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

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

#171

Post by lithos » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:19 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…

While not union myself watching how IBEW (international brotherhood of electrical workers) works, it ends up working well for all involved parties. For workers pay is kept higher, benefits stay active between jobs, and benefits stay unchanged between jobs at different companies. Companies also gain the ability to support surges/drops in manning requirements (without ruining life's of workers), and know workers have a minimum level of training (along with that training not leaving workers a debt addled depressive). I also see the best workers rising through the ranks, and bad ones either never actually entering the union or quitting when they realize they're not going anywhere.

Not every union strangles their company like automotive unions. Though those unions start to look better looking at nonunion companies like Tesla which somehow manages to pay their workers less, in one of the most expensive areas in the world, and maintaining an accident rate that would shut a union shop down.

Also it makes sense that Google would fight unions. Since the current implementation of unions for SV companies has been Kickstarter. And that union mostly exists to drive profit to their competitors by choosing what is allowed on Kickstarter. Something like that for Google would just end up making an easy paper trail for a prosecutor to follow for SV platform bias.

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

#172

Post by appleflaxen » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

The recurring theme in the comments against unions can be captured by a simple truth: Unions don't protect your interests; they protect their interests.

Which is fundamentally true, and cannot be changed.

So if your employment situation is so bad that you need a second, massively powerful, self-interested entity to negotiate with the massively powerful, self-interested entity in the hopes that your interests may happen to align then a union is the right choice.

But if not, you are adding an order of magnitude of complexity to your political work environment (yuck) and will come to regret it.

And if it comes to pass, it is absolutely critical to structure the union in such a way that the interests are aligned with the employee members.

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

#173

Post by sz4kerto » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

One difficulty I see with the mission statement (https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statemen...) is that it is very broad, and contains a lot of progressive values that are likely not as widely shared as the authors might expect. One might or might not agree with these values, but it is going to be significantly harder to start steering the company's product direction and social responsibility efforts than 'just' representing the employees during e.g. benefits and compensation negotiations.

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

#174

Post by SiempreViernes » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #78

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.…

I wouldn't look to SAG as a good example. The format of that industry is very different from most "typical" jobs, specifically tech work. I would also suggest looking at the the recent SAG healthcare fiasco.

So it's not a good example for benefits, but a good example for problems?

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

#175

Post by John23832 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #140

John23832 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article, you would see content about contract workers.

I saw that it was mostly that the contract workers don't get the same benefits. But how is this different than other places? In some cases, benefits need to restricted or you risk them becoming shadow employees (ie hands are tied by law).

Again more details in the article. The verge article links a NYT article which goes in depth on the “two tier system” within google.

That’s not to say that even outsourced contractors couldn’t benefit from unionizing with google employees. Google has the leverage to improve the lives of its subcontractors, but pressuring the contracting company.

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

#176

Post by q-big » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

avianlyric wrote: post #138

karl11 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. You're entitled to as much as you can negotiate. Isn't this a founding principle of capitalism? If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?

> If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?

It is not clear whether these employees are actually in a good position for negotiating. The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs). I consider how many products were scrapped by Google as quite some evidence that Google would be nearly as successful if it fired the unionized employees and continued working with some "core team".

This does, of course, not mean that I endorse this reality, but when you negotiate, you better know what leverage you actually have.

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

#177

Post by ausbah » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

what do they need to be "successful"? a certain % of employees?

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

#178

Post by londons_explore » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #126

zthrowaway wrote: post #91

Some of the most highly paid, privileged and marketable individuals in our industry, easily in the top 5% of income in the economy... what’s the point of this? Google employees are a far cry from the romanticized proletariat fighting against the bourgeoisie.

I somewhat agree. Most tech workers are above the median salary in the US ($35k). I don't make nearly as much as a Google employee, but I would like a union for a couple reasons (they could mostly fix this through legislation and avoid the unions) like removing forced arbitration, or having an actual contract rather than a one pager that says they make the rules and can change them anytime without notice. And speakin…

With their current membership of just 230 people, the ~$500k annual memberships probably won't get anywhere near to paying for the protracted legal battle they're surely about to enter...

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

#179

Post by lr4444lr » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

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.…

There is plenty of evidence that I've seen firsthand in municipal government of unions protecting and promoting incompetent IT talent. It doesn't all fall to @#$& solely because government tech is often very slow to change, so mediocre workers can train on very specific applications and not need much continuing ed. I scarcely ever met one that would get hired at either a FAANG or a tech startup. I will qualify this by saying it's U.S. only. Maybe other countries handle this all much better, but we're dealing with Google U.S. in this story.

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

#180

Post by kenhwang » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #120

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.…

Apple used to have easter eggs in its software, crediting individual engineers. Steve Jobs banned them, saying it would be unfair to give credit to individuals instead of the whole company, would make it easier for competitors to poach key engineers, etc. At the time, Jobs was also running Pixar, which never seemed to have problems in its movies to credit everybody down to the hairstylist of the second unit's caterer…

Credit everyone by name or credit no one by name. It is inherently unfair to only credit key talent.