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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by brodouevencode »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #347
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.…

Great point. The funny thing about unions is that the HN community believes that every other organization and industry can be disrupted...EXCEPT unions. It’s hilarious. The comments are usually all anecdotal with some story about an uncle or father who was “screwed over” by his union back in the 80s or 90s. We are capable of creating a new type of union and making collective bargaining better than what previous gener…

> What do the tech elite and robber barons have in common?

I heard Hitler liked dogs, so if you like dogs you're obviously anti-Semitic.

EDIT: The point of this was to show how absurd adjunct comparisons like this are.

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

#492

Post by racl101 »

ineedasername wrote: post #481
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 hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve Unfortunately, through my own experience being in one & observing other unions, they often end up serving the organization of the union itself. They may still work for the workers, but also end up making decisions that are better for the union than for the workers. Right now, my kids are learning remotely. Howe…

worker to the union: "it was said you would destroy the oppressors, not join them!"

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

#493

Post by marcinzm »

yanderekko wrote: post #467
capableweb wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the mission statement seems to be "personal agendas" to you? Here they are listed: - All Alphabet workers deserve a voice - Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes - Everyone deserves a welcoming environment - All aspects of our work should be transparent - Our decisions are made democratically - We prioritize society and the environment - We stand in solidarity with workers and a…

If I were a Google employee with an active social media account that promoted conservative politics, this would be pretty alarming to me. It's similar to the CoC debates - the visionary goals foreshadow the darker enforcement strategies.

I've seen harassment campaigns (which ended in a lawsuit against the chief harasser) over association with someone who associates with a certain group. So even if you're a liberal you can get in trouble for associating with the wrong people or speaking at the wrong conference or promoting the wrong project.

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

#494

Post by JediWing »

appleflaxen wrote: post #153
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…

You list teachers, who in my opinion are the poster children of how problematic unions are. And there are some phenomenal teachers out there. There are teachers that change lives profoundly. But they don't need the unions, and the terrible teachers who should be fired /are/ protected. It's really messed up, most people have first-hand experience with it, and they are a corrosive factor in the end.

The rubber room story that is trotted out all the time is the exception, not the rule.

The very existence of teachers unions has probably kept tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from being out of work without healthcare during a global pandemic.

In my experience, having a teacher as a spouse, discipline of even union employees is not rare when warranted.

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

#495

Post by Pfhreak »

madamelic wrote: post #353
rzz3 wrote: post #290

If I didn’t want to join the union, would I face consequences?

Yes. You can't be employed by a unionized company if you aren't part of the union.

That's not true? Depends on the union and the company and the location.

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

#496

Post by whimsicalism »

ransom1538 wrote: post #395
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.…

unintended consequences 1. Fat cats. What are the due fees? %1 now?, later then? %5 of gross annually? 200 people * 300k year * %5 of salary = 3 million. They will use this on fancy dinners with Google execs? Or spend it in "wrongful terminations" law suites with google for years? What happens when 50x more join. 2. Who runs it? Will it be a 10 year long president? What is her union salary? A non-google person? Will…

1. They'll probably spend it on lawyers & negotiation teams.

2. How are those consequences?

3.

> Base is on the newest woke culture? ... Scan their social media?

What? If they are voted in, Google will be required to provide the employee manifest.

5. First, there are unions in numerous industries with lots of firings/seasonal firings. Second, firing is also not as common in big tech anyways.

6. You have a vote? On what to negotiate on?

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

#497

Post by chrisseaton »

rafram wrote: post #486
chrisseaton wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of these unions are limiting the work their members are carrying out. I don't believe that this is a truthful statement. Does Global Rule One in the SAG not limit the work that members can carry out? If they union doesn't want you to work on a production then you are not allowed to work on that production.

No, you’re completely misunderstanding the rule. Because the film industry works on a freelance basis, the union only has bargaining power if it doesn’t exist alongside a non-unionized body of workers who are willing to work for cheaper. By requiring that union members only work unionized jobs, they ensure that no non-union production can ever benefit from any non-union labor. This pushes productions to negotiate ter…

I don't get it - isn't 'requiring that union members only work unionized jobs' an example of 'limiting the work their members are carrying out'?

If you're a member of the union, you can't work on productions without certain agreements, yes? Your ability to work on productions you want to work on is... limited... isn't it?

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

#498

Post by capableweb »

seneca wrote: post #487
capableweb wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might misunderstand the goal of a union. It's inherently political, that's the whole point of it. And the values from the mission statement does sound like something every company should aim for, but sometimes they forget we're all humans here, so we need something to keep companies in check. I'm not sure comparing unions to code of conducts are suitable. Unions are a historically old and proven way for w…

> I think you might misunderstand the goal of a union. It's inherently political, that's the whole point of it. I think this is disingenuous. It's inherently political, yes, but historically it is the politics of the workplace that a union focuses on. Specifically workplace safety, compensation, and benefits. This mission statement is explicitly dragging larger social activism into the workplace. > Unions are a histo…

> historically it is the politics of the workplace that a union focuses on

Might be so in the US, but certainly not everywhere. Nor just because it's been so in the US before, doesn't mean it has to be like that. In Spain for example, unions are one of the most active and most likely to actually achieve political change in the country, at least judging by how it's been so far.

Which ones of the announced values you feel is trying to be applied to society at large? The way I'm reading it, all the values are geared towards Google and it's workplace, not going further than that.

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

#499

Post by Jach »

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…

Video game studios routinely credit everyone, too. Though there's some politics involved (just like in movies) I won't get into.

Could it be... that crediting is part of the industry norms in one case, and not the other? Absolutely nothing to do with unions.

Post reply on HN