the internet into a union-like collective and then served as an authoritative central location for businesses and high quality publishing firms to find quality bloggers at premium rates.

Not only do I think that a free-market would support such an endeavor, but Google itself has now put in place the infrastructure to encourage the economics of quality. As a friend of mine put it, they’ve turned the "authority" and "quality" buttons way, way, way up on their search algorithms.

My opinion? Thanks for asking. I think it will happen and some won’t like it. I think it will be necessary in some instances and some won’t like it. I think not everybody will be admitted and many won’t like that, either.

Steve Jobs Blasts Teachers Unions

WebProNews Staff — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:35:02 +0000

Apple’s CEO has a problem with public schools that he sees as rooted in the unions that prevent principals from firing underperforming teachers.

Even though Jobs shared a Texas stage with Dell’s co-founder and CEO, Michael Dell, the iconic Apple executive stole the show at an education reform conference. He criticized teachers unions and textbook publishers during a talk that received applause from attendees.

An AP report on his remarks cited Jobs’ observation that no amount of technology could turn around classroom performance. Jobs compared the inability to fire poor teachers to a small business that couldn’t get rid of its bad employees.

He called out unions for specific criticism:

“I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way,” Jobs said.

“This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy.”

Some observers commenting on Jobs’ remarks saw money as the cure. Said Robert Scoble:

If you want better schools, pay teachers $80,000 a year or more, AND give the staff power to get rid of bad apples (bad pun, given the cause of today

Scoble’s Note to Steve Jobs

Robert Scoble — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:50:31 +0000

Steve Jobs is right that unions are corrosive on the quality of our schools. Our schools are bad because we can’t get rid of bad teachers. But, it’s worse than that — Steve Jobs’ fix wouldn’t fix the total problem. Patrick’s Mom was a teacher for a while. She left for a variety of reasons, but partly because the pay is so bad for the work you put into that job.

If you want better schools, pay teachers $80,000 a year or more, AND give the staff power to get rid of bad apples (bad pun, given the cause of today’s post, I know) and you’ll see school quality turn around in an instant.

The problem is that the political system here won’t allow politicians to increase taxes to pay for higher school wages and the unions won’t allow reforms to get rid of bad teachers. Instead we get stupid patches to the system like the “no child left behind” initiative which tries to improve results by mandating tests (most teachers I talk with say that initiative is a disaster).

Translation: the school system is just going to keep getting worse and worse. It’s so bad in my neighborhood that people openly talk about how bad it is and most parents here drive their kids 30 to 50 minutes to private schools in Silicon Valley.

We all know the school systems here (especially in California, where per-school spending is behind most other states) sucks. We just aren’t willing to do the things that need to be done to correct the problem.

Steve Jobs deserves praise for at least speaking half the truth.

Aside: he also says that he expects to lose some business because of his stance. I think he’s being disingenous there. I was on the technology committee at my son’s school. The teachers had almost all the power. If the school bought technology they didn’t like (hint: it almost always was Apple tech) they rebelled against it and caused the school management a lot of trouble.

Teachers don’t like this system either, which is why they cheered Steve Jobs’ remarks. Think about it. If you worked with someone dragging your profession down (or, worse, ill preparing kids in a grade before yours) wouldn’t you want to get rid of them too?

UPDATE: Dan Farber says pretty much the same thing I do too. So does Don Dodge, who then goes further and says the problem is a lack of incentive. I totally agree with that too. I know many college professors who are teaching the same class they did years ago. There’s no incentive to innovate, even when the world is changing around them.

Comments

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

About the Author

Robert Scoble is the founder of the Scobleizer blog. He works as PodTech.net’s Vice President of Media Development.

Go to Scobleizer …

Unions Change To Win

Chris Crum — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:54:01 +0000

The Teamsters Union and the Service Employees International Union have left the labor federation to form their own group, called the Change to Win Coalition.

The Teamsters Union and the Service Employees International Union have refused to pay back millions of dollars in back dues to the AFL-CIO. These two unions made up 3 million out of the 13 million members of the labor federation.

“When you are going down the road, and the road you are going down is the wrong road and you know where the road ends, you have to get off the road and go where there is hope,” said SEIU President Andy Stern on Monday. “Today there is hope for American workers.”

UFCW and UNITE HERE, who boycotted the AFL-CIO convention, and are part of the Change to Win Coalition, are expected to leave the labor federation as well. Stephen Franklin and Barbara Rose of the Chicago Tribune writes:

The dissidents say they want unions to put more money into organizing, more controls over union squabbles and organizing efforts, and more mergers to concentrate unions’ strengths. They also call for up to half of unions’ dues to be returned to unions for their own organizing drives.

Rather than a celebration of the federation’s 50th anniversary and its 56 unions, the AFL-CIO gathering now seems more likely to be remembered for the first steps of the rival group set up by the dissidents and an unprecedented outpouring of acrimony and blame.

“We have to leave the federation,” said Connie Leyva, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428 in Claremont. “We have to start down a new road. Change is healthy. Change is going to help.”

The four boycotting unions together make up nearly a third of the labor federation’s 13 million members. If the other two choose to leave, the AFL-CIO will lose about $35 million in all.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

Teamsters Union and Service Employees International Union Leave Labor Federation

Chris Crum — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:52:06 +0000

Two unions have dropped out of the labor federation to form their own group, the Change to Win Coalition. These two unions are the Teamsters Union and the Service Employees International Union.

They have refused to pay back millions of dollars in back dues to the AFL-CIO. These two unions made up 3 million out of the 13 million members of the labor federation.

“When you are going down the road, and the road you are going down is the wrong road and you know where the road ends, you have to get off the road and go where there is hope,” said SEIU President Andy Stern on Monday. “Today there is hope for American workers.”

UFCW and UNITE HERE, who boycotted the AFL-CIO convention, and are part of the Change to Win Coalition, are expected to leave the labor federation as well. Stephen Franklin and Barbara Rose of the Chicago Tribune write:

The dissidents say they want unions to put more money into organizing, more controls over union squabbles and organizing efforts, and more mergers to concentrate unions’ strengths. They also call for up to half of unions’ dues to be returned to unions for their own organizing drives.

Rather than a celebration of the federation’s 50th anniversary and its 56 unions, the AFL-CIO gathering now seems more likely to be remembered for the first steps of the rival group set up by the dissidents and an unprecedented outpouring of acrimony and blame.

“We have to leave the federation,” said Connie Leyva, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428 in Claremont. “We have to start down a new road. Change is healthy. Change is going to help.”

The four boycotting unions together make up nearly a third of the labor federation’s 13 million members. If the other two choose to leave, the AFL-CIO will lose about $35 million in all.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

Two Unions Leave Labor Federation, Two More May Join Them

Chris Crum — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:49:29 +0000

The Teamsters Union and the Service Employees International Union have withdrawn from the labor federation to form their own group, the Change to Win Coalition.

These two groups made up 3 million out of the 13 million members of the labor federation. They have refused to pay back millions of dollars in back dues to the AFL-CIO.

“When you are going down the road, and the road you are going down is the wrong road and you know where the road ends, you have to get off the road and go where there is hope,” said SEIU President Andy Stern on Monday. “Today there is hope for American workers.”

UFCW and UNITE HERE, who boycotted the AFL-CIO convention, and are part of the Change to Win Coalition, are expected to leave the labor federation as well. Stephen Franklin and Barbara Rose of the Chicago Tribune write:

The dissidents say they want unions to put more money into organizing, more controls over union squabbles and organizing efforts, and more mergers to concentrate unions’ strengths. They also call for up to half of unions’ dues to be returned to unions for their own organizing drives.

Rather than a celebration of the federation’s 50th anniversary and its 56 unions, the AFL-CIO gathering now seems more likely to be remembered for the first steps of the rival group set up by the dissidents and an unprecedented outpouring of acrimony and blame.

“We have to leave the federation,” said Connie Leyva, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428 in Claremont. “We have to start down a new road. Change is healthy. Change is going to help.”

The four boycotting unions together make up nearly a third of the labor federation’s 13 million members. If the other two choose to leave, the AFL-CIO will lose about $35 million in all.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

Four Unions Boycott AFL-CIO Convention, May Leave Federation

Chris Crum — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:21:34 +0000

Four major unions are boycotting the AFL-CIO’s constitutional convention beginning in Chicago today. They are expected to leave the labor federation, and are supposed to announce their plans today.

At least the Teamsters Union and the Service Employees International Union are expected to withdraw from the AFL-CIO as early as today. These two groups make up 3 million out of the 13 million members of the labor federation. United Food and Commercial Workers and Unite Here are the other unions.

“When you are going down the road, and the road you are going down is the wrong road and you know where the road ends, you have to get off the road and go where there is hope,” said SEIU President Andy Stern. “Today there is hope for American workers.”

The four unions have formed a group called the Change to Win Coalition. The union leaders have refused to pay $7 million in back dues to the AFL-CIO. Stephen Franklin and Barbara Rose of the Chicago Tribune write:

The dissidents say they want unions to put more money into organizing, more controls over union squabbles and organizing efforts, and more mergers to concentrate unions’ strengths. They also call for up to half of unions’ dues to be returned to unions for their own organizing drives.

Rather than a celebration of the federation’s 50th anniversary and its 56 unions, the AFL-CIO gathering now seems more likely to be remembered for the first steps of the rival group set up by the dissidents and an unprecedented outpouring of acrimony and blame.

“We have to leave the federation,” said Connie Leyva, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1428 in Claremont. “We have to start down a new road. Change is healthy. Change is going to help.”

The four boycotting unions together make up nearly a third of the labor federation’s 13 million members. If the four choose to leave, the AFL-CIO will lose about $35 million.

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.