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

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

#281

Post by mszcz » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #153

mszcz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I'd like to work in a place like that. Wouldn't you get lazy after a couple of years? Doesn't this create incentives to deliberately work more slowly? After a couple of more years like that wouldn't you get used to not doing much and then get slaughtered when inevitable change came around? My friend referred to this kind of situation as "being in an ass" ;) Yeah, from time to time there's a smell but…

> Wouldn't you get lazy after a couple of years? Doesn't this create incentives to deliberately work more slowly? Maybe without unpaid overtime and burnout, developers will finally have the chance to contribute to open source and side projects that recruiters are always looking for.

Whoa whoa I'm not sayin people should be treated like shit. Just that that USPS example didn't really look all that good.

Burnout sucks and being exploited sucks. I'm all for unlimited sick days, being compensated for all the work and time you put in, getting the benefits that you're guaranteed by law etc. In exchange for that I sure would expect the employer to expect me performing well. Quid pro quo. The USPS example didn't imply that imho.

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

#282

Post by runarberg » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #133

geofft wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard anti-union rhetoric in college when people were wondering why it cost so much to set up A/V in a lecture hall. If you haven't heard any, I'm not sure whether to tell you that you've lived a sheltered life or you've so internalized the anti-union rhetoric (like your comment, right here! ) that it doesn't register when you hear it. Also, I'm very confused about your "liberal areas" comment. My impression as a r…

The NYT, a fairly left-leaning paper in a left-leaning city, wrote about how the union is causing cost explosion building the second avenue subway. As to the funding—New York’s MTA has a significantly larger budget than London’s very similar system. London, meanwhile, covers 100% of its operating costs from fares, while New York covers just half.

The rhetoric goes that the union is enforcing expensive outdated work to be kept to keeps their members employed. However I don’t buy that rhetoric. If that is the case, it is not the union’s fault, but the governments fault for hiring a corrupt contractor.

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

#283

Post by mszcz » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

OldFatCactus wrote: post #141

mszcz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I'd like to work in a place like that. Wouldn't you get lazy after a couple of years? Doesn't this create incentives to deliberately work more slowly? After a couple of more years like that wouldn't you get used to not doing much and then get slaughtered when inevitable change came around? My friend referred to this kind of situation as "being in an ass" ;) Yeah, from time to time there's a smell but…

You would get lazy having a 40 hour work week and 2 weeks paid vacation?

No way. Unpaid overtime sucks. Burnout sucks. What I meant was that that USPS job description sounded to me like a cushy, untouchable asshole replying to emails passive aggressively every other day from 1200-1235hrs.

I'm not for exploiting people if that's what you mean. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

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

#284

Post by kortilla » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #169

kazen44 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this not just survivorship bias? What about the countless of people who did not make it into a successful startup, or all those people who bought lottery tickets without winning anything? becoming a millionaire is statistically highly unlikely, and why would such an unlikely event warrant anti-union sentiment?

Yeah, my point is that this isn't actually a rational way to think. That is what the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" concept is about. For the vast majority of those people, it isn't temporary at all.

The “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” is a trope of the left. It constructs a strawman argument of how people on the right think to discount the reasons they actually vote against entitlements and anti-business legislature.

I know of nobody on the right that has voted with that mindset.

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

#285

Post by username90 » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #192

puzzledobserver wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, are you saying, "I would like the collective to bargain on my behalf, but I just don't want to be part of that collective"? Isn't mandatory membership a simple corollary of unionization efforts?

I'm not in favor of mandatory membership, but on the other hand if someone chooses not to be a member and is subsequently mistreated by management, there's no reason for the union to assist them and they shouldn't receive any benefits established through collective bargaining agreements.

> they shouldn't receive any benefits established through collective bargaining agreements.

Why not? I can just demand that my contract looks the same as the unions, anything wrong with that?

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

#286

Post by mszcz » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #148

mszcz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I'd like to work in a place like that. Wouldn't you get lazy after a couple of years? Doesn't this create incentives to deliberately work more slowly? After a couple of more years like that wouldn't you get used to not doing much and then get slaughtered when inevitable change came around? My friend referred to this kind of situation as "being in an ass" ;) Yeah, from time to time there's a smell but…

Idk about you, but I don’t work hard out of fear of losing my job. I do it for the respect of my coworkers more than anything. It’s totally viable to be lazy in a non-union job too.

Sure thing. It's just that that USPS job performance description didn't really sound all that respectful of your coworkers is what I'm sayin'.

If some employer is taking advantage of you you should quit. I do understand that not everyone is in a position to say 'fuck you' to a person/entity that's taking advantage of him/her and that that's a situation a union can help in.

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

#287

Post by S_A_P » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

ramphastidae wrote: post #245

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a very good question. Google employees have some of the best salaries, generous benefits, plentiful vacations, massages, psychological help, free food - you name it. I see how a union can make things worse for googlers. I cannot see how unions can make things better.

The Google employees advocating for unionization are contractors and do not enjoy the benefits you mentioned.

Which again brings to mind the question- if you want those great benefits you could try to get hired as an employee. Or come on as a contractor and prove yourself to the company. If you are a contractor you are trading that for higher per hour wages. In my industry in the Houston area the most I could ever expect to make as a developer a specific niche is roughly 150k plus or minus 30k. As a contractor on a good year I can triple that. Unionizing Would only bring that number down.

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

#288

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #285

anigbrowl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of mandatory membership, but on the other hand if someone chooses not to be a member and is subsequently mistreated by management, there's no reason for the union to assist them and they shouldn't receive any benefits established through collective bargaining agreements.

> they shouldn't receive any benefits established through collective bargaining agreements. Why not? I can just demand that my contract looks the same as the unions, anything wrong with that?

You can demand all you want, and your manager can respond with 'LOL no you're not worth that much'.

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

#289

Post by mszcz » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

throwaway1777 wrote: post #197

paulie_a wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It enforces the 40 hours a week. That's the job you are paid for. Working 16 hours a day..7 days a week is not lazy. It's a recipe for burn out. Working hard for the 40 is what is expected and should be exactly that. You pay me for 40 I'll give you 40 You want 80 then you pay me for 80

Facebook and Google certainly pay for 80 then. The average senior engineer there definitely makes at least double what someone at USPS IT does...

I don't think working 80 is either sustainable or even possible for that matter.

My wife was on an assignment in South Korea and she experienced the 16 hour work days there. No one even blinked when you tried calling your colleagues at 11:00pm.

However, what my wife noticed is that most of the people working those hours seemd drousy, unfocused and inattentive. It boggles my mind how either of the sides of that work contract can think that that kind of situation is beneficial for either of the sides in any imaginable way...

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

#290

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Sep 21, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #276

anigbrowl wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GMAFB

Trump is almost certainly anti-union himself given he has been an employer most of his life but his comment is not anti-union ideology. If it were he would not be careful about which segment of the union he's criticizing and he would not have positive things to say about their members.

Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tactics around but by all means keep parsing it. I have better things to do than collect and submit examples to see whether they meet Rayiner's occult standard of conversational admissibility.