If you can think of a practical way to unionize workers on a 1-2 year contract with a high turnover rate, I'd love to hear it.

The deck is stacked against employee organization. If I were conspiracy-minded, I might even say this was by design.

>If you can think of a practical way to unionize workers on a 1-2 year contract with a high turnover rate, I'd love to hear it.

Adopt the Danish model, make it mandatory for companies with workforces over a certain size to at least vote on unionisation. Will shift the default from not being unionised to being unionised except for cases were the workforce is actively convinced its detrimental.

I love that idea! But I have a hard time seeing a law like that being passed in the U.S., even in liberal California.

Side thought, things like this help me understand why the Danes are so darn happy.

They don't actually meet the legal requirements of contractors. In CA, anyway, they'd have to be full time employees since they do the same thing every day, full time, they are required to be on-prem during dictated hours, and the business relies on their work (e.g. they can never finish their project.)

The moderators are employees of the contracted organization (Cognizant, in this case). They’re not employees of FB.

Cognizant pays them hourly; they are referred to as "contractors" multiple times in the article, while the word "salary" does not appear.

Hourly employees are still employees. Salary v. Hourly is completely different distinction from employee/contractor (you can have an hourly or fixed monthly/annual contract rate, and you can get either model as an employee, though salary is more common if your pay and working conditions make you an FLSA exempt employee, since otherwise you might need to be treated as hourly for overtime and certain other things anyway.)

The union would be stronger if it included the engineers too, who have more leverage.

In my idealized universe FB engineers would have to rotate through moderation for 1 week per year. In my impossibly idealized universe the C suite would do the same.

Every single union in the planet was formed because workers wanted to improve their own wages and working conditions. Nobody organizes to protect other people’s interests. Why should engineers be the only rubes on the planet using their bargaining power to help other people instead of themselves?

> Every single union in the planet was formed because workers wanted to improve their own wages and working conditions. Nobody organizes to protect other people’s interests.

This overlooks the possibility that workers with different statuses can recognize commonality and, so, unionize as a coalition.

This is precisely what happened when the graduate students at the University of Virginia unionized with the University classified staff under UAW for health care and a living wage in 1996ish (? IIRC).

Workers can unionize across pay grades and professional classification if and when it suits such workers to do so.

I'm convinced that unionizing at this scale does not work. They'll always find cheaper people to do the grunt work which presumably is there only to teach the AI. Maybe when the AI is stable enough this AI "caretaker" position will take over and the burden of traumatic content will be alleviated. Maybe.

Up until then people should unionize. Do whatever it takes to create a workplace whichd by human eyes at all, or worst case just once.

reply

Miner49er 10 hours ago [-]

Facebook won't do anything to help these moderaters unless the cost of the negative PR exceeds the cost of doing something. Engineers at FB could help achieve this by causing agitation, for sure.

Maybe the best solution is for the moderaters to unionize.

reply

plankers 1 hour ago [-]

If you can think of a practical way to unionize workers on a 1-2 year contract with a high turnover rate, I'd love to hear it.

The deck is stacked against employee organizatio does not drain sanity from people.

Personally I understand browsing toxic content to foster "immunity" or at least familiarity. Doing it for money sounds like a lose-lose scenario. Call centers seem to sound better given the conditions.

...which it's unlikely to happen because of the NDA's they have to sign.

If there's something wrong with this reasoning, please elaborate.

> ...which it's unlikely to happen because of the NDA's they have to sign.

> If there's something wrong with this reasoning, please elaborate.

I would be utterly surprised if an NDA could be used to prevent an employee from exercising their right to organize (in the US at least). Just because you sign something does not make it legally enforceable.

Yeah - but how would they know what is legally enforceable or not?

It's really complicated and I don't think it's reasonable to assume people have access to a clear answer on enforceability and certainly not an answer they could rely upon enough to risk their job over,

I agree the whole thing is complicated and especially hard to navigate without guidance. I was merely responding to parent asking to validate their reasoning.