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

Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#141

Post by Apocryphon »

marcinzm wrote: post #111
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here's something I always wonder about when I see arguments that unions aren't necessary at tech companies like Google because the workers are highly compensated and presumably well-treated: if we're all sure that's objectively the case, then why should management fight unionization efforts? Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If…

>Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote i…

> That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things.

Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in recreating things from first principles, and claims to embody a spirit of invention, will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past? I thought our whole shtick was about innovating things for the better?

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#142

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

nolok wrote: post #117
H8crilA wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd vote for everyone who has a reasonable plan of more scrutiny towards 40 hour work weeks. This may reduce salaries but oh God most of us make too much money anyhow. Let's have a life now! When are you going to enjoy life, after retirement? Would you wait with sex till after retirement, too, if that offered a salary increase?

This sounds crazy to me. If you're a funder / owner, sure, you don't count hours and it can get crazy. But if you're an employee... Most of my hires now are 30 hours a week, a few at 35h. I don't have anyone at 39h anymore, although that was still the norm a few years ago. Paid stayed the same, just reduced the hours. People are just way more productive that way, and they have two half day free on top of the normal S…

In which country is the working week 30h? Or is it just your company?

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#143

Post by qaq »

UncleMeat wrote: post #119
Kalium wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, like raising wages. Big piles of money tend to turn into surprisingly small ones when spread out across big piles of people. You'll have to pardon me if I'm reluctant to take my economics lessons from a linguist.

Google's annual profit is something like 100,000 dollars per employee. Not exactly a small pile.

and RSUs of employees reflect that. start making that 100K into something smaller and your total comp will start to decrease.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#144

Post by vonmoltke »

vinay427 wrote: post #93
spectramax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I feel like it’s cliche to hate on America these days. For those comparing Switzerland to USA, you’re comparing a highly homogeneous culture and highly optimized country to a land full of immigrants gathering in excess of 300 million. Americans criticize their own country more than anyone else. OP’s post not only misses the fact that Switzerland is not in the EU, but more importantly the spirit of argument is bas…

As someone now living in Switzerland, I've found it largely futile trying to explain anything about Switzerland to most non-Europeans. For starters, no one seems to bother with what countries are in the EU, let alone the EEA, let alone where Switzerland is in all of this. Apparently "everyone in Europe" has free government-paid healthcare and never has to pay for any medical expenses. I could go on...

A lot of Europeans on this site make similar statements.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#145

Post by marcinzm »

Apocryphon wrote: post #141
marcinzm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote i…

> That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things. Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in…

Silicon Valley is composed of humans with the same drives, limitations, etc. as everyone else. The fact that they think they're better than the rest of humanity doesn't mean they are. It just means they're more self delusional. Self delusion tends to make you repeat history more rather than less.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#146

Post by Apocryphon »

icelancer wrote: post #124
nradov wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAG-AFTRA was notoriously silent for years during the #MeToo "casting couch" abuses. The union was apparently cozy with powerful entertainment industry players and did little to protect their members.

This is because the higher up members in SAG-AFTRA were complicit themselves. The management of the union are management themselves, which is what a lot of people seem to miss. Who watches the watchers?

Not corporate management, that's for sure.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#147

Post by marcinzm »

vageli wrote: post #135
marcinzm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote i…

> >Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? > Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? By this logic every union pushes for every possible benefit. That doesn't seem to be the reality tho…

Concessions are part of negotiating, you never ask for what you want, you ask for twice as much and bargain down. Union looks good for pushing hard and company looks good for getting a better deal. It's also more successful to increase the demands gradually over time since no single round of negotiations goes over the "replace them all with non-union" threshold even if together they do.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#148

Post by toomuchtodo »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #107
toomuchtodo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my experience, people sit on the sidelines because they're comfortable. People advocating for change should be polite first, and then not polite if politeness fails.

So you plan to force me into accepting your position if I don't take it when you ask nicely? I'd say you're already not polite.

You already exist in a democratic system (assuming you're posting from the first world) where majority (mostly, some caveats) rules. This isn't any different. Everyone gets a vote, not everyone gets their way.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#149

Post by Apocryphon »

marcinzm wrote: post #145
Apocryphon wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things. Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in…

Silicon Valley is composed of humans with the same drives, limitations, etc. as everyone else. The fact that they think they're better than the rest of humanity doesn't mean they are. It just means they're more self delusional. Self delusion tends to make you repeat history more rather than less.

You're still making the assumption that labor unions are inherently limited by human nature, and not worth attempting a v2. That goes against the SV ethos of tinkering with existing systems and reinventing them.

Re: Google attempted to shut down a unionization meeting in Zurich

#150

Post by chipotle_coyote »

marcinzm wrote: post #111
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here's something I always wonder about when I see arguments that unions aren't necessary at tech companies like Google because the workers are highly compensated and presumably well-treated: if we're all sure that's objectively the case, then why should management fight unionization efforts? Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If…

>Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote i…

What does management have to lose by not pushing for every single way to reduce labor costs? If they didn't provide any benefits and got as close to the legal minimum wage as they could, think of all the savings! After all, the point of management isn't to do what's fair, but to extract maximum benefits for the company.

Well, even though some labor cost-cutting is helpful to them, at some point that stops being the rational choice, right? At some point they're not going to be able to attract talented workers. Likewise, it's not in a union's best interest to demand so much they drive a company into bankruptcy, whether directly or indirectly. They might do it anyway -- just like there are, in fact, examples of companies driving good employees away through bad management practices -- but that's not a rational choice.

Post reply on HN