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

401–410 of 411 posts

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

#401

Post by busterarm »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #379
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.

Can you elaborate how the Pinkerington's opening fire on union strikers, isn't Mafia racketeering and criminal behavior? Anti-union behavior has been FAR more corrupt than unionizing. The history bears this out. CEO's and Owners have a lot more to lose, and a lot more to fight with than workers who have nothing and are begging for the scraps they do get.

Yes, let's weigh the single incident of the Homestead Strike of 1892 against decades of systemic corruption. That's a fair comparison.

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

#402

Post by sershe »

brightstep wrote: post #95
n8cpdx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

Monopolistic organizations of all kinds tend to be bad. The corporate monopolies are frowned upon and at least in theory, and sometimes in practice, curbed by the government. Union monopolies are actively protected by the government. If the unions operated more like competing guilds with low barrier to entry and anti-monopoly rules similar to corporations, and rules were e.g. you can only hire factory workers from a union but there are 5 competing unions in town, there could be an argument for their usefulness. As such they are about as evil (especially in the public sector where there's no competition pretty much by definition) as if e.g. Google had legal monopoly on internet search. Or Exxon had legal monopoly on oil production and unquestioning government support.

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

#403

Post by aylmao »

tene wrote: post #375
e40 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The way I take this is that, as a civilization, we don't know how to reliably produce a good union. Coordination is hard, especially when politics and money are involved, and there are some well-known common failure modes. To me, "a good union" is a lot like "a sufficiently smart compiler". It'd be great, and I'd love to have one, but the unions we currently have are the best we've been able to make so far. We can se…

I think it's worth noting that perfect efficiency is not a precondition for positive outcomes— much like with companies themselves. There's plenty of good CEOs and efficient companies, but there's also plenty where upper-management takes ludicrous bonuses, underperform, and a lot of potential efficiency is lost in politics and incompetence.

The real question is wether in spite of the inefficiencies, as a whole, unionization yields the expected results; and in general it has. Thanks to unionization we've gotten 8-hour workdays, the end of child labour and the weekend, for example. There's also data showing a strong correlation between union membership and the middle class’ overall share of income [1].

[1]: https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2...

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

#404

Post by busterarm »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #264
busterarm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't make irrefutable arguments based on theoretical downvotes

So much for theoretical...

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

#405

Post by JAlexoid »

busterarm wrote: post #371
danans wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's at least start your argument from a place of intellectual honesty. Your original statement: > Also everyone seems to forget that the history of unions in the US is inseparable from mafia racketeering. As we've discussed, major parts of union history has nothing to do with mafia racketeering. Falsely associating all organized labor with the parts that were involved with organized crime is intellectually dishon…

Right, and despite all of the decades of evidence of problems with union corruption, the pro-unionists still beat the drum of "more unions. right now. we'll figure out the problems later." How about no. How about solve the problems that make corruption inevitable and then maybe I'll support your union.

Oh.... I agree! That's why I'm an anarchist and I demand that all government be disbanded immediately, as it's the single most continuously corrupt institution that we experience.

(Unless you're a hypocrite, that will support government... while using the same talking points against something you personally don't like)

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

#406

Post by JAlexoid »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #354
0xy wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how teacher's unions regularly protect sexual predators from firing, I'm not sure I want the same institution in tech protecting incompetent, malicious and/or predator co-workers.

I guess since tech companies themselves already protect sexual predators, a union would just be unnecessary overhead in that regard. (/s, in case it's unclear)

No /s necessary.

From startups to mega corporations - sexual predators and outright rapists are systemically protected. (I am aware of a few "hushed up" incidents personally here in NYC)

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

#407

Post by JAlexoid »

dls2016 wrote: post #260
brightball wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another counter balancing force...numerous other opportunities. It's not a situation like Boeing where there's a very limited number of other places that you can take your skills.

> There is another counter balancing force...numerous other opportunities. The "take it or leave it" attitude strongly insinuates that corporations should be allowed dictatorial control over the manner in which work is completed. There are too many examples to point to which demonstrate the b.s. in this line of thinking. I may be reading too much into what you wrote, but I never understand the libertarian need to rej…

It's inherently unlibertarian to reject unions.

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

#408

Post by e40 »

aylmao wrote: post #403
tene wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I take this is that, as a civilization, we don't know how to reliably produce a good union. Coordination is hard, especially when politics and money are involved, and there are some well-known common failure modes. To me, "a good union" is a lot like "a sufficiently smart compiler". It'd be great, and I'd love to have one, but the unions we currently have are the best we've been able to make so far. We can se…

I think it's worth noting that perfect efficiency is not a precondition for positive outcomes— much like with companies themselves. There's plenty of good CEOs and efficient companies, but there's also plenty where upper-management takes ludicrous bonuses, underperform, and a lot of potential efficiency is lost in politics and incompetence. The real question is wether in spite of the inefficiencies, as a whole, union…

Yeah, I feel our standards for unions are way higher than for most other things (in companies). It's frustrating.

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

#409

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

busterarm wrote: post #404
thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't make irrefutable arguments based on theoretical downvotes

So much for theoretical...

It wasn't for your views, it was for your self-pitying method of debate that defies any ability to discuss it seriously.

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

#410

Post by busterarm »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #409
busterarm wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for theoretical...

It wasn't for your views, it was for your self-pitying method of debate that defies any ability to discuss it seriously.

No, see, I've been part of this debate several times on HN. If HN is anything it's predictable.
Post reply on HN