Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by simion314 » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #176

simion314 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

Actors' unions do impact salary. Union contracts set and enforce minimum amounts that all working actors have to be paid, for example. An actor earning these amounts is said to be "working for scale." For illustration, SAG-AFTRA's current rate sheet for TV productions can be found here: https://www.sagaftra.org/files/2017%202020%20wages%20TV%2010...

So isn't ok of setting some minimal salary? I do not see why the developers would be against this, only the companies would like to abuse the developers and work them extra hours and not pay.(so probably companies are spreading the FUD against unions? )

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

#202

Post by cheeze » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

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.

As long as they continue paying folks boatloads of money, they'll continue working there.

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

#203

Post by davinic » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #163

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…

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?)

The major benefit of the acting unions is the ability to limit the labor supply. In a growing industry like tech, this isn't necessary as the demand has always been greater than the supply of talent.

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

#204

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

Dangeranger wrote: post #191

idontpost wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that actors were treated like shit first. Even the stars. Just look at what they did to Judy Garland, not to mention everyone else on Wizard of Oz. That hasn't happened yet to developers.

You may want to think back just 25 years to the early to mid-nineties when developers where considered “code monkeys” who couldn’t think past their current module and needed “business analysts” to write requirements for them. It wasn’t slavery by any stretch, but working in programming was akin to working in “IT” and thought of as a department full of weird nerds who cost the company money.

Separate business or system analysts managing requirements documentation weren't (and aren't in the many places where they are still a thing) about developers being “code monkeys” with limited and not particularly valued skills, in fact, it was and is usual for such analysts to be considered inferiors to the programming staff who do work that is beneath programmers worth.

The reason they exist is because the organization values (or is subject to mandates for) documented requirements, and doesn't want programmers to have to bother with the tedious work of developing and maintaining them, focussing on actually developing the software.

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

#205

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

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…

> Another objection I had to unions is, they tend to promote an "us vs them" mentality, when instead, everyone should be working together.

You're aware that several major US tech companies were colluding to keep employee wages lower than they otherwise would be[1], right? Once a company's size exceeds Dunbar's number[2] (and often long before then), it's de-facto us vs. them from the executives' point of view.

[1] http://time.com/76655/google-apple-settle-wage-fixing-lawsui...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

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

#206

Post by manifestsilence » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #96

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.

This opinion reflects a particular kind of career and living situation. If you rent and work in a field that has many options per city, and/or remote work, things are fine. I've heard it said that programming is an industry that favors lateral movement.

On the other hand, if you own a house and the economy has tanked to where it's worth less than you owe on it, and you work for a large company that is a unique industry in that town, your options are limited. If they gouge you (see history on "the company store") you're screwed. Hence unions are far more important in certain industries than others.

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

#207

Post by MattyRad » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

newscracker wrote: post #180

There’s something very rotten at the top levels at Google. The “Don’t be evil” motto has long disappeared and has been replaced by apathy and/or hostility on different fronts. Maybe this move by Google is actually good...to help more employees and others realize how the company has morphed into something that’s no longer doing as much good for humanity as it used to boast about. I’m still hopeful that the rot in comp…

Relations with Google are definitely starting to sour, here are a few recent examples:

- IE switches to Chromium engine, Chrome has full clearance to dominate the web.

- Questionable actions toward ad-blocking (seen only just yesterday).

- Colluding with China to create a blatantly dishonest search engine.

- Questionable products (Google Fi, Pixel phone, Google Home, etc, are share their own controversies)

- Search results quality is decreasing (which is just my personal speculation, DDG is usually retrieves less polluted results).

Let me know if I missed anything.

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

#208

Post by rmdashrfstar » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #170

zozbot123 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 me…

Please keep talking about issues like this. There’s too many preaching a cure from an armchair and not enough recounting actual experience.

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

#209

Post by 908087 » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #142

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 Conceded. Pardon me--cannot edit the original comment. > it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim Do we know these filings were in response to a legal claim? It could have been in response to something more frivolous. (I am having trouble finding the filing.) > Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy prefe…

the person you are arguing with has real credentials in this matter (lawyer) and works for the company we are discussing. Even if you don't agree with him, he's knowledgeable and honest about the situation.

Given the subject, the fact that he works for Google should make you question his motivations, not lend him more credibility and assume he's being honest.

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

#210

Post by SolaceQuantum » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

I can think of a mountain of things that programmers could collectively bargain for that would benefit everyone. I'd like for bargaining to happen about parental leave, what "unlimited vacation" actually means, what "on-call" duties really entail, compensation for overtime, and whether or not engineers can be reasonably forced to perform illegal or unethical behavior (data collection, dark pattern designs).