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

331–340 of 411 posts

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

#331

Post by handoflixue »

busterarm wrote: post #175
bradleyjg wrote: post #156

It’s a real shame that the middle and upper classes in the US have abandoned having their teens work in favor of various, expensive, college application boosting fluff. I went to work at McDonalds at age 15 and was part of a union. I have direct experience with what that is like. I don’t need to get my knowledge on the subject from flamewars between people pushing ideological agendas (most of whom themselves have app…

Shh, every time those of us who have been in actual unions and actually had terrible experiences voice our opinions we get downvoted into oblivion. It's not worth it, m8.

If we take anecdotal experiences as useful, then the fact that you're getting downvoted is anecdotal evidence that more people have had positive experiences with unions, and your experiences are just unfortunate outliers (and anything big enough to make Hacker News is big enough to have a lot of outliers)

Since your whole goal is to share anecdotal data, I'd assume you'd be more responsive to receiving such data.

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

#332

Post by cjbgkagh »

Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #166
timmg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. To take it one step further: I have a pretty good relationship with my employer (coincidentally, Google). I don't need or want a third party to get in the middle of it.

Also, Googles largest union, AWU, does not focus on anything I care about, so why should I pay them dues?

I think that is intentional

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

#333

Post by Jensson »

_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?

In USA if other people form a union at your company then you have to pay their union dues even if you don't like the union. In EU that is illegal, but in USA that is how it works. If you ever wonder why Americans are so anti unions that is why.

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

#334

Post by mleonhard »

e40 wrote: post #279
joebob42 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a note: I agree that spending millions fighting unions is strong evidence unions are bad for the company. It's not necessarily obvious this means unions are good for the employees.

It really bothers me that we've all accepted (not you or me specifically, but every time I see unions discussed it's the subtext) that we have two choices: no union or a shitty union. Why can't we work for a union that is good? If the answer is that humans are involved and it'll never be possible, then that could be applied to anything and is an absurd answer. This is not a strawman, I've heard that argument many tim…

In USA, unions mostly represent blue-collar workers who tend to elect low-quality union leaders. A union at Google could end up with better leaders than the company itself.

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

#335

Post by philwelch »

bathtub365 wrote: post #303
busterarm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Also everyone seems to forget that the history of unions in the US is inseparable from mafia racketeering. To the point that the federal government had to break some of the power of unions in order to break up the effectiveness of mafia racketeering.

This is one of the anti-union talking points from documents produced by IRI (the firm Google has hired to fight unionization efforts) in a previous union-busting effort. > “Talk about any bad experience you or others you know may have had with unions,” the document instructs managers. “Also talk about the union’s past. Tell employees about documented history of Mafia influence and corruption of unions. Tell employees…

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

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

#336

Post by busterarm »

bathtub365 wrote: post #303
busterarm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Also everyone seems to forget that the history of unions in the US is inseparable from mafia racketeering. To the point that the federal government had to break some of the power of unions in order to break up the effectiveness of mafia racketeering.

This is one of the anti-union talking points from documents produced by IRI (the firm Google has hired to fight unionization efforts) in a previous union-busting effort. > “Talk about any bad experience you or others you know may have had with unions,” the document instructs managers. “Also talk about the union’s past. Tell employees about documented history of Mafia influence and corruption of unions. Tell employees…

Documenting facts does not mean your documentation produced those facts if you're a detractor.

Both in America and in Sicily are a trail of dead bodies from unionists who didn't want to play ball with the mob.

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

#337

Post by MandieD »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #64
BuckRogers wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

“All that said, unions should also be sector-wide not worksite based.” That’s how it works in Germany and it’s much better than the per company unions in the US. Workers also have a seat on the board of directors by law which also helps balancing things a little. The capitalists and CEOs still make plenty of money within that arrangement, companies are competitive on the world market so it seems to work.

There's the "Works Council" (Betriebsrat) that in big companies is basically an employee-elected parliament, with various party-like factions running. For my employer's last Betriebsrat election, IG Metall (the union that represents my company's sector) ran a slate of candidates, along with other "parties" that emphasized somewhat different approaches - one campaigned on a platform of more flexible home office rules (pre-Covid).

The Betriebsrat approves major HR policies, like how long open positions need to be advertised internally before they can be advertised outside the company, or approving non-shift Sunday or night work hours (kind of a pain, but also a protection against abuse), as well as employee data privacy matters, such as whether MS Teams presence status can be visible to people outside of the company.

Their cooperation is also necessary to fire permanent employees for cause after their 6 month trial period is over. This is a mixed blessing - it means that there are some useless people who can drag things out for ages, but also means that a PIP is more than a bum-covering exercise for management.

If you're having an issue, and don't feel like your boss is hearing you, you can go to a Betriebsrat member instead of HR (especially if it's an issue with HR), and there are enough of them that it's likely that you know one of them, or a colleague does.

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

#338

Post by noah_buddy »

Aerroon wrote: post #73
noah_buddy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you couldn't glean with a common sense approach to material interests at play in a workplace. Of course a corporation wants to extract as much wealth with as little overhead as possible. Outside of ineffectual executives, there are few that orient companies towards making less money intentionally. Analyzing every choice made in a work place through this lens is both dead simple and continually enlightening. S…

> Some commentator once noted that those elite with the highest levels of wealth (say top 1%) don't disbelieve Marx's analysis of the world and capital distribution. Top 1% global income is about $60,000 a year. Many Americans are above this, yet I doubt that they feel strongly about what you mentioned.

Perhaps top 1% contextually would be a better upper bound, though the exact number is an issue of economic statistics and not really the point I'm making. More so that a Marxian view of choices is often a very parsimonious way to understand the world, not to say it's the only way.

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

#339

Post by MandieD »

BuckRogers wrote: post #112
spaetzleesser wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“All that said, unions should also be sector-wide not worksite based.” That’s how it works in Germany and it’s much better than the per company unions in the US. Workers also have a seat on the board of directors by law which also helps balancing things a little. The capitalists and CEOs still make plenty of money within that arrangement, companies are competitive on the world market so it seems to work.

Aye. My friends in Germany (well, Austria at least) tell me there are no shortage of jobs in Alemannia either. Stifling the economy hasn't happened. I definitely have looked to them for inspiration there. As well as Spain and Italy for their gov't funding of worker cooperatives. Which I think is probably an even better answer to a balanced system, but I'm afraid too many people don't have the mind or focus to make wo…

Corporate IT departments are still hiring like mad in northern Bavaria. It's nothing like SV or even quite as good as big US metro area IT money, but it's not bad - 30 days vacation is the norm (thank you, IG Metall!), on top of a ludicrous public holiday schedule (thank you, Catholic Church, I guess...) and frankly ridiculous sick leave policy (thank you, German government).

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

#340

Post by floatingatoll »

jedberg wrote: post #255

A lot of people have this terrible notion of what a union is, where they force you to do things and set wages and work hours. But I suspect a union for programmers would look more like the Actors union or screenwriters union in Hollywood. They would negotiate minimum rates and benefits, but top performers would still be able to get significantly more. The union just sets the minimums.

Is it possible to take a page from the "YC Standard Deal" model and create a "Union Standard Deal" for tech workers, that offers an opinionated and non-comprehensive view of the basic necessities that any tech worker union should demand?

Tech is known for shooting the moon, but if we can stand up opinionated examples of "minimum viable bargains", maybe that would help everyone grasp what's being proposed, and contrast the MVB with their local union's offerings.

Post reply on HN