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

341–350 of 448 posts

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

#341

Post by MiroF »

privateSFacct wrote: post #203
stjohnswarts wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On average unions work better for the most people. People on the upper end will not stop contributing or trying, people on the lower end don't matter much anyway. It's the middle that provides most of the advancement.

At least two other data points - I have a friend who worked in a govt agency - doing cool and important work - she left because of the unfirable lifers - while the stories are funny you can’t go to work and perform well in that situation. In high school teacher X was notorious for giving no work and no s*its. He missed lots of his classes so always subs. We thought it was cool (usually easy A). He was there years but…

Anecdotes don't gain rhetorical force by calling them "data points"

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

#342

Post by throwawaysea »

hrktb wrote: post #270
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs I've always found this condemnation odd given how often it's actually true. If you break down salaries by demographics, one of the biggest correlations with salary is age. Senior positions pay more than junior ones. It's an extremely common career path to start off in an entry level job and ultimately end up in management by the end of your career. So the rea…

How does it work for a 10 people team for instance ? One of them will be a team leader at some point. A second one might follow and become a team leader while the firth one goes higher. Will they go up one more level ? let’s say yes. That makes e of them climbing the ladder. Will there be a fourth ? probably not. That leaves 6 people not going up, and only earning marginally more. That’s less than half will see signi…

This seems okay to me. What’s wrong with this? Not everyone deserves further compensation. And others value the work of these employees only so much, so rewards have to be distributed either those bounds.

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

#343

Post by MiroF »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #228
claudeganon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs I've always found this condemnation odd given how often it's actually true. If you break down salaries by demographics, one of the biggest correlations with salary is age. Senior positions pay more than junior ones. It's an extremely common career path to start off in an entry level job and ultimately end up in management by the end of your career. So the rea…

Extremely common from the perspective of HN commentators but not actually extremely common in reality.

Most people do not have a managerial position their entire lives - period.

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

#344

Post by alkibiades »

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.

they’re not talented enough or worth those benefits. if they were, they’d be full time. unionizing is a good way to get themselves fired

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

#345

Post by cortesoft »

ci5er wrote: post #329
cortesoft wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay for them in some way or the other... they either are on public assistance or end up in jail. We pay either way.

You have a preference?

I prefer a basic income.

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

#346

Post by MiroF »

jkp56 wrote: post #296
claudeganon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m opposed to corruption in unions, according to the BLS, workers are better off with unions than without them: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

"workers are better off" is a statistical nonsense regardless of what's written in that pdf. This type of arguments can convince only non technical or not very smart people. A proper analysis would split workers into subgroups and give specific numbers for each subgroup. A proper analysis would use words like percentiles, median and distribution. When I see that "something is better on average" I always think that I'…

That's just his/her paraphrasing of the complete source - if you actually had read that one you would see that it does give specific numbers for subgroups.

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

#347

Post by MiroF »

ShadowKitten wrote: post #320

"HCL itself would be violating the National Labor Relations Board law if the company fired workers for forming a union, but Gyrgo is concerned the union can’t protect them from the work they do with Google, since they don’t actually work for Google." In other words: Google won't be violating the law if the company fired workers for forming a union because they will be doing so using a proxy organization as a scapegoa…

Labor law in the United States is so obviously broken, I'm sort of amazed that it isn't talked about more.

Even beyond unionization, the fact that I had to waive my right to sue my employer for gender or racial discrimination in the courts (in favor of a private arbitrator they hire) as a condition of getting the job is just bullshit.

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

#348

Post by tehjoker »

geofft wrote: post #132
microcolonel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having recently listened to and briefly met Daryl Davis, I know racists in large part can be reached, if we're not lazy about it. If they're your own parents, you have a huge advantage in terms of common ground.

There's the "racist" that leads the Ku Klux Klan, and the "racist" that has black coworkers they get along with great but just doesn't want their daughter dating a black man, it's just not how we do things, you know. The Klansman, at least in the present day, knows that he's on the margins of society's beliefs. Like any other tiny political position, holding those beliefs is uncomfortable. Even among the second categ…

The first group sees themselves as ascendant with the most powerful man in the world as their ally. It is foolish to dismiss the real problems of organized and politically powerful racism. It is one of the country's most early and ingrown sins that shapes our discourse and policy (e.g. policing and the concentration camps at the border) to this day.

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

#349

Post by ci5er »

cortesoft wrote: post #345
ci5er wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a preference?

I prefer a basic income.

Pay criminals not to work? Somehow I don't think this is good PR...

I don't disagree, but I don't know know if this is how the case needs to be made...

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

#350

Post by skissane »

darawk wrote: post #112
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…

> 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 it this much." I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing employees at the expense of high perform…

> I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees"

What is “good for employees” or “bad for employees” may not be the same for all employees. A policy which favours the interests of one group of employees may disadvantage another. Which group of employees’ interests will a union prioritise?

For example, suppose management has budgeted enough for a 2% across the board pay rise. Management has two basic choices about how to distribute this:

Option 1) Everyone gets 2%

Option 2) Above-average performers get more than 2%, every one else gets 0%

If you are an above-average performer, Option 2 is best for you, whereas if you are not, then you will be better off with Option 1. Which of those two options will the union advocate for?

Post reply on HN