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

#441

Post by mcv » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

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.

Many programmers I know have no problem with money getting spent on public goods, as long as they're public good and not public stupidity, pork barrel spending, vanity projects, and that sort of thing.

That said, I do think American-style right-wing/capitalist libertarians are overrepresented among programmers compared to the average public, as are left-wing libertarian socialists/anarchist.

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

#442

Post by yyyymmddhhmmss » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #381

Itaxpica wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how people only ever use "entitled" to describe labor demanding better treatment from management, but never to describe management demanding that labor do more for less.

Adam Smith discusses this asymmetry in Wealth of Nations. He basically says both business owners and labor try to organize, but business owners tend to win because it's easier for them to make it illegal for labor to organize. Edit: This is the passage I was thinking of "We rarely hear ... of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines ... that masters rarely combine, is a…

[dead]

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

#443

Post by rchaud » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

anticensor wrote: post #439

rchaud wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the employer side should also be numerous enough to establish an employer organisation. They are and they have; see US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. From the wiki article: "DOJ alleged in their Complaint that the companies had reached "facially anticompetitive" agreements that "eliminated a significant form of competition...to the detriment of the affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively importa…

I meant a formal employers' union, not a secret agreement.

What would be the remit of such a union? These companies likely compete with each other; Adobe and Apple for example have competing video editing products, and Jobs's letter sent Flash, another popular Adobe product to an early grave.

So what would this employers' union do exactly?

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

#444

Post by random_kris » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

Companies are people... I fint it funny that we talk about companies like a sentinent being..

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

#445

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #433

Apocryphon wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like that's compatible with the German social market, or Nordic social democracy. Or even the protectionist Asian Tiger states.

The law is use of force. Examples: setting wages, employment terms, price setting, quotas for women on corporate boards, etc. Protectionism isn't free market, either.

The tariffs article literally describes the U.S. as very protectionist up until it implemented the income tax.

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

#446

Post by fixermark » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

mbrumlow wrote: post #343

fixermark wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a shareholder at Google, it is absolutely one's business whether the company is paying hush money to make personnel problems go away.

I don't think being a shareholder gives you such rights. Even so, the guy in question probably had more shares than you thus trumps your desire to be a busy body. Lets see you walk on the google campus and demand to see who has been reprimanded recently to some random manager. As you are dragged off the campus yelling "but but but I am a shareholder....." But beyond that it is more likely he had a exit plan under whi…

I didn't claim rights; I said it's my business.

Shareholders should be justifiably concerned and can be expected to put pressure on a company that's cagey about such matters. Because it increases the risk that they'll have a messy scandal on their hands that could impact share value.

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

#447

Post by fixermark » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #346

fixermark wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So even with a history of Silicon Valley playing tricks to suppress what developers get paid[1], the typical HN reader is humdrum about salary because it's "better than average?" I have a hard time believing that. Yes, because the "pay suppression's" effect was to knock people making six-figure salaries down to six-figure salaries, on average. It actually had very little observable negative effect. (Note that if yo…

Note that if you go back to the original lawsuits, they were regarding gentlemen's agreements around headhunting. Given that SV's default attitude is "individuals are responsible for themselves," an agreement against headhunting isn't interesting---if an employee is dissatisfied, they know where the competition is and who to talk to about changing companies You may be interested to learn that one of the corrupt agree…

It's still, on average, a choice between two very cushy six-figure-plus-stock-options deals. No doubt collusion like that puts downward pressure on salaries, but with so much inequality in income in the US, you could put a LOT of such downward pressure on salaries before anyone's going to bat an eye.

(Hm... There's either an economics or sociology paper in the making there about the consequences in employment practices when the wealth inequality in a nation skews large).

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

#448

Post by scrumbledober » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #428

scrumbledober wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think video game developers are a subset of developers and that subset is almost entirely passionate about video games. Very few people end up working in game development if they are not passionate about it. I think any time you have a workforce who are passionate about their field you can get people to work for less than if they held the same job in a different field that wasn't full of passionate fans.

Do you think the passion keeps them working more then 80 hours a week or there is some pressure? I worked 16 hours a day for a week, it was horrible, I don't think I can do 2 times more in 16 hours then in 8 and I gave up the money and just worked the 8 hours(now I am doing 4 hours a day , screw the money)

I think the passion is definitely a force that on average pushes developers to take more punishment to get ahead of their peers. That adds up a lot pretty quickly when it's everyone in the industry. (4 hours a day sounds quite nice)

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

#449

Post by rhizome » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #447

rhizome wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that if you go back to the original lawsuits, they were regarding gentlemen's agreements around headhunting. Given that SV's default attitude is "individuals are responsible for themselves," an agreement against headhunting isn't interesting---if an employee is dissatisfied, they know where the competition is and who to talk to about changing companies You may be interested to learn that one of the corrupt agree…

It's still, on average, a choice between two very cushy six-figure-plus-stock-options deals. No doubt collusion like that puts downward pressure on salaries, but with so much inequality in income in the US, you could put a LOT of such downward pressure on salaries before anyone's going to bat an eye. (Hm... There's either an economics or sociology paper in the making there about the consequences in employment practic…

This is one of the most worker-hostile perspectives I've read in a long time, certainly in a dismissiveness-per-sentence sense.

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

#450

Post by Itaxpica » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #426

Itaxpica wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how people only ever use "entitled" to describe labor demanding better treatment from management, but never to describe management demanding that labor do more for less.

Have you ever lived or worked in a third world country and seen people struggle to make ends meet? I mean really struggle. I have. It makes me wish I could drop my kids off in Afghanistan or a Syrian refugee camp for two weeks so that they can see just how good they actually have it when they curiously find things to bitch about. I have worked immediately next to a former South African military officer that now works…

You do realize that several of the walkout demands were specifically designed to improve treatment of temps, vendors, and contractors as well as full-timers, right? Most of the Googlers who walked out explicitly did so in support of the folks who couldn't.