Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

m.pghcitypaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 448 posts

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#31

Post by Aloha »

claudeganon wrote: post #8
Aloha wrote: post #5

Maybe this is the way it shapes out - the contractors of the new economy are equivalent to the hourly worker in the old economy, the perm people management. The contractors have representation from a union, and the perm people, none.

It probably won’t be that analogous. I suspect that having the parallel, contract labor force is at least somewhat about exerting additional control over those employees that are actually permanent. A kind of implicit threat that your employment status can be downgraded.

I think the threat of firing is more relevant - no one gets downgraded to a contractor, you just get pushed out the door

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#32

Post by chrisseaton »

rdiddly wrote: post #28

I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…

I think their angle is that it’s not in anyone’s favour to unionise.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#33

Post by icebraining »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #27
erikpukinskis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think it’s Google’s responsibility to ensure their suppliers are adhering to basic standards of decency, whatever Google thinks decency is. The government has nothing to do with that. I don’t think the government should be adjudicating virtue, nor do I think companies can say “I outsourced that part of my product, so it’s not my concern how it gets made!”

I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees. Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a particular anti-union activity on the part o…

The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from their suppliers, legality aside.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#34

Post by claudeganon »

rdiddly wrote: post #28

I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…

I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#35

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

JamisonM wrote: post #30
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims th…

I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that some people here are proposing. People are saying to terminate the contract with HCL. What? What good would that do? If there are no consequences for union-busting then what? This is the same question for US companies that do overseas human rights compliance audits on their supply chains, it is true that if a supplier fails the people being mistreate…

I 100% guarantee you that if Google were to try to terminate the contract over this, people would be claiming that Google is anti-union and that that itself constituted a form of union-busting. The proper way to handle something like this would be to have penalties in the contract for illegal behavior on the part of the contracting company that reflects poorly on Google.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#36

Post by inerte »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #12
KirinDave wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.

That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims th…

It is Google's, and the government, responsibility. Why not both?

Google contracts a company. Company does shady things. Google should play detective, should make sure its suppliers well behave. Google employees should demand their employer is doing this, consumers should too. Why can't they?

And Google is free to ignore, but then face the consequences - which will be practically none in this case or like any other case from any other company in any other market involving contractors. Nestlé hires companies using slaves, Apple hires Foxconn who drives people to suicide, Zara hires Thai companies using child labour.

The important point here is that it's ok to at least calibrate our expectations: I do expect Google is at least considering, if this is true, to talk with HCL and say "dudes this is bad PR, get your shit together or we're gonna talk about $".

Things aren't either nil responsibility or maximum responsibility, different actors play different roles with different levels - sure, enforcing the law is government's responsibility, but Google can have its own share and we can call it responsibility too.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#38

Post by [deleted] »

dev_dull wrote: post #14
tyingq wrote: post #4

"HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between $30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely." That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.

The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and quickly find more gainful employment. It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.

[deleted]

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#39

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

icebraining wrote: post #33
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees. Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a particular anti-union activity on the part o…

The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from their suppliers, legality aside.

I don't think Google is particularly pro-union, so Google's standards on this front are probably not very different from expecting that partners remain within the bounds of law. I want to reiterate that it has not been established that any illegal anti-union activity has actually taken place. The only thing that we know for sure is that USW believes it has. I strongly doubt that Google is opposed to HCL being more responsive to workers ahead of a union vote, nor of having a consultant available to speak about unions, as long as the consultant is being honest and factual in the things that they say.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#40

Post by [deleted] »

pcnix wrote: post #29
tyingq wrote: post #4

"HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between $30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely." That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.

For Indian developers that's above average pay, and HCL has a heavy Indian presence. Prices for developers outside of the US and Europe are actually quite low, and part of the reason is the low costs in other countries that let companies get away with paying less, and another part is that there's a lot of engineers available. Even if the average engineer is not as good, there's so many engineers in India that compani…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN