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

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ahelwer wrote: post #168

On a corp-cultural level it's interesting this is originating at Google, as opposed to say Amazon which is generally considered a more burnout-causing/crushing place to work on the engineering side in some teams. The Google employees I've talked to all seemed remarkably uncynical about their jobs, and still took a certain amount of pride in working at their company. I can contrast this with Amazon, Microsoft, and (to…

Essentially the different is that Google is so incredibly culty that people refuse to leave even when they're grossly mistreated and the company does incredibly unethical things. Everyone in big tech has job mobility, so for someone to care to unionize, they have to not want to leave.

So where in other tech companies, unhappy employees leave, at Google they try to "fix" it, which has led to these unionization type efforts, with wider goals around making the company behave.

I absolutely think that the fact that many Googlers' primary social identity is that they're a Googler is why this is starting there and not another FAANG.

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

#192

Post by giantg2 »

londons_explore wrote: post #178
giantg2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I didn't realize the number was so low. I thought they usually have to reach a specific percentage of workers on the petition before they unionize.

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

#193

Post by LatteLazy »

I've asked before and no one seems to know: what is unionising meant to achieve for these workers? Are they under compensated? Are they getting fired for unfair reasons? I thought big tech had the opposite problem: everyone gets 6 figures, no one gets fired you just get moved to a do nothing team...

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

#194

Post by 1123581321 »

maxehmookau wrote: post #160

Before US-based workers jump on this and start talking about how unions are a bad thing in general, remember to look to Europe. Trade unions are a huge part of the workforce culture here and are mostly a force for good.

I’m sure Europe would be happy to see US tech salaries and company growth stagnate a bit so they can catch up and stop losing good workers.

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

#195

Post by mondoshawan »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #143
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…

Part of the reason for this may be because Google in fact pushed the NLRB to disallow organizing activity on internal emails! https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/18/21028033/google-labor-bo...

Aha! Wasn't aware of this rule change. Wonder how they'll garner the votes they need to fully form the union without internal rabblerousing digitally, and with offices being closed.

Is it legal for a union to use employee info directories to contact employees outside of corp comms?

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

#196

Post by notRobot »

Many people don't realise this but unions don't just negotiate salaries. They assure rights aren't being violated, promote ethical, safe and healthy workplaces, prevent and fight against discrimination and unfair treatment, fight wrongful dismissal, etc.

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

#197

Post by pacificat0r »

lithos wrote: post #171
pacificat0r wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

This doesn't sound like an advantage for software engineers. Surely unions can't decide on someone's competency. It kind of raises a red flag about potential gatekeeping methods (e.g. the tax status where you have to join or else).

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

#198

Post by CydeWeys »

chrisseaton wrote: post #95
avianlyric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Aren't most employees also shareholders, in the tech industry? Don't we have representation through that mechanism and why isn't it enough?

The total percentage of actual vested shares that are held by the rank-and-file workers is minuscule at best.

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

#199

Post by giantg2 »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #174
giantg2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's an example that is fundamentally different from tech work, specifically google. It's a gig based industry with massively high income inequality. Not to mention it's an industry level/dominate union vs a company level union.

Yes, the idea for health benefits was great. But now we see that the SAG is just like corporation - cutting benefits because the highly paid big wigs don't want to pay for them.

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

#200

Post by CydeWeys »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #148
ignoramous wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yeah, a bizarre line of reasoning. Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since. Today, your average footballer (plying their trade in the upper tiers of English football) makes more in a month than most tech engineers make in a year (g…

> Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since Incorrect, the first footballer's union was from 1898 [1]. > I don't think unionization had any effect on their salaries Despite the existence of the union, clubs could impose a salary cap on players well into the 1960s, and could trade them like slaves under the "retain-and-transfer" system [2] until the EU forbade that practice in the 1990s [3]. Al…

> and could trade them like slaves under the "retain-and-transfer"

Don't you see a little bit of an issue with this wording? Namely that said players were paid for their labor and could quit playing football at any time?

Post reply on HN