Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 411 posts

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#91

Post by Shish2k »

BuckRogers wrote: post #32
mhoad wrote: post #3

Seems to have worked amazingly well based on all the times I recall reading the comments of stories posted here involving unions.

I believe unions are actually necessary. Necessary evil at times or not, it's a human right to have a union. I've never been in a union, but my wife is. And I've worked as management with unions in a factory setting. It was fine, actually. The company I worked for that was unionized was the best, most efficient corporation that I've ever seen. In fact it was a superior there that told me, when I was more anti-union,…

> I do believe small business under a certain number of employees should be exempted from unions. Say The rule of thumb I go by is "If the company has an HR department protecting the company’s interests, then the workers should have a union protecting the workers’ interests."

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#92

Post by drunkpotato »

brightstep wrote: post #71
vanusa wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Altruistic expectations, no. But I seem to recall a time (up until perhaps 15 years ago) when Google would not have been expected to engage in such blatantly Machiavellian tactics as placing fake op-eds. Nowadays though, I don't put anything past Google.

Unions reduce profits by giving employees a voice to protect themselves, demand the compensation they deserve, etc. It's therefore inevitable that corporations (Google, FAANG, or any others) will try to preempt or destroy them. It is their duty to shareholders.

It's a common trope to say it's their duty to shareholders, but it's not. Their duty is to be diligent and transparent to their shareholders, but not to pursue short-term profits at any and all costs no matter what. Specifically, there is no legal requirement or duty for companies to be anti-union.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#93

Post by Cederfjard »

vanusa wrote: post #52
queuebert wrote: post #23

Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position. Instead, treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders. There is no shame in fighting for yourself. You are worth it.

Altruistic expectations, no. But I seem to recall a time (up until perhaps 15 years ago) when Google would not have been expected to engage in such blatantly Machiavellian tactics as placing fake op-eds. Nowadays though, I don't put anything past Google.

Were those expectations based on real observations, or did Google just get lucky with PR from the jump?

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#94

Post by literallyaduck »

Google/Alphabet needs to be broken apart: "The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights."

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#95

Post by brightstep »

n8cpdx wrote: post #51
mhoad wrote: post #3

Seems to have worked amazingly well based on all the times I recall reading the comments of stories posted here involving unions.

Some of us have seen the exorbitant damage bad unions can cause, for example ILWU destroying Portland, OR’s container shipping industry in a bid to steal two jobs from another union. https://www.universalcargo.com/jury-hits-ilwu-with-93m-verdi... (less industry-oriented source: https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/11/29/longshore-union-faces-... ) See also: public sector unions.

Some of us have seen the exorbitant damage corporations can cause, for example Exxon et al knowingly destroying the planet in a bid to extract profit.

No organization is inherently good. Unions can be led by bad actors, and that doesn't diminish their overall value. They provide employees with a countervailing force to use against employers who would otherwise be mostly free to squeeze them for every penny, whether via cut wages, unpaid overtime, etc.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#96

Post by dekhn »

shadowgovt wrote: post #75
dekhn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I disagree with the union's position on ethics? For example, I do not agree with Google's decision to avoid some DoD contracts (I worked in Google at the time). I'd only want a union to handle my work aspects (and even then... it's not clear they would provide me with all the wonderful things I have received over the years from Google and other tech employers).

As a member of the union, you have a vote on the union's position on issues. This differs from your options outside the union, where your only "vote" is to quit, which (pathologically) concentrates within the company the opinion you would have voted against.

I don't want to vote on every position. I live in a representative democracy and I want to select a leader who will make wise decisions that are (mostly) in line with mine.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#97

Post by stremrn8 »

queuebert wrote: post #23

Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position. Instead, treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders. There is no shame in fighting for yourself. You are worth it.

No post body was provided.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#98

Post by [deleted] »

Cederfjard wrote: post #93
vanusa wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Altruistic expectations, no. But I seem to recall a time (up until perhaps 15 years ago) when Google would not have been expected to engage in such blatantly Machiavellian tactics as placing fake op-eds. Nowadays though, I don't put anything past Google.

Were those expectations based on real observations, or did Google just get lucky with PR from the jump?

[deleted]

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#99

Post by vmception »

sokoloff wrote: post #53
vmception wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a trillion dollar company with some/many employees delivering quite a bit more value than they are paid 1) Collectively getting the better stake of the pie influences other organizations compensation methods/amounts 2) the market is telling employees what to do, meaning that it doesn’t matter that an individual can do far more work for less pay somewhere else - just don’t do those things.

> trillion dollar company with some/many employees delivering quite a bit more value than they are paid Companies structurally and intentionally pay the average employee less than that employee generates in value. (If they paid more on average, they'd obviously either decide to never start or would go bankrupt. If they paid people working equal to their contributions on average, they'd show no profit and would have n…

over 50% of the compensation is in shares, wall street - as a colloquialism for the capital markets - can tolerate much much more dilution

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#100

Post by karaterobot »

mhoad wrote: post #3

Seems to have worked amazingly well based on all the times I recall reading the comments of stories posted here involving unions.

I was in the UAW for about 6 six years. My dad was a Teamster for about 30 years. My feelings on unions are mixed — there are pluses and minuses — but they're mine. What I hear on HN a lot of the time is a naive belief that unions are an unalloyed good, and I'm not sure where that comes from. I won't accuse anybody of being a shill, I just think they're getting their information secondhand and don't fully appreciate the tradeoffs of the non-theoretical world.
Post reply on HN