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

Post by 0xffff2 » Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

youeseh wrote: post #21

dev_dull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not true. There are a large number of contractors working at Google, Facebook and other companies in engineering and other skilled roles. Their contracts are from 3 to 6 months long. If you're in a bind and need a job, you get placed quickly by one of the firms supplying contractors to the large companies. Since you're in a bind, you accept making a lower salary, which ends up being around 60-75% of the base…

Post by bsanr2 » Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

cgag wrote: post #297

ajross wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a Steinbeck quote[1]. It's surely being used, just as it was originally, as a fun way to describe the somewhat banal point that people in demographics relevant to organized labor often hold opinions about public policy that are contrary to their personal interest. It's not a literal statement about what's in a republican voter's head. That said: how many posters here consider themselves just One Great Idea awa…

I know, that it's a well known quote is essentially my point. They frame their personal politics as some well-earned enlightenment, far from the ignorant anti-union baseline, while quoting a Nobel prize winning author whose works most people are forced to read as teenagers.

Post by taneq » Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #299

turtlecloud wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With UBI that should remove the lazy ones who are stuck in those type of positions.

Society pays for those who won't work? Nice promo material!

Post by zaroth » Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 2:30 AM UTC

turtlecloud wrote: post #241

kortilla wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

With UBI that should remove the lazy ones who are stuck in those type of positions.

Post by sharkjacobs » Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

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…