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

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:44 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #227

dlp211 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are nice anecdotes, the data says otherwise. There will always be slackers, they exist in every job and industry.

[citation needed] Eliminating any motivation to perform well is of course going to discourage people who try harder for rewards. That’s basic economics. Claiming that the top performers will continue to innovate and lead when they are compensated the same as the bare minimum clock punchers is extraordinary and requires evidence. About the only place where unions are better (at least the salary negotiating US style on…

Post by Apocryphon » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:48 PM UTC

matchagaucho wrote: post #184

stjohnswarts wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running a union costs money, it's as simple as that. I often blow $100 bucks on a night out on the town. I would much rather pay that if I can get better hours, vacation, and negotiating power with the guys who just want to maximize quarterly profits at all social and moral costs.

The question is... will the United Steelworkers make the best use of that money? Traditional Unions haven't evolved into the 21st century. They're still using signup sheets, phone trees, FTP, Fax machines, and Post-It notes to organize.

Post by KirinDave » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

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…

Post by KirinDave » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

asjw wrote: post #229

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a contract with the USPS IT department and let me tell you, it is absolutely awesome for their employees. They do about half the work we do in twice the amount of time, get paid more, have more holidays (2 weeks + every single federal holiday) and have pensions. Every worker there clocks in at 9, and clocks out at exactly 5, not a single minute past. If you want a meeting or them to get you something, it need…

I have 28 days of holidays + national holidays in Italy, plus paid sick leave, plus 8 hour of permits a month, plus of course pension, which is a legal obligation. And I'm thinking of leaving because as a new company in a larger group they still don't give us meal vouchers like the rest of the companies in the group.