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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by izacus »

rdgthree wrote: post #94

It seems incredibly significant that only 230 people are officially involved with these plans to unionize. As of 2019, Google had nearly 120,000 employees.[0] That seems quite small, relatively speaking. Legally (I think, just learning about this now), to form a union, a majority of workers must show their willingness to form a union. Alternatively, to choose an existing union to join, an election with 30% of the wor…

Note that despite their public claims, it seems that non-North American (that is, European, Australian, Asian, African and South American) Google employees aren't allowed to join this union.

So this lowers the pool by quite a bit.

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

#422

Post by kyrra »

DonnyV wrote: post #231

I think a lot of the back and forth in this thread is dancing around the edges of a couple questions. Who really owns a company? I know legally who owns it. But a company is nothing without the people that work in it and who generate the ideas who keep it going. Shouldn't the majority of people in that company benefit and have a say how its run? Why should a handful of people who don't run the day to day operation or…

A company is nothing without leadership. A company is nothing without the initial investors. A company is nothing without the it's initial idea.

It takes a lot of people in different roles and a lot of different resources (be it people, money, opportunity) to make a company work.

While there are successful employee-owned companies after, many companies today would not exist if you didn't have the motivation there for certain people. Do you think Tesla and SpaceX would exist if Elon had to give ownership to everyone else? You're not going to see certain kinds of risk-taking by employee-run groups, and that risk-taking tens to require people with top-down responsibility and vision to make them happen.

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

#423

Post by nooyurrsdey »

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…

> 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.)

Unions serve a purpose of being able to collectively bargain, regardles off how many "options" there are.

Employers and corporations always have bargaining power and are basically collective establishments themselves. Individuals rarely have any negotiating power for better conditions, wages, treatment, etc...

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

#424

Post by missedthecue »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #336
antisoeu wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Germany unions (in tech) will for example make sure that older employees can't be fired, so the younger employees will be fired instead. So I don't think you can simply claim they are beneficial for everybody.

Boomers often have a major advantage in democratised situations, simply because there are more of them . As such, it's still in your own interest to join a union and be represented. And, with Boomers retiring, this power imbalance in unions can be lessened or reversed.

There are not more boomers than other demographics. Why would you say this?

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

#425

Post by PragmaticPulp »

rdgthree wrote: post #94

It seems incredibly significant that only 230 people are officially involved with these plans to unionize. As of 2019, Google had nearly 120,000 employees.[0] That seems quite small, relatively speaking. Legally (I think, just learning about this now), to form a union, a majority of workers must show their willingness to form a union. Alternatively, to choose an existing union to join, an election with 30% of the wor…

Years ago, my friend was part of a small movement to unionize a certain universally hated company that rhymes with Omfast.

They thought it would be a home run given all of the nonsense that goes on there. As it turns out, selling people on the idea of unionizing is much harder than it sounds. People weren’t even necessarily afraid of the company, they just didn’t want to be in a union.

They, too, gathered a small number of people at first, but the effort fizzled out when the initial enthusiasm didn’t spread beyond those few idealistic people.

In a company the size of Google, it wouldn’t be hard to find 230 people who would claim to be unionizing, but it doesn’t mean much when you’re talking about a tiny fraction of employees.

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

#426

Post by WhyNotHugo »

karl11 wrote: post #110
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…

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…

Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't work at Google for a few extra bucks, because I know the price of these few extra bucks is payed by society as a whole.

If you're a talented professional at Google, and want to make a positive impact in the world, join a company that cares about making a positive impact in the world.

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

#427

Post by ecf »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #413
vitus wrote: post #392

The prevailing fixation seems to be on how unionization would help the highly-compensated engineers, when the people who need and would benefit most from unionization are the TVCs, who aren't considered Alphabet employees, don't get benefits, are regularly excluded (from all-hands, mailing lists, even affiliating with Google on LinkedIn). Suppose a barista's phone dies. Employees are not permitted by policy to chip i…

Unions would also add additional hurdles to young engineers looking to join or move up within the company. We like to think of unions as protecting members against the corporation, but traditionally unions also protect members against outsiders looking to take their jobs. In this case, those outsiders are young people breaking into the industry or trying to move up the ranks within Google. Before going all-in on unio…

> ... but traditionally unions also protect the members against outsiders looking to take their jobs.

Hit the nail on the head. I’ve always heard horror stories about the police union advocating for literal murderers so those murderers can get another job where they can murder again.

But then I joined my first startup and had to install another access point by simply running a 15 ft Ethernet cable through the paneled ceiling. A 15-30 minute job, tops.

But the building had an exclusive contract with a unionized cabling company and I could get my startup evicted if I attempted the job myself. Instead, we had to pay this cabling company $4k and wait 2 weeks for them to come onsite.

I’m sure there are good unions out there. But unions people have encounters with pretty much are all rotten.

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

#428

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

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…

I work at Google, and when I started, I thought the idea of unionizing there is ridiculous.

They already have a very well defined leveling system. The promotion and hiring system - people hate - but it is as un-nepotistic as possible and (I think) fairer than pretty much anywhere else.

The compensation is already higher than basically everywhere - as you mentioned - ESPECIALLY considering expectations for your work.

And, sure, I think no one in America gets enough time off. We could maybe squeeze out 5 weeks of PTO for all employees.

Originally, I thought, is that worth unionizing for? I didn't think so.

HOWEVER, Googlers have since convinced me that this is more about employees having a voice in corporate decisions than compensation. For example (and I don't really agree with this) - most Googlers are VERY much against Google working with the DoD. They want to be able to use unions to block that. Others want to use unions to force Google to be more transparent about what it's doing with data and so on. Others want a better way for employees to speak up when we do things that seem illegal (breaking GDPR rules) or extremely unethical (hypnotizing babies on YouTube for ad-money). Currently, as with most companies, Google is a company that really cares only about maximizing shareholder value. Most Googlers were hired when the Google slogan was "Do no evil" and they really took that to heart. And for a long time, that WAS true. Now, a lot of them (and current employees) feel differently. And they think unions can bring "Do no evil" back to our main corporate guideline.

I'm not sure I'm convinced this is worth it or possible, but (to me) it's DEFINITELY more convincing than the compensation / working conditions argument.

If we unionizing and employees get a stronger corporate voice AND 5+ weeks PTO, I'll be very happy. But it seems like a pipe dream to me.

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

#429

Post by eternalban »

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.…

Hollywood is in the content business. As an informative precedent in context of a professional union’s unintended consequences (or misused powers), we should look at what role (if any) has the AGU played in censorship, uniformity of views propagated, negative ethnic stereotypes that persist in Hollywood product content, etc.

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

#430

Post by missedthecue »

jswizzy wrote: post #303
damagednoob wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unions control supply. It takes over 10 years to get into the longshoremans union, but once you do, you'll make $220k a year. It's because the union puts most of the work on the people trying to get into the union earning $14/hr so they can pay huge sums to the unionized worker. It's a cartel, like OPEC.
Post reply on HN