A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize • Hacker News Board

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#101

Post by mrweasel » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

WitCanStain wrote: post #35

klaudius wrote: post #30

I don't understand unions. If they don't like certain behaviors that are legal like selling to government or paying high salaries, why are they working there in the first place? Just quit. Different people like different things, so go work somewhere that suits you.

The point of unions is that individual workers can be easily screwed over with no repercussions for the company because of the power differential between companies and their workers. Unions seek to level the field a little bit by giving the workers collective bargaining power which allows them to secure better pay/benefits/influence the direction the company is going. When they work it is a very rational arrangement…

Precisely, you can end up having people working for a company under terms that are technically legal, but still exploiting the weakest. The strongest people easily move on to better positions, but some, single parents, less skilled, psychologically weaker individuals and so on are more easily pressed into working conditions they may not like, because they fear losing the job they do have.

In the US the minimum wage haven't moved in decades, at least not significantly. Denmark doesn't even have a minimum wage, yet people are better paid, that's due the Danish unions. Interestingly the Danish unions are actually oppose a minimum wage, because they believe it makes it easier to legally pay people less.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#102

Post by avianlyric » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

pacificat0r wrote: post #83

objclxt wrote: post #38

When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve. People often seem to think of unions as being purely blue-collar operations, and this just isn't true. For example, I've had people tell me that they don't support unions in tech because they'll be "paid less", or less competent engineers will be promoted faster.…

So these are really good examples, but I still don't understand what unions can do for 1% of someone's pay. They kind of look like subscription services, or worse places you have to join or else there are unintended consequences from other examples where they mention looking at union membership as an indicator of some experience (so kind of like a tax). The screen actors guild and all the movie-related guilds seem in…

In theory the unions should be a place to organise employees, to help improve working conditions. But I suspect for most people the real benefit will be protection from miscarriages of justice.

I've personally seen people put through the wringer by HR teams, and even when the HR team acknowledges they've fucked up, there's no apologies or an attempt to make things right. Unions can provide protection in these case, whether that's access to legal help, or just having a 3rd party on your side sitting in on employee dispute meetings.

I think a lot of people don't appreciate how badly they can be screwed over by a HR team, accidentally or maliciously, until they find themselves in a meeting with three members of the HR team, with no one telling them what's going on. At which point, it's already too late to save yourself. A union gives you recourse and support, something invaluable when it you're up against the entire HR team.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#103

Post by vegardx » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

pacificat0r wrote: post #83

objclxt wrote: post #38

When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve. People often seem to think of unions as being purely blue-collar operations, and this just isn't true. For example, I've had people tell me that they don't support unions in tech because they'll be "paid less", or less competent engineers will be promoted faster.…

So these are really good examples, but I still don't understand what unions can do for 1% of someone's pay. They kind of look like subscription services, or worse places you have to join or else there are unintended consequences from other examples where they mention looking at union membership as an indicator of some experience (so kind of like a tax). The screen actors guild and all the movie-related guilds seem in…

My union membership more than paid for itself this year. My employer wanted to defer merit increase due to covid and all the uncertainty. The union called them on the bluff.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#104

Post by humanrebar » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

kenhwang wrote: post #74

bitcharmer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question as I don't know that industry at all. How does being a member of a union imply more experience?

The unions (edit: film industry) require a certain amount of work experience to join and some have different levels of membership depending on how much work you do after joining. Because everyone prefers union workers, it creates a situation where the non-union worker has to get noticed somehow (nepotism or exceptional work) to convince someone to take a risk and hire them to earn enough work to gain union membership…

It's worth pointing out that in those situations unions aren't better for all workers. Also notice there's a strong gig economy component to establishing professional credentials.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#105

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

fovc wrote: post #52

objclxt wrote: post #38

When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve. People often seem to think of unions as being purely blue-collar operations, and this just isn't true. For example, I've had people tell me that they don't support unions in tech because they'll be "paid less", or less competent engineers will be promoted faster.…

One positive byproduct is that union membership is a quality signal for both employers and employees. I.e., as a producer, I know non-union candidates will be less experienced; as an employee I know a movie using non union labor is not going to run as smoothly. Could be good for the startup market if this additional data point becomes reliable

This isn’t true. It just creates artificial scarcity in the form of the union membership, similar to artificial scarcity of the Bar exam, and college degrees in general, but mere union membership has even less claim to indicate skill, competence, etc.

When unions function as an exclusionary fraternity, they are actually pretty horrible. A good indicator of a well-functioning union is: the union doesn’t have negative effects on people who don’t join, and they are free to do their jobs side by side with union members and nobody cares, nobody judges anyone for their personal choice, no one discriminates on pay or opportunities.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#106

Post by sanxiyn » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

zthrowaway wrote: post #69

andai wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, if unions did nothing, Google and Amazon wouldn't be working so hard to prevent them from forming.

Oh they do something, they help destroy a company’s ability to compete. Take a look at unionization of the auto industry in Detroit back in the 70s and 80s which basically killed our lead in the industry and gave it to Japan and Korean companies on a platter.

Those Japanese and Korean companies were also unionized. Mighty strange how did they compete, right?

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#107

Post by Moosdijk » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

karl11 wrote: post #60

Don't think we've ever seen Hollywood in the modern era without unions, so not sure how you can claim it's "undeniable" the industry is better off. We basically have no clue if it's better off or not. Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options as there is a single or just a few employers (e.g. Hollywood, teachers, coal mining towns, hospital staff, etc.). Unionizing at Goo…

>>engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better".

This "if you don't like it here, go work somewhere else" kind of reasoning disproportionately balances the power towards the employer. Instead of fixing problems, it leads to removing those that are affected. This is exactly what unions are for.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#108

Post by the_other » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:01 PM UTC

karl11 wrote: post #60

Don't think we've ever seen Hollywood in the modern era without unions, so not sure how you can claim it's "undeniable" the industry is better off. We basically have no clue if it's better off or not. Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options as there is a single or just a few employers (e.g. Hollywood, teachers, coal mining towns, hospital staff, etc.). Unionizing at Goo…

The idea that leaving equates to collective bargaining is false, and even if it had a ring of truth it would be ineffectual at FAANG companies.

Leaving changes nothing, it just accelerates the bad behaviour because the obstacle to the bad behaviour removed itself. A single person, even a team of engineers, leaving a FAANG company will have near-zero impact on the behaviour, functioning or profitability of that company. The action will not change management or ownership's perspectives on anything. They'll simply hire someone else, and promote internally if they need too. Even when you have a celebrity engineer like Tim Brey leave Amazon, publicly explaining why, outright slamming some of their behaviour, nothing will change. Mozilla seems to think it can function exactly the same as it did before (in terms of mindset) having let go of 25% of its staff. In the UK we recently had several politicians leave their senior positions within government or their party over disagreements in policy... and nothing meaningful has changed.

Unions are not just for protecting jobs, they're much more about staff having a voice, if not a seat, at the executive table. Unions can help influence senior decision-making. Most of that is about job protection, pay, quality of life issues because in blue-collar jobs those are the key issues. But in white-collar jobs a union can represent the opinion and aims of staff in a way that isn't obvious without them.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#109

Post by giantg2 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

mondoshawan wrote: post #63

Googler here, these articles are literally the first I've heard of it. No internal emails, rabblerousing, or any kind of comms about it, and it seems as though the union discussed doesn't actually exist yet. Seems a bit odd (and bad reporting), but we'll see where it goes. After watching how a mechanics union did absolutely nothing while CEOs ripped apart my Dad's pension and put him through hell, I have a bit of a d…

That pension thing probably isn't the union's fault. Pretty much anyone that had a non-government backed pension lost it or had it severely reduced. They simply were not financially sustainable. But I do agree they sometimes the union can be their own worst enemy. For example, I knew a sterl plant manager and he was telling me that they had a hard time competing with imported steel and that the union was constantly asking for more and more money and time off. Eventually management was forced to give them everything they wanted dispite explaining that it would bankrupt the company.

Overall, I think unions can be good. I would like an actual contract and no forced arbitration.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#110

Post by karl11 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

avianlyric wrote: post #84

karl11 wrote: post #60

Don't think we've ever seen Hollywood in the modern era without unions, so not sure how you can claim it's "undeniable" the industry is better off. We basically have no clue if it's better off or not. Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options as there is a single or just a few employers (e.g. Hollywood, teachers, coal mining towns, hospital staff, etc.). Unionizing at Goo…

> People don't want to leave a cushy job for one where they would have to work harder for their money, so instead, they are trying other means to have their cake and eat it too. You're saying this like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't employees expect, and get, better working conditions? > engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better" How is individuals leaving "coll…

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead.

There are very few perils of leaving Google - a top tier company in an industry that is continuously struggling to hire enough people. If you are an engineer at Google and can't get a job somewhere else, I don't know what to tell you.

Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc.