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

161–170 of 473 posts

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

#161

Post by TAForObvReasons »

rconti wrote: post #151
matthewmacleod wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This. And due to the high demand of our skills, we're able to effectively negotiate salaries and comp in a way that at least lets us think we're doing better than average (see: salary transparency, or lack thereof). Plus, we're not a group generally known to like more layers of bureaucracy.

It's more "temporarily embarrassed billionaires" imho. Many HN denizens are angling to either work at google or launch a startup that is acquired by google or grow to the scale of google. Why offend the future employer / acquirer now over proletarian issues?

In case you aren't familiar with the Steinbeck quote:

> Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

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

#162

Post by abcdefghello »

sdenton4 wrote: post #100
barnesto wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wakin…

They don't own the company.

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

#163

Post by simion314 »

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…

What is different then the acting though? Actors have unions that protect their rights but don't affect their salaries AFAIK (maybe they were abused so much that the history if fresh for them still?)

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

#164

Post by SquareWheel »

mtgx wrote: post #75

No wonder they obliterated "Don't be evil" from the workers' code of conduct. This, yet again, reinforces the idea that people with good values are no longer welcome to work for Google anymore. But some, the same people who LOVE to point out that "Don't be evil" is still forgotten somewhere in the last line of the workers' conduct, will likely remain skeptical that Google is becoming more evil by the month.

>No wonder they obliterated "Don't be evil" from the workers' code of conduct.

Of course they didn't do this. As your own comment goes on to prove. You should not encourage the spread of misinformation just because it suits your world view.

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

#165

Post by acct1771 »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #161
rconti wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. And due to the high demand of our skills, we're able to effectively negotiate salaries and comp in a way that at least lets us think we're doing better than average (see: salary transparency, or lack thereof). Plus, we're not a group generally known to like more layers of bureaucracy.

It's more "temporarily embarrassed billionaires" imho. Many HN denizens are angling to either work at google or launch a startup that is acquired by google or grow to the scale of google. Why offend the future employer / acquirer now over proletarian issues? In case you aren't familiar with the Steinbeck quote: > Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but…

"Embarrassed" -> "disenfranchised" has a nice ring to it.

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

#166

Post by acct1771 »

uncletaco wrote: post #152
markstos wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not every anonymous account on HN corresponds to a real individual?

Da. I'm just uploaded brain scans of the California Spiny-Tailed lobster. I honestly struggling with the idea of being an individual myself.

Believe your GP is trying to say someone could be astroturfing anti-labor sentiment.

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

#167

Post by simion314 »

0x262d wrote: post #129
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

HN especially attracts people who think like "I'm a super smart 10x hacker and deserve the fact that I earn 5x median salary and poor and dumb people can starve". it's sad. reverse class consciousness.

I mentioned this in other comments, actors have unions but they still have different salary(superstarts will earn much more then a new unknown actor) and they seem very eager to join the union(or guild or how it is named I am not from US).

So it seems that programmers were scared by some bad stories that everyone will have same salary.

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

#168

Post by acct1771 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #119
mcv wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how programmers are super conservative. In my experience, especially on HN, they tend to be fairly progressive on average. However, they also tend to be somewhat libertarian. And so far, software development hasn't been an industry that really needed unionisation. But that could always change in the future, of course. Personally, I generally support unions, though I don't see the need for them in software…

I've found that programmers tend to be socially liberal (pro-gay rights, abortion rights, etc.) but financially conservative (don't like their money being spent on public goods). Which somewhat overlaps with libertarianism, yes.

Wouldn't say "somewhat"...promoting personal sovereignty (all of the stuff you mentioned and more) is one of the main tenants.

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

#169

Post by evmar »

mmaunder wrote: post #135

Perhaps I'm missing something, but Google seems to experience far more labor action than most other large tech employers. Why is that?

I find this an interesting question as well. I am a senior Googler and my old friend is similarly senior at Amazon. He told me that Amazon culture is much more transactional: you're hired to do a job, you do the job for pay and the company discards you when they're done. The company is not your friend. (As I've worded it I make it sound cruel, but in his framing of it, it's an honest but direct relationship.)

In contrast, historically Google culture has tried to be more of a "family", with a lot of talk about perks and culture and a focus on the mission or whatever. To be clear, I don't believe Google has necessarily succeeded in these goals. But rather, that is the employee relationship Google has attempted to represent, so when Google fails at it the employees are more disappointed than when Amazon (you can substitute other employers here, e.g. Oracle) fails in the same way.

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

#170

Post by freedomben »

zozbot123 wrote: post #138
matthewmacleod wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you. As someone who worked in a union before switching jobs, it is not all rainbows and unicorns like so many people try to present it. In one shop I worked in, I was a truck driver delivering fuel to airplanes. If my truck broke down in any way, even something as stupid as the key got jammed, if I pulled out my leatherman and pulled it free, I could be fired for violating union agreements. Even most of the mechanics agreed how dumb it was. I was the sucker sitting out in 100 degree summer sun in the airport with zero shade, waiting 30 to 60 minutes for somebody to come do a job that would take me 10 seconds.

That's before we even talk about collective bargaining. Getting a pay raise was completely out of the question, as raises were almost entirely based on seniority and how long your ass had been in the chair. It was highly punitive to younger people like myself. We also got crap shifts because shift preference was also awarded by seniority in the union. The non-unionized shop paid a shift differential, so people willing to work 2nd and 3rd shift got more money for their time. That was a great solution, as it increased the supply for shift work to approximately the levels of demand (basic economics).

So tl;dr: unions have and had a place, but the cure can sometimes be worse than the disease. Acting like unions are this amazing shining solution with no downsides is pure ignorance.

Post reply on HN