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

451–460 of 473 posts

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

#451

Post by Itaxpica »

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…

Ok, but you haven't actually addressed the main point of my comment. If it's entitled for labor to demand better treatment when there are kids starving in Africa, why is it not also entitled for management to demand said labor do more work for less? Your comment is entirely orthogonal to this tension.

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

#452

Post by zavi »

throwaway17159 wrote: post #375
zavi wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software engineers don't get hired to Google with 60-100k salaries, not even close.

They do: I was. Admittedly, at the top end of that range, and so one might argue that inflation has hopefully made that statement not true now (I would hope Google's hiring salaries have kept up), but the person you're responding to is also discussing H-1B, and I would expect the salaries there are not as attractive as normal hires.

Salaries for h1b cannot be lower than salaries for others by law. And nobody gets a total comp under 100k anymore.

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

#453

Post by stale2002 »

simion314 wrote: post #438
stale2002 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that most bootcamps are lower quality. What I am instead saying is that I strongly oppose barriers to entry, that a union would implement, to keep out the highly qualified people from the top places like hack reactor. It would not be possible for people like that to succeed if unions started throwing up barriers to entry, regardless of how good the bootcampers are. And this applies to top tier self t…

Why an union formed by you and your pears would put those barriers? I am under the impression that the programmers that are not having the CS education are not few so they can surely make sure they are represented. It is like you telling me that you heard that some police officers did some horrible things somewhere so it is better to not have police at all.

> Why an union formed by you and your pears would put those barriers?

Unions are run by majority rule, not by me. It is perfectly possible for the majority to implement rules that I disagree with.

The history of almost every union in existence, proves implementing barriers to entry is extremely common.

The fundamental reason, as for why unions try to screw over new comers is obvious. The reason is become people who aren't already in the industry don't get a vote.

It makes perfect sense as for why people who already have a job might want to screw over people who don't have a job, to prevent them from competing.

And it turns out that a lot of people are horrible individuals who want to discriminate against newcomers because "F you, they got theirs!".

> It is like you telling me that you heard that some

It is not some unions that do this. It is instead most of them.

Screwing over new comers to protect the established members is almost the entire purpose of unions.

> I am under the impression that the programmers that are not having the CS education are not few

Those people would be grandfathered in, if they already have a job, likely. The people who would get screwed are the ones in college right now, who aren't allowed yet to vote on union rules.

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

#454

Post by fixermark »

rhizome wrote: post #449
fixermark wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ask yourself: after these allegations came to light, did people flee from these companies? We are still talking employees with massive bargaining power and opportunities. "Apple," "Google," and "Lucasfilm" carry a lot of clout; the wronged employees could probably have found work anywhere in the market of their industry of choice if they chose to leave in protest over this mistreatment. We're not exactly talking unskilled labor or easily-replaceable skillsets here.

Did the companies shrink or grow their workforce?

If they grew, wouldn't that suggest to you that the workers themselves aren't seeing the hostility you are?

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

#455

Post by skookumchuck »

AstralStorm wrote: post #435
skookumchuck wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've just mentioned activities an employer (or government) does. Market doesn't do any of these. Prices or wages do not set themselves "because market wills it". They are set because people will not accept a different outcome. If the employer is stubborn and there are few other options, nobody can really drive the wages up. Taking anot market is like talking about evolution. It is not even a force, just a label for…

Force: do this or I will beat you or kill you or imprison you

Not Force: do this or I won't give you something of mine

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

#456

Post by skookumchuck »

xg15 wrote: post #425
skookumchuck wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making ends meet isn't really the issue. Mentally disabled people are usually taken care of by relatives. They can't live on their own. But they want to feel valued and do worthwhile things. By pricing them out of a job, they are denied that opportunity.

This is a strange logic. Your description of a job is more that of a glorified hobby. Meanwhile, are you expecting that the relatives (if they exist at all) shoulder all the burden and costs of caring themselves? Only because someone does not live alone doesn't mean they don't have a cost of living. Indeed, a disabled person's cost of living is likely higher than an able-bodied one. Nevertheless, they should be expec…

The trouble with your position is it renders the person unable to get a job, i.e. it makes the situation worse.

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

#457

Post by AnthonyMouse »

stale2002 wrote: post #429
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone is a horrible person if they are falsely accused of something and use the argument that most effectively allows them to avoid being falsely convicted of it? It seems to me if you have a country where some people don't have equal rights, the problem is the law, not any individual defendant. That's the easy one to fix, in the sense of knowing what should be done. Much easier than trading false positives against…

I am saying that if you make an argument in court that says "This law should be overturned!" as google literally did, then I am going to assume that this means that you think the law should be overturned. And I will judge you morally if I believe overturning this law is a bad thing. A company is responsible for it's actions. And if it's actions in court cause a good law to be overturned, as is their stated argument,…

The problem is that everything is always complicated.

If employees use the company's email system to discuss politics, then the company's email system contains their policy views, which may not be the company's. Then the company gets sued by someone else who gets a copy of those emails and uses the employees' personal views as evidence of the company's official position.

A solution to that would be to have the law be that political discourse can't be used as evidence of policy or intent in a court case. That might be a good solution, but there may not be support for it in the existing law.

The alternative would be to prevent employees from using the company's official channels for their political discussions, to create a brighter line between official and personal speech. Arguing for the second thing is worse -- it has a lot of other problems -- but arguing for the first thing may not be possible under existing law, leaving it as the company's only apparent alternative to avoid liability. What are they supposed to do then?

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

#458

Post by Apocryphon »

skookumchuck wrote: post #455
AstralStorm wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just mentioned activities an employer (or government) does. Market doesn't do any of these. Prices or wages do not set themselves "because market wills it". They are set because people will not accept a different outcome. If the employer is stubborn and there are few other options, nobody can really drive the wages up. Taking anot market is like talking about evolution. It is not even a force, just a label for…

Force: do this or I will beat you or kill you or imprison you Not Force: do this or I won't give you something of mine

Also Force: do this or I will undercut you, bankrupt you, or sue you into oblivion

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

#459

Post by polishTar »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #330
polishTar wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely not true. You might be confusing median tenure with turnover rate, but those are drastically different things; especially so in a company that’s growing.

http://go.corp.google.com/percent Give us the stats.

The attrition rate is google-public, but not public-public.

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

#460

Post by scottlocklin »

briandear wrote: post #360
scottlocklin wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone benefits from a society with high labor costs. Except maybe short term looting interests of top tier capitalists. Even Henry Ford understood this. High labor costs are why people want to live in the US in the first place; it sure ain't the food or the beautiful architecture.

> Everyone benefits from a society with high labor costs. False. China wouldn’t have grown to be such a powerful economy if their labor costs were high. The average Chinese is better off than they were 30 years ago. As far as why people want to live in America? That one is easy: opportunity. Try to start a business in India. Now, try to start that same business in the US. That diff is why people want to be in America…

I'd move from the US to Switzerland in a heartbeat if they'd let me in.

Your examples are basically saying "the US is giving away residency too cheaply and those other countries are not." If it had something to do with prosperity through cheap labor; everyone would move to China, wouldn't they?

Post reply on HN