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

391–400 of 411 posts

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

#391

Post by UncleMeat »

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?

That's fine. Unions are democratically controlled organizations and they won't always align with your personal interests. "This specific union does not align with my priorities, so I'll avoid joining" is not something that will aggravate too many activists. "Unions suck and everybody should resist them in general" is what bothers people.

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

#392

Post by UncleMeat »

busterarm wrote: post #164
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.

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.

Yes, organized crime is part of the history of unions. Illegal violence has absolutely been used against scabs.

But we don't hold private corporations to the same standard here. Industrialists cannot be separated from a history of outright murder of labor activists. Rockefeller Jr. had labor activists shot with machine guns. But we don't see many calls to avoid working for any private business because of this connection.

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

#393

Post by toss1 »

awb wrote: post #289
toss1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup And if there was any doubt, this action by Google — in and of itself — should convince everyone (outside of Google management) that unions would be a good thing.

That's not universally true. Imagine this scenario: If as OP stated employees treat their employer as an adversary, it's a reasonable outcome where adversarial employees demand more than a sustainable company would be willing / able to give. You cannot trust employees to demand a reasonable amount any more than you can trust companies to offer a reasonable amount. Both sides want to maximize their gains. If a collect…

>>That's not universally true.

Indeed, it is not an absolute.

But, considering that the power relationship is setup in society to nearly always favor the groups with the capital - the employers, it is close enough to being universally true to be a very usable heuristic.

And yes, I understand that unions in the past have gone too far in extracting concessions, especially in the areas of work rules that impair progress, but I can't say I've ever seen a situation where unions squeeze then bust a company then just hop to a better deal elsewhere. The times I've seen a company fold, the workers wind up pretty much on the street... do you have any examples where they did wind up in a better situation?

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

#394

Post by Viccro »

raxxorrax wrote: post #389
4ec0755f5522 wrote: post #180

When I was very young I worked a tough job that had a mandatory union and it was quite terrible / weak. Working conditions were pretty bad, physical labor, etc. But it was not until I worked a job with no union that I realized every element of that job that didn't suck was due to the union. For example we had supervisors but they didn't follow you around and micromanage you. You were just expected to do your job. If…

The quality of a union heavily depends on its leadership, which must be accountable to union members. But yes, a carefully conceived structure would make that possible. Problem is when said leadership starts to advertise particular interests instead of focusing on compensation and safety (work place safety, not neurosis compensation). A young union cannot really focus on much more because it is unlikely that it will…

...which must be accountable to fellow union members...

Union members comprise union leadership!

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

#395

Post by bagacrap »

handoflixue wrote: post #305
bagacrap wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how individual unions help solve this problem. A union that makes meaningful changes to conditions and wages at one employer would hobble that employer's ability to compete, they'd go out of business, and a non-unionized workforce/employer would replace them. This seems like a job for government and/or market forces. The latter actually have been working well recently near where I live, as the labor short…

Do you have examples of how unionization destroys the ability to compete? Because I know of tons of union jobs around where I live, and they routinely compete with non-union jobs. Many of the union companies are major players who have been around for decades, which suggests that a happy, well-treated workforce might actually be an advantage.

Detroit based auto makers would be the most obvious example.

If agreeing to union demands did not in some way cost the employer something, why would it need to be bargained out of them?

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

#396

Post by headmelted »

pwinnski wrote: post #132
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…

"It is their duty to shareholders" is a factually-incorrect statement.[0] That piece of misinformation needs to die out. 0. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...

Is it factually incorrect, though?

They may not have a legal duty to maximise profits, but investors will expect them to do so - and negative reactions in the stock price would be expected if they were to support unionisation within their business, as it would (rightly or wrongly) be expected to reduce profits going forward.

Boards don't like unhappy shareholders.

I'm not defending an anti-union stance - I'm simply saying that company leads will most certainly see it as a threat to their job if they are unable to increase profits or keep margins fat in perpetuity.

The highlighted explanation in your link supports this assertion.

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

#397

Post by handoflixue »

bagacrap wrote: post #395
handoflixue wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples of how unionization destroys the ability to compete? Because I know of tons of union jobs around where I live, and they routinely compete with non-union jobs. Many of the union companies are major players who have been around for decades, which suggests that a happy, well-treated workforce might actually be an advantage.

Detroit based auto makers would be the most obvious example. If agreeing to union demands did not in some way cost the employer something, why would it need to be bargained out of them?

> If agreeing to union demands did not in some way cost the employer something, why would it need to be bargained out of them?

It costs them control and social status. A lot of people have egos that don't like yielding either of those, even if it's otherwise a win-win exchange.

Middle management has a huge incentive to produce short-term resume-building actions at the expense of long-term gains, so you should be able to quite fruitfully thwart those executives and produce gains for both the company and the rest of employees.

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

#398

Post by mleonhard »

raxxorrax wrote: post #390
mleonhard wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt that very much to be honest. Not that I believe that there aren't any smart people at Google. I expect a Google union to force me to go to some sensitivity training instead of fighting for wages (which to be honest are pretty high as they are). So would it be about workplace safety? Probably not. Military projects? My deepest sympathy to everyone that is critical here, but maybe not really a classical union t…

I took Google's sensitivity training. The class is called "Unconscious Bias". I learned a lot. I would not have learned those things in my day-to-day life. My social skills improved. You should take sensitivity training if you get the chance. You won't regret it.

A Google union would probably focus on problems that affect most employees:

- Employee compensation (perf) is decided in secret by managers. There is no transparency and therefore no accountability. Getting rewarded for effort is unnecessarily stressful. Some managers are bad and exploit their team members. The lack of accountability creates dysfunction across the entire organization: Google managers reward people for completing projects that make the managers look good on paper. Nobody checks that the projects meet needs for users. The managers do not align incentives with shareholders (long-term profitability), customers, users, or the rest of society. This is the root cause of Google's dysfunction. Many employees feel dissatisfaction with it, even if they don't talk about it.

- The noisy & crowded workspaces. This is a direct result of the first problem of mis-aligned incentives. The office management division (REWS) is not incentivized to make Google offices actually meet the needs of workers.

- Most Google jobs are located in an area with extremely high cost of living and terrible commutes.

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

#399

Post by BuckRogers »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #273
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,…

> In fact it was a superior there that told me, when I was more anti-union, that "companies get the union they deserve". What does that say about the companies that don't have a union? > I did everything I could to get my wife into a professional career with a union, so that when I die she'll be as safe and protected without me. The safer option is to make sure she has a skillset which is in high demand. What's the u…

I won't respond to everything, but her skills other than her experience in the field, and her long list of licenses, would be her ability to write and speak two languages fluently.

I didn't preclude her skills. I just wanted her to have a union, whether skilled labor or otherwise. Having both has her very well positioned. She doesn't need a union, but it certainly has boosted her pay, vacation policy, and treatment. She could easily put a grievance in at work. I cannot, my grievance is to quit.

I don't honestly think my software development skills put me in a better position. Skills are good if you're a basic worker. Helps. But you aren't in some magic land of success, you're just a worker that gets a job easier than the rest.

I have her well positioned. Everything I learned about reality, I passed onto her, before she got into a real career. Skills + union = a pretty nice life, one that everyone honestly deserves if they get out of bed to work in the morning.

Most people seem to think workers should be "skilled", or abused in some way. I think it's the non-contributors that should be punished or treated harshly. Workers should get all the good things. I don't ask that they build up a skillset.

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

#400

Post by raxxorrax »

mleonhard wrote: post #398
raxxorrax wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that very much to be honest. Not that I believe that there aren't any smart people at Google. I expect a Google union to force me to go to some sensitivity training instead of fighting for wages (which to be honest are pretty high as they are). So would it be about workplace safety? Probably not. Military projects? My deepest sympathy to everyone that is critical here, but maybe not really a classical union t…

I took Google's sensitivity training. The class is called "Unconscious Bias". I learned a lot. I would not have learned those things in my day-to-day life. My social skills improved. You should take sensitivity training if you get the chance. You won't regret it. A Google union would probably focus on problems that affect most employees: - Employee compensation (perf) is decided in secret by managers. There is no tra…

I don't think a union is a vehicle against unloved management, it would just be piling discontent on people that were singled out. If you believe you can make the case your manager works against business interest you should talk to him about that first. If that doesn't net results, you can talk to his supervisor with a reference to the meeting you have had and what you were talking about.

I agree on the noisy work spaces. That could be a union issue indeed. Maybe the problem of living costs too, but this has probably numerous reasons and it would be difficult to get everyone behind a common position.

Everyone has biases and it is okay to have some for that matter.

Post reply on HN