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

291–300 of 411 posts

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

#291

Post by micromacrofoot »

uncomputation wrote: post #262
micromacrofoot wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're severely underestimating the power of collective bargaining. A good union will advocate for you even if you don't do anything. It removes a lot of the secrecy, ambiguity, and work when it comes to getting the maximum value out of your employment. Too worn out or anxious to keep pushing for a raise? the union's got it. Issues that you would never mention to your boss as an individual for fear of retaliation? th…

> even if you don't do anything From my experience, this sounds awful. I have a person on my team currently that does nothing and brings down team morale and it’s pretty clear that everyone would want them gone. We might even work better because we wouldn’t work under the assumption that we have N people when we really have something like N - 1. Perhaps unions are better when you don’t depend on your coworkers’ contr…

When I say "even if you don't do anything" I mean in terms of things like getting a raise or complaining about too-long hours. There have been many times in my career where I've been too burnt out to push for what I thought I deserved. A union's job is to push for what you're worth (or protect your well-being) even through times where you don't have the energy, or even if you're unsure what you're worth.

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

#292

Post by relaxing »

cle wrote: post #147
pwinnski wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably more representative than "I see..."

They could be equally as bad if there's significant selection bias. It's unclear to me what conclusions I can draw from that data.

Obviously responses are self-selecting, but it seems reasonable to believe they’re equally self-selecting.

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

#293

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

onion2k wrote: post #60
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.

HN is ostensibly full of people who want to run companies (startup founders). Consequently the readership is skewed towards people who are likely to be more "pro-employer rights" than "pro-employee rights". There's no reason to believe that the views posted on HN should extend to tech workers as a whole, and even less reason to think it'd be representative of a specific tech company. If the views expressed regularly…

Is it? I’m sure there are lots of founders, but there have to be way way more employees than founders. Even if you count the aspiring founders.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

julienb_sea wrote: post #257
guyzero wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a good relationship with their employer _until they don't._ And when the relationship goes bad it also becomes very, very one-sided.

From what I can tell, a "bad relationship" with employer particularly in competitive tech fields is a direct result of poor performance by the employee, which actually seems reasonable. I don't think it makes sense to introduce bureaucracy with the explicit purpose of covering for poor performance, as that pummels incentives to actually perform well at work. It seems actively unfair to people that are doing their job…

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by guyzero »

julienb_sea wrote: post #257
guyzero wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a good relationship with their employer _until they don't._ And when the relationship goes bad it also becomes very, very one-sided.

From what I can tell, a "bad relationship" with employer particularly in competitive tech fields is a direct result of poor performance by the employee, which actually seems reasonable. I don't think it makes sense to introduce bureaucracy with the explicit purpose of covering for poor performance, as that pummels incentives to actually perform well at work. It seems actively unfair to people that are doing their job…

Apparently if you go on maternity leave or extended sick/disability leave the relationship can also go bad. I think there are a significant number of cases where the relationship goes bad because of reasons other than just straight poor performance. But certainly, sure, straight poor performance is a frequent reason.

I don't think that unions like AWU are particularly concerned with the general performance review process.

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

#296

Post by krainboltgreene »

bagacrap wrote: post #275
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.

Except that after/while working at Google, the shareholders aren't distant --- the shareholders are YOU. An enormous chunk of the rank-and-file's compensation package at Google is equity, so employees want the company to succeed, i.e. not get bogged down by dealing with unions that generally protect the lowest performers at the expense of the highest performers by treating everyone as an equal performer.

It is wild to see a community so empowered by the internet be so easily managed with basic anti-union propaganda.

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

#297

Post by awb »

rdiddly wrote: post #286
awb wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Exploit you with industry leading pay and perks? Unions are designed to balance out monopolistic / low pay / highly geographical companies like large auto manufacturers or airlines. There is so much competitive hiring in tech, it’s one of the easiest c…

See if I'm an executive at a company that offers industry-leading pay and perqs, what am I so worried about then? Why would I work so hard to hinder employees' organizing, especially if what you say above is so self-evident? I find it far-fetched for example (and I know you're not saying this and hopefully would not say it) that Google was looking out for the employees' best interests by surveilling/misinforming them…

> See if I'm an executive at a company that offers industry-leading pay and perqs, what am I so worried about then?

Probably staying competitive vs. companies that don't have unions.

> I find it far-fetched for example (and I know you're not saying this and hopefully would not say it) that Google was looking out for the employees' best interests by surveilling/misinforming them and subverting their efforts

Correct, I wasn't saying that.

> Put it to a vote! The people who don't want a union can vote no!

OK, but at some point it becomes disruptive if you're continually holding votes on your entire company's employment structure. These are massive changes that would require to employee contracts, accounting, employee handbooks, handling grandfathered or expiring benefits, etc. It's hard to embark on innovation if you're under threat of having to overhaul your internal structure and a possible giant shock to your estimated expenses.

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

#298

Post by brightstep »

stefan_ wrote: post #210
headmelted wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is downvoted, I assume because people are maybe disagreeing with the principle rather than the validity of what you said. A lot of large companies clearly do look at unions as something that forces them to pay more compensation for less work, which they'd have to justify to shareholders and the board. Even if the board would be cool with it, and they could make it fly with shareholders, leadership bonuses and st…

I downvoted because it brings up this pointless trope of "duty to shareholders", as do you. The reality is that company officers have nearly limitless latitude to make strategic decisions as they see fit.

You may be technically correct if we want to get pedantic, the observed reality supports my conclusion.

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

#299

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

_wolfie_ wrote: post #133
ergocoder wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the same problem, isn't it? If I want to work on those projects and don't agree with the union, and 50% of the Union vote the other way, my only choice is also to quit. I don't agree with the union's direction of forbidding company to work on a perfectly legal project. If you want the project to be illegal, maybe call your senate instead?

I don't know how the union law works in the US. Over here (Europe), you can have multiple unions in one company. It takes minimal 3 people to form one. So you could probably form a union for pro-DoD people?

I think it’s generally one per company, which seems to be a big factor in people’s negative experiences with them.

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

#300

Post by s1artibartfast »

throwaway75787 wrote: post #4
raxxorrax wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

They don't need to. These companies have self-sufficient intelligence operations, and they employ seasoned experts. At an outfit like Google, and that may involve too many people overriding checks to be worth the risk of a leak. It's hard to say, I've never worked for Google. The Pinkertons are still active in union-busting, and they are retained by shiny "Great Place To Work"-type businesses. They're just covert now…

>Never talk to HR. They are the secret police

Like the police, they serve a function. talk to HR when you would talk to the police. When someone else is doing something illegal to you, and after you made sure that you have no exposure.

Post reply on HN