Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Facebook

Facebook Pitched New Tool Allowing Employers To Suppress Words Like 'Unionize' in Workplace Chat Product (theintercept.com) 107

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
During an internal presentation at Facebook on Wednesday, the company debuted features for Facebook Workplace, an intranet-style chat and office collaboration product similar to Slack. From a report: On Facebook Workplace, employees see a stream of content similar to a news feed, with automatically generated trending topics based on what people are posting about. One of the new tools debuted by Facebook allows administrators to remove and block certain trending topics among employees. The presentation discussed the "benefits" of "content control." And it offered one example of a topic employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word "unionize."

Facebook Workplace is currently used by major employers such as Walmart, which is notorious for its active efforts to suppress labor organizing. The application is also used by the Singapore government, Discovery Communications, Starbucks, and Campbell Soup Corporation. The suggestion that Facebook is actively building tools designed to suppress labor organizing quickly caused a stir at the Menlo Park, California-based company. Facebook employees sparked a flurry of posts denouncing the feature, with several commenting in disbelief that the company would overtly pitch "unionize" as a topic to be blacklisted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Pitched New Tool Allowing Employers To Suppress Words Like 'Unionize' in Workplace Chat Product More

Facebook Pitched New Tool Allowing Employers To Suppress Words Like 'Unionize' in Workplace Chat Product

Comments Filter:

  • Facebook (Score:3)

    by Malays2 bowman ( 6656916 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @11:50AM (#60176000)

    Another reason I no longer use the service.

    FaceBook + Instagram = FBI

    • Another reason I no longer use the service.

      You and Set Theorists ...

      ... employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word "unionize."

  • ... expecting employees to use this 24x7? Or just for on-the-job communications? Because there is nothing stopping organizers from contacting people via personal accounts.

    • Re:Are employers ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:02PM (#60176070)

      Why would you discuss things like unionization through your employer's provided communications channels anyway?

    • Re:Are employers ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:12PM (#60176144) Journal
      Some employers, yes. Some employers would love to live in a world where you could treat their employees like the mining companies did in the old days, where you lived in a company 'mining town', in company-owned housing, buying everything from the company store, and being charged for the tools and materials you used every day at your job, basically indentured servitude, never making enough money to quit and leave, being literally trapped for life. It's only labor laws and civil/human rights laws that keep businesses from treating people like disposable resources, using them like a toilet until they're not longer 'profitable', then just tossing them in the bin. Think about all the stories you've heard over the years about companies like Walmart and Amazon, and how even big tech companies like Intel and Microsoft have a larger percentage of their workforce as contractors from staffing companies than they do direct employees: by doing that they avoid any real responsibility for the contractors, and 'stafffing companies' are parasites that treat the contractors like garbage. As the business world 'owns' more and more of our elected officials they're able to incrementally strip away more and more of the protections for employees. That's the world we're living in, friend.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:51PM (#60176350)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Thays why they are collectivley scared of socialism over there and being constantly indoctrinated that the tiniest bit of socialism is EVIL! even if they still have alot of it. For example public transport is socialism

            • Public transport is socialism in that it is owned by the government. However, that is not what he's talking about, he's talking about employee owned. Employee owned means the government (or community, depending on your definition, though in practice they're one and the same) doesn't own it, which means Joe Blow down the street doesn't have any kind of vote in how its run or who benefits from the labor.

              There are many employee owned businesses in the US, but they tend to be small because it is hard to secure

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shotgun ( 30919 )

              For example public transport is socialism

              Really?! Because, the few times I've been forced to use public transportation when visiting large cities, I've had to pay for the privilege.

            • 'Public transit' exists mainly for the lower echelons of society who can't afford their own transportation, and for city dwellers for whom it is wholly impractical to own a car, and (ostensibly) to reduce traffic problems. I think it's a bit of a stretch of the term to call it 'socialism'. Allowing the working poor to have jobs outside of walking distance actually helps local and national economies because it helps keep them employed and perhaps even more gainfully so, therefore they theoretically have more

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              For example public transport is socialism

              Public transport is not socialism.

              Socialism means the workers - the workplace society - control the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

              The alternative is capitalism, where the wealthy - the capital owners - control the means of production.

              These are terms we owe to Marx and Engels. Left wing organizations have created huge amounts of propaganda to try to claim that anything good for society is socialism, unless it doesn't work out in which case it's actually something else.

              Brainwashed much?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            The real answer is employee ownership

            Enron.

        • Except this was the exception, not the norm.

          With todays 'values', I can't even imagine a "Hersheyville" being done in modern times. :\

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shotgun ( 30919 )

            It's the rumors you've heard about Google, just without the free housing.

          • That's because there used to be, nominally at least, a concept of 'socially responsible capitalism', but that's gone out the window, as you say. Now it's more like 'profit above all else'. Without laws to protect people it would all go to Hell very quickly.
        • That's a little different, at least on the surface; I can't give an honest opinion until I read about it myself at length.

      • The fact the department is called Human Resources is tacit proof that they view humans as nothing more then resources to be strip-mined.

        If these companies had any sense of respect they would rename the department: Human Assets. It would be a reminder to treat people like assets -- something to INVEST in; not something to exploit.

        e.g. Such as getting everyone 2 or 3 monitors for their job. When companies are too cheap to spend a lousy $200 to get an extra monitor that tells you they don't care about you bei

  • Faebook is once again #1.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @11:59AM (#60176048)

    At being the biggest piece of shit in an industry full of them. On the other hand at least in cases like this they are "honest" enough to just say the quiet part loud.

    • At being the biggest piece of shit in an industry full of them.

      Are you under some delusion that workplace communication systems such as Yammer, or Chat systems don't allow word filtering? Or are you getting upset because TFA put a union busting spin on it for no reason?

      • Re:Faebook is once again #1.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:10PM (#60176124)

        Oh the didn't need to "put a spin" on it:

        "When reached for comment, a spokesperson for Facebook said, “While these kinds of content moderation tools are useful for companies, this example was poorly chosen and should never have been used. The feature was only in early development and we’ve pulled any plans to roll it out while we think through next steps.”

        I am under no delusions, but perhaps I should have been clearer in that my comment was about Facebook in general, this is just another scoop of shit on their overall shit sundae.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by plopez ( 54068 )

        Or could it be that FB doesn't believe in censorship, but allows it to happen anyway and even helps censorship be imposed?

    • Exactly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sibko ( 1036168 )

      I don't understand your vitriol directed at Facebook.

      This is basically a blacklist function for a chatroom. If you have a list that prevents people from swearing, well you have everything necessary to implement a ban on the word "unionize". The article paints a picture that Facebook designed this specifically about stopping unionization, rather than as an upsell. If this article had been about a media darling like Google rather than Facebook, it'd be something like "How Google's Chat Product Helps Stop Whit

      • In this case it was related to my statement of them "saying the quiet part loud"

        Yes, all chats have blacklist. No one is debating they shouldn't it's Facebook, through an official channel and an employee that touted that as an acceptable use of it, which is in my opinion wrong it's also of questionable legality for it to be used in some way. Facebook is as much anti-union in the same way that much of all Silicon Valley is, Google included. People should be free to choose to unionize but large companie

  • When did providing tools to a paying customer become evil? While I am not a Facebook fanboy, I will say that if they have paying customers and those customers (employers) wants to suppress conversations about unions, sex, firearms, etc. that's their right. If their employees don't like it, there are plenty of out of band chat apps that they can use. I am guessing whomever used "Unionize" as their example for the presentation is kicking themselves right about now.

  • Does Zuckerberg speak Mandarin? (Score:3)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:02PM (#60176074) Journal
    Sure as fuck sounds to me like he does.
  • "My hounds will never harm me."
    -- Ramsay Bolton and every leftist authoritarian who called endlessly for Facebook (and every other tech giant) to develop, deploy, and use ever more draconian censorship tools.

  • News at 11. In case you don't feel like waiting until 11 for your outrage we put a unionbusting spin on this quite standard feature so you can froth at the mouth while you wait for our news story.

    Or maybe the news is that Facebook is playing catchup to Yammer, which has had admin controlled content blocking since inception day. Either way the entire world is going to shit so I don't understand why we need this faux outrage story on top of everything else.

    • Maybe because knowing is better than not knowing.

    • Might be good to know if a publicly traded company will soon face civil lawsuits for violating the NLRA, specifically the section on "Unfair labor practices".

      Other than that, y'all better get back to work before your get reprimanded.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Also, it might be good to know that you have no idea what you're talking about.

        https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]

      • Might be good to know if a publicly traded company will soon face civil lawsuits for violating the NLRA, specifically the section on "Unfair labor practices"

        Given that there's no evidence anyone is actually violating anything and every company in America has the ability to violate the NLRA, I'm not sure what you think this story is about.

        • Just suggesting that there is risk in shady business practices. I didn't realize that much of these protections where wiped away in a court ruling last year. carry on!

  • Next, lets ban mentions of national origin, sexual orientations, religion or slang for them, then you can ban gender pronouns, or all the previous could be changed into corporate approved terms. /s?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by plopez ( 54068 )

      I'm sure there's a company who will try it.

    • The City of Silence [goodreads.com] by Ma Boyong [wikipedia.org].
    • That's a double-plus good idea!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      My workplace does have a dress policy that you can't wear clothes with words on them. It's there way of saying, "We're here to get a job done, and we don't care about your conservative OR SJW bullshit. Take it outside. All of ya'."

      • My workplace does have a dress policy that you can't wear clothes with words on them. It's there way of saying, "We're here to get a job done, and we don't care about your conservative OR SJW bullshit. Take it outside. All of ya'."

        Apparently your organization hasn't realized the team building value of custom printing items of clothing for their employees, rather than cash awards. /s

  • I thought FB didn't believe in censorship (Score:3)

    by plopez ( 54068 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:11PM (#60176140) Journal

    That's what Zuckerberg says anyway. Face it, he's a right wing Nazi puke.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nife Cat ( 5950278 )
      Zuckerberg is one of those people that just sees where the wind is blowing, and will go along with it, if it makes a profit. Sure, he'll pretend to champion free speech and privacy, while selling your data behind your back, from his giant walled off mansion. I don't believe he really has an ideology, left or right. He's just an egotistical, bad person.
    • And if they had said Police Union, you'd be too busy setting up a Zuckerberg Shrine in your living room to comment on the story.

      • I think of myself as left-wing, but have many right wing views so there is no real party, but I think the police should have a union.

    • `Face it, he's a right wing Nazi puke.`

      Which is really, deeply ironic given his heritage. He and Ben Carson must get along well.

  • Of course, this is illegal... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ethanwilde ( 5317751 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @12:12PM (#60176146)
    NLRB Interfering with employee rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1)): Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7" of the Act. For example, you may not... Prohibit employees from talking about the union during working time, if you permit them to talk about other non-work-related subjects. Just more of the same evil from Face-uckerberg.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      And that includes discussion in non-work areas, like lunchrooms.

      To comply with the current NRLB rules, the company would have to prohibit all non-directly work related use of Facebook Workplace, and have to implement filters that block all non-directly work related conversation, which is, of course, impossible.

      It's legal for Facebook to offer this service, but it's very illegal for any company - including Facebook - to use it as advertised.

      Who enforces truth in advertising laws?

    • Just more of the same evil from Face-uckerberg.

      Congradulations on falling for the clickbait headline. Face-uckerberg did little more than introduce a feature that is already present in every commercial office communication package, the ability to filter content. Whether anyone uses it in breach of the NLRB is entirely up to companies and bullshit clickbait authors.

      But I'm glad you're outraged.

    • It's illegal for companies to fire employees for having families or disabilities or being > 30, but that happens all the time (and to me this year).

  • and what will the law say about this?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      Not "will". "Did". What "did' the law say about this.

      The NLRB ruled last month that workers don’t have a statutory right to use employers’ email systems and other digital resources for organizing purposes.

      From: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]

  • Who wants to onionize? We'll have an onion club meeting in the parking lot after work. For anyone who likes onions :-)

  • There's an easy way to determine if somebody is more science-minded or politics-minded. As them to pronounce the word "unionize".

    Science: "un-eye-on-ize", remove the ions from a compound.

    Politics: "yun-yun-ize", organize a labor union.

  • Seriously, Facebook could have just used any word (maybe even an offensive one!) and let its customers figure out they could use this for whatever purpose, but they just had to go and throw this in there. Not only does it speak to their disdain for organized labor, it also speaks to their view of their customers- "These guys aren't very bright, better spell it out for them"

  • Will "w3 hav3 2 un10n1ze!" pass FB's filters?

  • Super-obvious union busting? (Score:3)

    by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Friday June 12, 2020 @03:12PM (#60176832)

    And it offered one example of a topic employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word "unionize."

    Yeah, that's a GREAT idea! Let's leave an electronic trail of us CLEARLY interfering in unionizing activities at our business!

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Facebook is a global company with a global customer base. Interfering with unions isn't illegal in every country. Implementing a content filter on a work related communication platform on the other hand is quite consistently legal in basically every country.

      • True, but the company is still headed up as a US company with US leadership. This would not look good in a court of law, even if they somehow restricted it to countries where this is legal.
  • These guys would kidnap and sell babies if they think they could make money off of it. Come on peeps Wake The F up!
  • Unioize to 'Rebecca'.

  • If I worked for FB, that would really make me want to onionize.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close