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

181–190 of 411 posts

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

#181

Post by poof131 »

_jal wrote: post #134
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.

Google is a huge, public company. Any ideals that survived going public will slowly be ground out by repeated exposure to management consultants from McKinsey and the hordes of MBAs attracted to the smell of ibanker excitement. You can't go public, or become part of a public firm, and not become more like the rest of the big players.

The rampant cynicism regarding corporations is increasingly unhelpful. We’ve had forty years of hands off antitrust regulation and enforcement. We’ve had a bifurcating justice system that doesn’t hold white collar criminals accountable. It hasn’t always been this way and doesn’t have to stay this way. For those interested in the challenges we’re facing with monopolies and individuals trying to effect change, I recommend Matt Stoller’s substack [1].

1. https://mattstoller.substack.com/

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

#182

Post by reaperducer »

wutbrodo wrote: post #114
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.

> when companies act shady Is it shady to communicate to employees the company's view that unions aren't good? Ie, is it that much different from the standard company public statement sayijng something like "we do not think unions are in the best interests of either the employees or the company"? This is a sincere question, as I'm not that versed in labor law and AFAIK it may even skirt legal lines to do this.

Is it shady to communicate to employees the company's view that unions aren't good?

The large companies I have worked for — some unionized, some not — took great pains to be very neutral on the subject of unions.

I suspect it has a lot to do with labor law. IANAL, but from what I read in the newspaper, there are certain circumstances where a company taking an anti-union stance is illegal.

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

#184

Post by gundmc »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #140
ravenstine wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others here seem to be speculating that it has to do with the number of business owners here, but I don't think that paints the entire picture. I'm a single guy who's a senior software engineer with no one depending on him, and I've never had difficulty finding a job (quite the contrary), hence the benefit of being unionized doesn't outweigh the negatives. If an employer mistreats me, then I leave. It's that simple.…

Pure speculation on my part but I think Google unionizing makes the most sense out of any FAANG. Googlers in SF are “trapped” by the benefits they get. > the employee has more leverage over the employer than in many other fields Housing deductions, childcare costs, food, travel, etc are all heavily subsidized by the company making it near impossible to leave without moving out of the Bay Area. Housing benefits alone…

What "housing deductions and childcare costs" does Google provide? A web search didn't turn up much and this doesn't sound like a standard benefit.

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

#185

Post by dragonwriter »

disabled wrote: post #174

With Google's reach, it can be reasonable to expect that the "Unions Suck" project extended to the American populace as a whole. We just do not know how far it went.

Capitalism’s “unions suck” project has a much broader target than the American populace as a whole, and has for longer than Google has existed.

Any corporation joining in when it gets to nontrivial size is...not at all surprising.

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

#186

Post by jjmorrison »

Google employees unionizing is super hypocritical. If you disagree with the big evil monopoly, then leave and give up the crazy salary. Can't have it both ways. As long as all the smart people stay there, they'll keep being the big evil monopoly. Best case is more placating and pretending.

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

#187

Post by rcpt »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #140
ravenstine wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others here seem to be speculating that it has to do with the number of business owners here, but I don't think that paints the entire picture. I'm a single guy who's a senior software engineer with no one depending on him, and I've never had difficulty finding a job (quite the contrary), hence the benefit of being unionized doesn't outweigh the negatives. If an employer mistreats me, then I leave. It's that simple.…

Pure speculation on my part but I think Google unionizing makes the most sense out of any FAANG. Googlers in SF are “trapped” by the benefits they get. > the employee has more leverage over the employer than in many other fields Housing deductions, childcare costs, food, travel, etc are all heavily subsidized by the company making it near impossible to leave without moving out of the Bay Area. Housing benefits alone…

I work at Google. How do I save 50% on Bay Area housing?

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

#188

Post by Kneecaps07 »

yupper32 wrote: post #138

A lot of people seem confused why a lot of tech people aren't pushing for unions. For me it's simple: Tech has brought me from near poverty to pretty darn wealthy. Why mess with that? Could a union help increase wages even more? Maybe. Are we being paid too little compared to our output? Maybe. But at the same time I'm being paid more than I could have possibly imagined before I entered the field.

A union offers other protections. Right now, your employer can (I'm assuming) just fire you for whatever they want. If you have a union and a proper contract, then they need justification and the union will back you up.

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

#189

Post by tempnow987 »

yupper32 wrote: post #138

A lot of people seem confused why a lot of tech people aren't pushing for unions. For me it's simple: Tech has brought me from near poverty to pretty darn wealthy. Why mess with that? Could a union help increase wages even more? Maybe. Are we being paid too little compared to our output? Maybe. But at the same time I'm being paid more than I could have possibly imagined before I entered the field.

I wish that the US almost had mandated unions for anyone earning The focus on the unions on public sector, and the horribly distorted and weird policies that result is a negative.

It's hard to imagine a google being started by a union. Did the NY teachers union try to do a charter school in new york to show they could do as well as others? My impression was this was a flop.

In CA union passed rules banning schools from maintaining reserves. This is while the same schools teach students about having some reserves (critical) as a life skill.

It was AB5 which made life miserable for even folks who WANT to try to do right by staff and moved from a principles based a approach to a carve-out / exemptions approach (ie, forcing gig musicians to become employees for a 20 minute opening gig at a bar, forcing writers to clock in and out when thinking of their writing, and a ton more insanity). The list of careveouts they've had to add is mind boggling and illustrates how backwards they got it. Obama had this right by focusing on wage rates and hourly vs exempt. His approach was easy to implement and would have gotten rid of a ton of the "manager" abuse out there.

The fight against someone groups like success academy (delivering amazing results to historically under served groups) - denying primarily minority parents the kind of choices that the union bosses and chancellors take for granted.

I'm aware of a case where a union guy showed up drunk, drove a forklift and injured another worker and kept their job. I mean, more power to the union but I have friends who've quit working in a union workplace because showing up and working was like being a traitor to the rest of the group there (who had figured out how to create weird work rule conflicts for extra benefits with scheduling craziness etc).

The history of corruption also less than ideal. "The unsealed criminal case describes a prolonged embezzlement scheme starting in involving union money from the Warren-based union local that bankrolled high-end shopping sprees at Louis Vuitton, Balenciaga and Apple, and more union funds spent on child support payments and Greektown Casino gambling binges."

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

#190

Post by incomplete »

dekhn wrote: post #146
vanusa wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real Googler can perhaps comment better than I. But in my hazy recollection, there did seem to be a time, long before the Andy Rubin payout, when the "Don't be evil" slogan was not quite the perverse caricature that it has become today.

It felt good to work at google up until about the time of the social debacle (starting with the cancellation of GOogle reader and ending with Larry Page handing CEO over to Sundar because Page finally realized he was a terrible leader). But let's be honest, Google was an Ads company that happened to run a Search website to attract traffic since ~2000.

during my time there, we had a saying: "what ads wants, ads gets".

anyways, IMHO, the beginnings of the end were: * when google search first landed in china * the initial few mass hiring events (2005-2008) * when they cancelled "social TGIFs" (TGIFs that your non-google friends could attend). i think this was 2008?

the whole social debacle was just evidence that google had already lost that fight years previously...

Post reply on HN