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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by lawnchair_larry »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #235
sethammons wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it really a bluff? How do you know if growth projects or other company investments had to be canceled?

If a company defers a merit increase of their own employees for “other company investments” then I as a worker would absolutely want a union to call them out on it. A company wouldn’t even have money for those investments without the merit of the employees.

And the employees wouldn’t even have jobs to complain about if the company had not made the investments to grow large enough to hire them. So that’s kind of one-sided.

Just because the union made them do it, doesn’t mean it was a bluff or the right decision. And if those investments pan out, the stock gains are often worth substantially more to the employee than the token merit increase.

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

#792

Post by biffstallion »

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.…

Google keeps rabble rousing when it comes to certain political issues of nonsense. Here Google, how does it feel to have have it back onto you now.

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

#793

Post by bennysonething »

azernik wrote: post #727
lliamander wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least an idea of what they are trying to bargain for would be nice.

They have a website with a platform and priorities at https://alphabetworkersunion.org/power/why/ "We want to wield our power to ensure: * Our working conditions are inclusive and fair, * Perpetrators of harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation are held accountable, * We have the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values, * All workers, regardless of employment status, can enjo…

Sounds political, which is the problem with unions. If I want to work I have to pay dues to a political organisation. Also, why should a company pay you when you refuse to work on a project?

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

#794

Post by subaquamille »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #723
rafram wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 6. Yes, you’ll have to join the Communist Party of America and pledge allegiance to AOC in order to even join the zoom call, of course. Because that’s how unions work You might say that as a joke but Unions have a long history of heavily pressuring or forcing members to vote one way and in turn using these "guaranteed" votes to extract "favors" from politicians.

> forcing members to vote on way

Aren't votes anonymous in US ? Or perhaps you meant "inciting members to vote one way" ?

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

#795

Post by hnuser847 »

labcomputer wrote: post #747
ahepp wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what mechanism will salaries fall? And thus by what mechanism will SWE unions keep salaries high, but gates open?

Salaries would fall due to increased supply. A union would keep salaries high by not keeping the gates open (if it were modeled on the film industry unions).

> A union would keep salaries high by not keeping the gates open

That’s the same argument people use against immigration.

I realize HN is a diverse place and not everybody has the same opinion on these matters, but I find it interesting that people here generally support labor protectionism when it applies to high-income earners like software engineers, but they don’t support closing the borders in order to increase the wages of low-income earners.

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

#796

Post by google234123 »

Cd00d wrote: post #756
influx wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Total scam Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the union electrician is there because once upon a time someone setting up a booth daisy chained a bunch of extension cords of small gauge to run lights and demos and started an electrical fire in a crowded convention hall.

You are really stretching here.

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

#797

Post by DonnyV »

jskell725 wrote: post #628
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…

Because we chose to work for them instead of starting our own shops; and so to exchange complete ownership of our labor for a (often very nice) steady compensation. Note that this also applies to managers; up to and including the CEO. They might get paid more in Stock and less in cash; but they're usually not the Owners in and meaningful sense. I personally love the idea of workers cooperatives and do try to patroniz…

I think they scale up fine. Mondragon Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation#:~:text=....

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

#798

Post by lawnchair_larry »

toper-centage wrote: post #146
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…

For a recent example on why tech needs unions, look up N26 (German modern Bank) and their employees attempts at creating a Works Council. The way management handled it was nothing less than despicable, including filing 2 restraining orders against 2 of their organizers, and reporting them to the police because of health (covid) concerns (the police came, everything was safe and in order, then left). https://www.worke…

In no way is this relevant to anything related to American tech companies. I don’t know how the plight of German bank employees suggests anything one eay or another about the need for tech unions.

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

#799

Post by LatteLazy »

logicchains wrote: post #339
LatteLazy wrote: post #193

I've asked before and no one seems to know: what is unionising meant to achieve for these workers? Are they under compensated? Are they getting fired for unfair reasons? I thought big tech had the opposite problem: everyone gets 6 figures, no one gets fired you just get moved to a do nothing team...

Google hired a toxic political activist, then later fired them for being too toxic. In this case, from reading the union goals it looks like they're aiming to make it harder to fire toxic political activists in future.

I hate the political bs side of these things. A bit turn off for me here in the UK is when unions spend capital (political or cash) on issues that don't help or even hurt their members. Teachers unions here supported more work and less money for them because "think of the children". Asking people to collectively bargain is very different to asking them to collectively sign up and forgo their wages over some weird political point of principle. The a two should be separate.

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

#800

Post by neartheplain »

chimeracoder wrote: post #777
_etyf wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common criticism of teacher unions in the USA [0]. They donate dues money to left-leaning political causes against the wishes of many of their members. In a union shop, dues-paying employees have no choice in the matter. It is compelled political speech. I expect this will be a big issue in tech unions also. [0] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2019/10/16/opinion...

> In a closed shop, these members have no choice in the matter. Union shop, not closed shop. Closed shops have been illegal for over 70 years.

You are correct, I used the wrong term. I have fixed it in my original comment.

In the US, outside of states with right-to-work laws, a union shop can still require workers to pay dues even if they aren't members of the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States

Post reply on HN