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

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

#301

Post by conanbatt » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:05 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.…

Just look at the unions california has and see how well the work. Teachers, Bart and Police.

Great examples of the success of unionization?

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

#302

Post by madamelic » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

kenhwang wrote: post #239

pacificat0r wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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).

Arguably, unions are the best judge of someone's competency, because its supposed to be a group of peers. It's already how it works in tech, software engineers evaluate the skill of prospective software engineers, not management. But yes, there are gatekeeping effects, as the union is incentivized to prevent increases in membership or decrease in collective skill. It typically works out great for those in the union (…

>Arguably, unions are the best judge of someone's competency, because its supposed to be a group of peers. It's already how it works in tech, software engineers evaluate the skill of prospective software engineers, not management.

I'd much rather have 8 companies with bad interviewers and 2 with good interviewers than 10 companies with the union who block me because I made one of their evaluators personally mad at me.

This just sounds like it is ripe for corruption and nepotism.

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

#303

Post by jswizzy » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

damagednoob wrote: post #121

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also funny because blue collar work is / can be ridiculously well-paid, in part thanks to the union's efforts.

That's what happens when you control supply. Your politics determines whether it's to maintain standards or the wages of its members.

you don't control the supply though. Google will just offshore these jobs to India.

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

#304

Post by aaomidi » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

What is HN doing about serious attempts from the likes of Pinkertons to create FUD in these threads?

We know for a fact that tech companies are their customer, and we know they're ruthless in online disinfo. Is HN doing any monitoring to the discourse to make sure the comments are coming from actual individuals rather than a company buying up a bunch of HN accounts with history and creating disfino and FUD?

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

#305

Post by madamelic » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #254

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.…

The point of unions is obviously for employees to unite in order to strengthen their bargaining power. Engineers at Google are very well paid and have very nice perks (at least that the general perception), so I think what many people might wonder is what better deal do they feel they need strongly enough to unite in order to get it?

>Engineers at Google are very well paid and have very nice perks (at least that the general perception), so I think what many people might wonder is what better deal do they feel they need strongly enough to unite in order to get it?

Also hope to gosh that there is a membership rate cap.

1% of every Google engineer's salary every year is an absurd amount of money. I don't understand why Sally Joe making $200k needs to pay more for her protection than Billy Bob making $150k.

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

#306

Post by Mauricebranagh » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

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…

But when Jimmy Hill became secretary the PFA did succeed in vastly improving things early 1960's

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

#307

Post by gandutraveler » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

boomlinde wrote: post #224

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". I.e. not collectively bargaining, instead hoping that enough other people will individually decide put their livelihood on the line to give employers the impression that things should change up, after which they will not be able to enjoy the changes because they switched job (which can be a pain in the ass regardless…

All unions end up being political. The elected union leaders are voted and the democratic process compels the leaders take decision that helps them stay in power. This is what causes the problem where you have elected union leader whose values don't align with helping companies bottom line. This will be the slow death of Google as the company we know. Can't wait to see right wing and left wing groups forming within Google.

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

#308

Post by pmyteh » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

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…

The abolition of the maximum wage was arguably a consequence of organisation by the PFA under Jimmy Hill. I agree that the picture is mixed.

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

#309

Post by rdgthree » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

avianlyric wrote: post #238

rdgthree wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they definitely need to gather support of some sort, I'm just curious about the scale. 40,000 people from within the 120,000+ organization seems huge. If that's really the case, the coverage so far would seem fairly sensationalist - 0.25% of employees signing on to unionize is a drop in the bucket next to a required minimum 30% of the workforce signed on.

I think the article is pretty accurate, the title looks pretty spot on > Google workers announce plans to unionize I agree that the number involved is quite small at the moment, but given how hostile Google has been to any unisation effort, the fact the 230 people have organised anyway, and now put their jobs on the line, is quite a big thing. I suspect that there are many at Google that would happily join a union, j…

The title is technically accurate, but I think the omission of scale and any sense of how far along these plans are leaves quite a sensationalist tidbit. "Google workers announce plans to unionize" translated to "the necessary amount of employees at Google to form a union are unionizing" on my first pass. I clicked immediately because that seemed significant. I'm sure this was the intention, though I can only speculate. A clear and less sensationalist (though less click-worthy) title could have been as simple as: "230 Google workers announce plans to unionize"

That being said, I'm not contesting the validity of the movement - it's certainly possible that thousands of Googlers will sign on in support now that the movement is public, and more power to them!

It just seems like the reporting on this should be making it more clear where this effort stands and just how much needs to happen before it's legally viable. Arguably, more honest reporting in that regard would help make clear to potential allies that their support is needed, and this is not a sure thing.

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

#310

Post by greggman3 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #269

lithos wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My experience with unions is setting up a booth for a trade show and being unable to plug into the outlets myself because I had to wait for a union electrician. Total scam.

I've had that experience. Also the experience of not being able to carry a monitor to by both to replace one the broke because "only an authorized union person can carry things into the convention center"