Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power • Hacker News Board

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#321

Post by ChickenNugger » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

bushbaba wrote: post #153

JackFr wrote: post #86

So big tech has 220,000 layoffs and there is not the merest hint of a blip in the unemployment rate. This is not a tragedy - these people are going to find jobs, good jobs. In fact it's quite likely that they will go into roles which might do something other than online advertising. You know, something useful.

Unemployment doesn’t show laid off employees who aren’t yet collecting unemployment benefits. These tech workers got at least 60 days of severance thanks to the warn act.

It also doesn't show people who are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits whether or not they got a job.

It's a really misleading stat.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#322

Post by theGnuMe » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

kilgnad wrote: post #84

Phlarp wrote: post #20

Guess tech workers should have unionized when they had the chance. As if capital was going to let the most powerful group of workers that's ever existed continue to slip their noose

On a side note I feel we can take Unionization into the tech world as a start up or an App. Imagine a blind-esque App that just allows everyone participating to vote anonymously for a union. Then AFTER a union is official then leaders and instigators could reveal themselves or maybe there were no leaders or instigators the whole thing was p2p. I feel something as easy and convenient as blind can allow "unions in limb…

It's a great idea whose time has come. Watch Apple and Google not approve it in the app store. The file a lawsuit. Pitch it to the NLRB too and you might find ways around requiring email to verify employees.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#323

Post by JTbane » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #225

typon wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not very surprising though. Most of Silicon Valley and HN royalty is staunchly libertarian. VCs doing zero labour and getting rich off the backs of workers is a phenomena that cant easily be defended unless you buy into this ideology.

This just shows that people have the capability to turn their brains completely off if you shovel enough (potential) money at them. For example, libertarians have been screaming from the rooftops about needing a flat tax for the longest time. Know what would accelerate socialist reforms in the US faster than any other? A flat tax. Public sentiment would turn on a dime as soon as people saw how much they were getting…

I was appalled by the recent discussions about doing away with income tax in the USA and replacing it with a heavy VAT (the most regressive type of tax). Libertarians in this country can be the worst enemy of the poor and working class sometimes.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#324

Post by theptip » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

SantalBlush wrote: post #222

azemetre wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize more than a decade ago a cartel of tech companies (two of which being Google and Apple) literally had no poach agreements in order to suppress salaries right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

But GP is incredulous about that, because a no-poach agreement would imply that they're sitting behind a desk and stroking a cat. That's an absurd thing to picture, so by the GP's logic, those no-poach agreements didn't exist. QED.

I'll clarify by saying I'm aware of the no-poach collusion, and I'm not claiming it didn't happen. I used the absurd image to highlight and undermine the conspiratorial tone of the OP.

I don't think the no-poach case was, as the OP claims, about "cultivating an insecure workforce". It simply started with Jobs getting pissed off at Google (legally!) poaching his people, and other companies he emailed getting on board with a general "don't piss off Steve" policy that grew. While it's conspiratorial in that a bunch of execs were coordinating, I don't think it represents cultivation of insecurity or any explicitly anti-union intent.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#325

Post by braingenious » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

gingerrr wrote: post #298

braingenious wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of libertarian managers in the US would disagree with that. From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. “Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.

Not to derail, but I think you're conflating "right to work" with "at-will employment" here - you're describing at-will, where the employee/employer relationship can be severed by either party at any time for any reason. "Right to work" is a union-busting concept: regardless of collective bargaining agreements an individual has the right to their employment, whether or not they pay dues to a union. Just wanted to cor…

> "Right to work" is a union-busting concept…

Yep! “Right to work” is a way of framing union-busting rhetoric in a way that appeals to people that consider themselves to be libertarian(ish), so I’ve intentionally used that phrasing to try to highlight that both unions and union busting can fit under “libertarian” depending on a person’s intent.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#326

Post by matthewdgreen » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

anthonypasq wrote: post #247

angarg12 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an immigrant tech worker on visa (L1 to be specific) I find this comment cruel and tone deaf. Losing my job means losing my status, which means having to leave the country in short notice, my wife losing her job as well, and uprooting my family (again). Sure, I would survive , but I would definitely call it a personal tragedy.

were you under the impression your job was guaranteed for life?

Please don’t post stuff like this.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#327

Post by malfist » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

wheats wrote: post #286

AlwaysRock wrote: post #175

Right before COVID-19 stay at home order in Chicago, a bunch of improvisers who preformed at the popular i.o theater put together a list of demands which basically asked for a bunch of changes to make the lives of performers better. They were not going to perform until those changes were made. The owner didnt respond for a few days and then said, "Hey! Heard you. Great valid concerns. But I'm actually shutting the th…

>as the individual its so hard to get any meaningful change When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run, There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun; Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one But the union makes us strong.

Solidarity Forever -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnEAH5wCzo

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#328

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:01 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #317

jeffwask wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I think Executives are terrified of remote work. If the local theater doesn't want to meet my demand I have a global theater and someone will be always willing to leverage their competitive advantage to secure talent that would typically not be in their talent pool. People are no longer trapped by their geography or situation and Executives are terrified of losing that control.

Which is weird because they now have more control than ever in reality. Previously, if you headed up a tech firm in Wyoming, for example, your talent pool was the set of all the residents in Wyoming. You'd struggle to retain your top-end talent and you probably had to overpay to get them to stick around. Even worse, you probably had to donate to the University of Wyoming (read: bribe) to get them to train their stude…

That firm in Wyoming already had the ability to hire remotely 5 and 10 years ago. All they had to do was decide to do it.

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#329

Post by gruez » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

bbor wrote: post #224

theptip wrote: post #104

I just don’t buy it. To be clear this is claiming that the CEOs are sitting behind a desk stroking a cat, thinking “now I will crush the labor movement and make all my workers feel less secure”. This is just not a problem that Pichai is facing. Occam’s Razor points to the very simple, non-conspiratorial answer that it really is just stock-price driven (ie market-driven) thinking (one could say “lack of actual strateg…

I think you’re applying a “conspiratorial” vibe that isn’t necessary - employers are naturally incentivized to keep employees insecure and underpaid (relative to what they’d be paid if they organized, at least). It sounds like you’re knowledgeable on these topics, so I’d be surprised if you disagreed with any of these assertions: 1. Big tech would be willing to burn billions of dollars to crush any chance of tech uni…

I don't think the parent was disagreeing with the fact that tech companies want to oppress workers, he's disagreeing that this specific instance wasn't motivated by oppression because there's a more straightforward financial incentive (ie. cutting spending on employees in light of macroeconomic conditions changing). An analogy from the flip side: I think it's reasonable to think that most consumers want to drive a hard bargain when it comes to megacorps or even businesses in general. However, if some engineer sees the tech layoffs and starts canceling some of the SaaS subscription he doesn't need, it doesn't seem accurate to paint that as "Tech workers are using SaaS cancellations to crush corporate power".

Re: Big Tech is using layoffs to crush worker power

#330

Post by randomdata » Mon, Jan 30, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

braingenious wrote: post #311

randomdata wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed…

I’m kind of confused here. Contracts are enforced by the government, right? Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of ou…

Color me confused as well. In what way are contracts not libertarian? Freedom of association really doesn't stand up to have any meaning if you are unable to define what the relationship entails. Libertarian doesn't mean no government, if that is what you are suggesting; not in the USA, not anywhere.