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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by ed25519FUUU »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #203
dathinab wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to all kinds of reasons people tend to not wanting to be officially associated with an budding union until it becomes reality. I mean you can guess which 230 people are more likely to lose their job, then they had been before (if the union fails). (I don't mean Google will target them, but that if Google considers letting them go for whatever other reason it's now more likely that they will let them go.)

Historically Google has targeted people that advocate for unions.

Especially when they abuse internal systems to promote it.

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

#432

Post by wrsh07 »

mikecoles wrote: post #342
CydeWeys wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only optio…

Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.

So when the mlb & mlbpa negotiated stricter covid protocols (which both allowed them to complete the season and improved player safety), you're saying that provided the players no benefits?

This is a statement made in ignorance.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-mlbpa-reportedly-agre...

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

#433

Post by xyzelement »

I made this point on HN before but I think it applies here.

The world breaks out into two types of employers: those who try to hire outstanding people and go above and beyond for them, with the expectation that one of the attributes of these outstanding employees is that they likewise go above and beyond for the company. The alternative is employees who treat their employees like cattle and the employees treat the employer as a slaughterhouse.

The first path is much preferable for everyone. The ideal situation (think marriage) is where either partner willingly goes above and beyond for the other.

I am not sure the impact of this particular action, but it's movement in the direction of employees asserting they don't want to participate in such a relationship, instead resorting to the more common power struggle rather than a partnership.

That's OK but taken to the extreme, there's no reason for them to expect the extraordinary treatment google has given them to continue, either.

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

#434

Post by irateswami »

inoop wrote: post #283
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" While I generally agree with the sentiment of your comment, I would like to point out that the above is only true for green card holders. There are a lot of H1B/L1B workers stuck at bad teams with high amounts of pressure/stress and incompetent or downright abusive managers. For them, leaving the company isn't an optio…

Ugh, we really need to reform the H1B. It's basically indentured servitude and helps perpetuate shitty behavior in our industry.

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

#435

Post by PragmaticPulp »

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.

In tech, there are more people with degrees than old people. It’s basic math of an expanding industry.

It’s definitely not the case that there are more “boomer” software engineers than younger engineers. One look at charts of CS degrees issued by year will clearly show why.

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

#436

Post by skywhopper »

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…

Wow, you are excluding a LOT of workers in your statements here. Most people who work at Google, even the tech-focused ones, are not the type of full-time high-demand engineers who can get a new job at the drop of a hat.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the question anyway. Unions aren't "intended" only for certain industries or market conditions. They are a means of balancing the power difference between workers and employers. And we see evidence every day that Google and most other large tech employers in the area are abusing the power they have over their workers on a regular basis. "Just get a new job" is not a solution for the vast majority of people who work at Google et al.

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

#437

Post by orestarod »

mikecoles wrote: post #342
CydeWeys wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only optio…

Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.

Ironic, how do you think better conditions and pay were earned historically?

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

#438

Post by PragmaticPulp »

antisoeu wrote: post #242
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.…

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.

This is the detail that most people miss:

Unions don’t protect the general public against a company. They protect the ranking members of a company.

That means the union also protects members of the company from the general public who might be looking to take their job by offering to work harder or better or cheaper.

If you’re a young person getting started in this industry it might be fun to imagine working in a unionized environment, but remember that the union would be working to protect its members from you breaking into the company and entering the senior ranks.

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

#439

Post by cad1 »

mikecoles wrote: post #342
CydeWeys wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only optio…

Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.

Unions are involved in more than pay negotiations. Sure I can work hard and earn a promotion and pay raise. Working hard cannot, for example, get me out of signing a non-compete agreement. Unionized employees could collectively bargain to ban non-compete agreements.

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

#440

Post by pydry »

antisoeu wrote: post #242
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.…

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.

Divide and conquer - pitting one group against another - is a pretty standard union busting tactic.

Since unionization is essentially a fight for power with management and fights are, well, confrontational, its kind of a given that there will be casualties and fallout.

Whether that's worse than yielding all collective power to management depends on many variables, including how confrontational and revenge oriented management tends to be.

Post reply on HN