Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 473 posts

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#91

Post by fgheorghe »

josephv wrote: post #79

These comments read like a bunch of low-income retail shoppers defending Walmart because they provide something they otherwise couldn't get. I think these types of debates are bellwether for programmer/IT professional unionization. These are the exact types of lawsuits brought against organized labor as it was trying to get organized to prevent exploitative behavior. It's disturbing to see these same anti-organizatio…

From what you are saying, programmers are now just a set of workers in a factory, shouting “power to the people”.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#92

Post by eeZah7Ux »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #12
bb101 wrote: post #8

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with…

Spot on. Companies know very well how to appear ethical to the public eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing is an example.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#93

Post by topynate »

mehrdadn wrote: post #17
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with…

What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.

The comment you're replying to is hot-blooded, but your question has a simple answer nonetheless. Sergei Brin stands in front of the "activist employees" at an all-hands and tells them that he strongly disagrees with some of their political beliefs, and that while they're welcome to advocate for them, those beliefs will find little purchase so long as he remains president of Alphabet.

But that's not how he runs that company -- which is the point.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#94

Post by malvosenior »

typon wrote: post #90
josephv wrote: post #79

These comments read like a bunch of low-income retail shoppers defending Walmart because they provide something they otherwise couldn't get. I think these types of debates are bellwether for programmer/IT professional unionization. These are the exact types of lawsuits brought against organized labor as it was trying to get organized to prevent exploitative behavior. It's disturbing to see these same anti-organizatio…

Programmers, maybe ones on HN especially, are super conservative and anti-labour for some reason. I don't know the history of Silicon Valley enough to figure out exactly why

You succeed at programming by spending countless hours on your own with a computer. Your career is a direct result of your own hard work and passion. From that perspective, organized labor seems like an unnecessary dependency. Programming is a form of extreme independence many will be hard fought to give away.

Developers (some) aren't super-conservative, they're libertarian.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#95

Post by jkaplowitz »

bmj wrote: post #46
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has a very high turnover rate relative to company age pay etc at just 3.2 years on average. So, I suspect they really do lose a lot of people over this stuff, they just keep hiring at a very fast pace.

I wonder at what point working for Google will lose its shine, and their hiring pace will drop off.

You'll be waiting quite a while: Amazon has long been (and remains) an overall much worse place to work, yet they find plenty of warm bodies to fill their seats.

(Of course this is a generalization - I know people with good experiences and others with bad ones at many companies, including these two.)

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#96

Post by mbostleman »

austincheney wrote: post #39

> If the Labor Board did what Google wanted, “it would have a huge chilling effect,” said Google employee activist Colin McMillen Weird, I guess then they would have to use the employee email system for employment related matters. There isn't any restriction to prevent any employee from using a non-employer email system for organizing the very same activities. The unintended consequence of allowing this kind of activ…

I don't understand the tendency to fix markets by "organizing". I wish there was more of an attraction to work with the market. Just quit and work somewhere else. Spread your ideas and persuade others to do the same. It's a lot healthier in my opinion for all involved, not to mention the consumers of the product.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#97

Post by DannyBee »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
bb101 wrote: post #8

It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas. It appears that there is a conflict of vision within Google.

> It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas The e-mails referenced in the article were unsolicited policy preferences communicated by a multi-billion dollar company to a regulator in writing. These communications were sent following a PR and HR crisis. The chances that this didn't have high-level sign-off is virtually zero.

This is basically fact free.

First, you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 "

IE before a PR and HR crisis or whatever you want to call it.

Second, it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim.

Third, claiming that expresses a policy preference is silly.

Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy preference that say, murder is okay?

If you go and read the actual filing, and other filings, here's an actual fact for you:

Google is literally making the same defense that others before the NLRB are.

So if you want the outrage, i suggest you direct it at everyone.

Like, i can find filings from various "loved" open source companies that make the same argument, etc.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#98

Post by googlerthrowaw »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #77
googlerthrowaw wrote: post #69

I'm a googler, going anonymous for soon-to-be obvious reasons. While I think this headline is overblown, I think the change would be for the better. For the past couple of years working at Google has been like what I'd imagine it's to work for the Trump administration: constant scandals, people around you being outraged, constant diversion of internal attention to issues unrelated to the core business etc. Nominally…

I dont think anyone is arguing it wouldnt be better for stock owners. Workers rights are generally the opposite of an improvement for stock owners. Thats not what they are there for. Its targeted at improving and safeguarding workers and in a broader sense society. In this case its so employees arent just silently doing what they are told matter the consequences those actions will have for the rest of the world.

You're missing the point. I'm saying I'm completely willing to exchange some ease of worker organization for a more peaceful (some might even say thoughtful) workplace due to the current mess the culture is.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#99

Post by yourbandsucks »

bendoernberg wrote: post #70
austincheney wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a corporate leader what is more important: allowing employees to use employer resources for personal politics or solving for toxic/hostile behavior?

The answer is that being a human with moral and ethical obligations to the rest of humanity should take precedence over being a corporate leader. If you don't sell censorship and weapons tech or cut backroom deals to silence victims of sexual harassment, there's no need to try to stop your employees from talking about it.

That's just, like, your opinion man. Other people have different political opinions.

The progressive majority were all for firing people for political beliefs as long as it was people they disagreed with... now they're aghast at the abstract concept of it?

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#100

Post by sdenton4 »

barnesto wrote: post #80
bendoernberg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is that being a human with moral and ethical obligations to the rest of humanity should take precedence over being a corporate leader. If you don't sell censorship and weapons tech or cut backroom deals to silence victims of sexual harassment, there's no need to try to stop your employees from talking about it.

And there’s nothing preventing employees from finding a new place to work if they don’t agree with how their company handles things. It’s a multinational corporation not college or even a democracy.

These are systemic problems in the industry, though. Leaving google will almost certainly place you in a company where the situation is worse, and where the ability to set industry standards is less.

As for the "it's not a democracy:" I ask why we tolerate that. In a country founded in individual freedoms, we're apparently ok with creating no-freedom zones that pretty much every adult has to spend half of their waking hours in.

Post reply on HN