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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by adamsea »

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…

> 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.

Um it's called looking at the past? Making reasonable inferences?

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

#652

Post by JediWing »

ineedasername wrote: post #551
JediWing wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a power trip by union leadership/ "the organization of the union itself" though? It's a real concern about the safety and working conditions, and how a lack of a unified front can lead to fissures when negotiating that could actually hurt a majority of union members. The unions members probably mostly prefer work from home due to safety concerns. Should the school district wish to demand all teachers repor…

The schools are sanitized nightly and those who go in literally don't have to see anyone else, and by policy are not supposed to. "Unified front" That is not the purpose of the union. The union exists to serve it's members. If serving it's members might be slightly more difficult if it actually accommodates the choices of the members it serves, well that's it's job. It's job is not to make it's job easier, it's to se…

Is the union preventing teachers from going into the school? Is it not OK for the union to have a position on the matter and communicate it to their members?

Why is it ok for the administration to say "we prefer but don't require you to come in" but not ok for the union to say "actually, we prefer but don't require you to stay home"?

A unified front is EXACTLY the purpose of a union. The threat of collective action by the entire workforce is what unions derive their power from.

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

#653

Post by KaiserPro »

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…

a Union is about rights, they _should_ provide an extra safety net should your employer put you in a bad position. It means that its much harder to divide and conquer employees

A moderately well run union is useful for the employer as a way to consult, defuse and get sentiment for changes.

Unions have nothing to do with employability, its about making the conditions better for the workers, and not because that's what other companies do.

Employees leaving doesn't mean the place changes, especially if there is a limitless supply of keen, naive and cheap labour out there. The VFX industry is a prime example of this.

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

#655

Post by adamsea »

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…

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Entitled? Who's talking about entitled? I thought we were talking about negotiation and leverage, since, you know, corporations are all about money and profit.

Is there some theoretical upper limit on what employees are entitled to?

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

#656

Post by tehjoker »

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…

If you want to imagine a non-unionized hollywood, imagine film makers being able to pay people in exposure for nearly everything.

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

#657

Post by dcre »

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…

They are not trying to form a traditional majority union.

> unlike a traditional union, which demands that an employer come to the bargaining table to agree on a contract, the Alphabet Workers Union is a so-called minority union that represents a fraction of the company’s more than 260,000 full-time employees and contractors. Workers said it was primarily an effort to give structure and longevity to activism at Google, rather than to negotiate for a contract.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/technology/google-employe...

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

#658

Post by oauea »

zaroth wrote: post #630
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…

This reads like a PAC not a Union. Here’s a statement from United Steelworkers, for comparison; https://m.usw.org/union/our-founding-principles Here’s the SAG mission statement; https://www.sagaftra.org/about/mission-statement The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc.; > negotiating the best wages, working conditions, and health and pension b…

> The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc.

No, that is the primary goal of the unions you are familiar with.

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

#659

Post by cogman10 »

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 agree with you to a point.

I'd just say that there are more reasons to unionize than just local monopolies. You unionize whenever there's a major disparity between cooperate profits and worker benefits. You unionize when work conditions are bad and management doesn't care. You unionize when you feel you are being treated unfairly.

For example, construction companies are often places where there's both lots of work available and union outfits doing a lot of good.

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

#660

Post by dleslie »

avianlyric wrote: post #102
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…

In theory the unions should be a place to organise employees, to help improve working conditions. But I suspect for most people the real benefit will be protection from miscarriages of justice. I've personally seen people put through the wringer by HR teams, and even when the HR team acknowledges they've fucked up, there's no apologies or an attempt to make things right. Unions can provide protection in these case, w…

HR works for your employer, they are not your friend and are not on your side; this should be common knowledge.

There are organizations that provide legal services to labour which do not require one to be a member of a union. It might be better for all if the money spent on dues was instead contributed to an organization that doesn't discriminate.

Post reply on HN