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

181–190 of 473 posts

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

#181

Post by idontpost »

getpost wrote: post #155
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 started out anti-labor due to my own experience in a minimum wage job. I was forced to join the union and pay union dues, yet I still received only the minimum wage, so being a union member resulted in a sub-minimum wage! Another objection I had to unions is, they tend to promote an "us vs them" mentality, when instead, everyone should be working together. The destruction of the middle class shows that the balance…

[flagged]

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

#182

Post by danharaj »

austincheney wrote: post #143
danharaj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, unless the difficulty of doing without it makes it infeasible . Mobility impaired people lobbied for curb cutouts waybackwhen because it would make it easier to use sidewalks. I think that situation obviously shouldn't be belittled by saying it's about convenience . Ugh, if going to the grocery store were as important as they claim they would find a way /s. I'm not convinced this particular situation isn't…

Accessibility is justified by equal access or anti-discrimination, which isn't the same as convenience. As an accessibility advocate I find that equivalence either insulting or grossly misinformed. This conversation isn't about equal access. Trying to warp it into such is insulting.

> This conversation isn't about equal access.

You're right. It's about workers rights. I'm telling you that I think construing the ability of workers to effectively organize as a convenience is also an insulting stance. In fact, I'm glad I chose an example that you find important. Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work, maybe one that is as important to society as equal access is.

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

#183

Post by smacktoward »

mmsimanga wrote: post #130
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…

I am not against unions but having spent a career trying to get business to tell me what exactly they want I tend not to put too much faith in large organisations. I feel the administrative overhead of getting all us programmers to agree on specific principles as part of a union is literally going to be impossible. Try putting some developers using electron, PHP, Java and Postgresql in a room and see if you can get p…

> Try putting some developers using electron, PHP, Java and Postgresql in a room and see if you can get past the introductions without a flamewar.

Try asking them how much they think programmers should be paid and I think you'll find they come to agreement pretty quickly.

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

#184

Post by hippich »

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…

Because all these ideas (regulation, minimum wage, laborisation, etc) protect existing workers and harms lower skilled or newcomers, foreigners, minorities, etc. Many computer professionals still remember how nice it was to be able to get an edge by giving up something (undercut competitors to get the first crucial project in the portfolio, not being judged by your credentials, etc)

My prediction - time will pass and the idea of a labor organization will become the norm in IT world as well. Perhaps even a requirement to be certified by some kind of professional organization to be hired at all. But this will hurt newcomers.

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

#185

Post by bogomipz »

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…

>"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."

These issues seem to be particularly acute in Silicon Valley. "The industry" is much more than companies located in the Bay Area and Peninsula in Northern California. There is no shortage of companies out there that have zero tolerance for sexual harassment, who do not pursue projects related to censorship or the Pentagon. I know because I have worked at them. They are only worse than Google salary-wise. Let's not pretend that Google employee's primary concerns are trying to set "industry standards" or that they're somehow looking out for all of us.

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

#186

Post by asdff »

username90 wrote: post #160
wasdfff wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every context besides economic journals it refers to social liberalism: the progressive left. No one is calling reagan or bush liberals even if they are by the economics definition of the word.

But "being very liberal" is not the same as "being very pro USA Democrats". Liberals are often right wing parties in other countries. Basically you have a scale from socialism where everything in your life is dictated by social contracts to liberalism where almost nothing in your life is dictated by social contracts. The left in the US calling themselves liberals is kinda like the north korea calling themselves "demo…

Yet we are on a U.S. based website talking about a U.S. company and its American workforce and a story published in a U.S. newspaper, so we will stick with the common convention and not go on semantics tangents.

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

#187

Post by nkurz »

DannyBee wrote: post #97
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> i can find filings from various "loved" open source companies that make the same argument

I don't know how easy that would be for you to do, but if it's quick, I think that would be a very useful data point.

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

#188

Post by calibas »

So they're undermining worker's rights to protect themselves from lawsuits? And I'm supposed to be okay with it because them pushing to get the rules changes for their own gain is not lobbying, it's a "legal defense".

That being said, it's foolish to use workplace email to do things like organize unions.

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

#189

Post by austincheney »

danharaj wrote: post #182
austincheney wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accessibility is justified by equal access or anti-discrimination, which isn't the same as convenience. As an accessibility advocate I find that equivalence either insulting or grossly misinformed. This conversation isn't about equal access. Trying to warp it into such is insulting.

> This conversation isn't about equal access. You're right. It's about workers rights. I'm telling you that I think construing the ability of workers to effectively organize as a convenience is also an insulting stance. In fact, I'm glad I chose an example that you find important. Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work, maybe one that is as important to society as equal access…

> Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work

I would have started with that. At this point you are shifting ground to qualify an indefensible position on a topic that isn't that important.

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

#190

Post by austincheney »

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…

> Leaving google will almost certainly place you in a company where the situation is worse

That is a baseless assumption. For me a toxic work culture is the worse situation.

The US was founded on the concept of liberty more so than on the concept of democracy, which is how we ended up with a federal republic and an electoral college. According to JS Mill the greatest enemy to liberty is a hostile majority.

Post reply on HN