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

131–140 of 473 posts

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

#131

Post by 0x262d »

tivert wrote: post #122
typon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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 That's not quite right, HN is full of anti-labor libertarians . And I think it has something to do with startup culture, which is a lot about working to get a golden ticket to join the capitalist class. That causes a lot of people to identify w…

yes. and in addition, programmers in general while technically workers have a pretty cushy middle class existence.

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

#132

Post by kamarg »

nabla9 wrote: post #83
jschwartzi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fine, but then you can't claim the moral high ground if your legal defense is that employees don't actually have the rights that your policy says they do. It's worth noting that people don't like doing business with hypocrites either, so Google has a fiduciary duty to avoid pissing its customers and employees off by systematically eroding their rights through legal arguments as well.

If I think that castling should be removed from the chess rules. Am I a hypocrite when I use it when I play with others? In the same way proposing laws that would limit legal tax evasion loopholes and using those loopholes is not a hypocricy. They work at different levels. Wanting to change rules (laws) so that everyone must play with the same rules and using rules until they are changed is not hypocrisy. Court battl…

> Court battle is like debate competition, you can use arguments you don't believe in.

Except that court battles have consequences. If you use an argument you don't believe in for a debate competition, you aren't going to overturn laws designed to protect people from those with more power. If you do it in court, there's a possibility that you're going to make many lives worse.

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

#133

Post by pjc50 »

malvosenior wrote: post #94
typon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You succeed at programming by spending countless hours on your own with a computer

... which requires access to time and computers to train on. Not everyone is quite in that state. And not everyone is an autodidact either, it's not the only valid route to programming.

> Your career is a direct result of your own hard work and passion

Not completely - it's a result of getting accepted by hiring managers, and then retained by internal performance processes, both of which are incredibly subjective and vulnerable to prejudice.

Moreover, some people care about things beyond themselves. A key component of unions is solidarity: caring about how your colleagues are treated. This may also extend to how your employer is treating the wider society.

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

#134

Post by pmiller2 »

googlerthrowaw wrote: post #98
cf141q5325 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

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

#136

Post by chrismeller »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #115
chrismeller wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most companies, even in the EU, say that workplace systems are for performance of job duties only. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily legally enforceable, but either way it’s a much more nuanced argument than it’s being portrayed as. If I have a right to use company systems to organize a strike, how do they then account for those messages in their normal record keeping and compliance procedures? Do they also have to…

Google has never, as far as I know, required that work email systems be used for performance of job duties only. They certainly want work usage to be primary, and in some countries and circumstances they claim more rights to intellectual property created using work systems that they otherwise wouldn't claim, but they do allow incidental personal use. In my experience working there in the past (before these cultural i…

And I’ve never worked for Google or Alphabet. The company has nothing to do with it, this is about a supposed moral issue that should (I hope) apply to every company, not just them.

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

#137

Post by skh »

sigzero wrote: post #101
skh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how allowing workers to use workplace email to organize can be equated to coercing speech. Worker protections in the U.S. are quite poor in relation to the EU. I see no evidence that further limiting worker rights would be good for the people.

Google owns the email system. Why can't they limit its usage by its own employees? Companies do that all the time. Employees have no rights to do whatever they want with someone else's infrastructure.

I don’t know the history of union organizing in the U.S. but I believe unions have a right to try to organize at a business and can do so on the business’ property. Can people trying to organize use a bulletin board? Can they post flyers on company property even though it’s owned by the company? I think the answer is yes. It seems to me the principle involved is that workers can use to some extent property owned by the company for the purpose of organizing.

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

#138

Post by zozbot123 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #112
typon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you can just look at the surface and see it as a natural consequence of a relatively easy, high-income, unregulated profession, with high demand for workers. Many of the benefits of collective bargaining aren't applicable to people who are relatively easily able to switch jobs or work as a consultant. That then tends to lead to… complacency, I guess? I would expect that relatively few people in that field hav…

> Many of the benefits of collective bargaining aren't applicable to people who are relatively easily able to switch jobs or work as a consultant.

The other side of the coin is that collective bargaining itself makes switching to a different employer or working as a consultant a lot more difficult than if the sector wasn't unionized. Sure, some people will have trouble doing these things anyway, especially at the low-end of the income distribution. But that's why we should support policies like Basic Income, or at the very least expanding things such as the EITC and getting rid of e.g. payroll taxes for low earned incomes. And I think that many people here on HN would agree, whether or not they self-identify as libertarians.

> ...particularly in game development, where conditions can often be worse.

Game development is the sort of industry that everyone thinks they'll want to work in, only to change their minds very quickly once they see how the sausage is made. Even just raising awareness about the work conditions in the industry - and making it clear that they're not representative of "tech" more generally - would help a lot.

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

#139

Post by pmiller2 »

mises wrote: post #3

I tend to agree with the people saying there's a problem in Google. But that said, I also think Google should have the right to say what can and can't be broadcast. Otherwise, you make the company transmit, broadcast, and disseminate viewpoints: coercing speech.

Only a select few individual employees speak for Google. To claim that the writings of those who don’t, on an internal system, speak for the company is disingenuous.
Post reply on HN