Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 493 posts

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#101

Post by jakelazaroff »

judge2020 wrote: post #64
dccoolgai wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People _can_ be awful. I've seen founders, managers and execs bleed people dry - squeezing the life out of critical contributors whole stringing them along with promised of "getting their piece of the pie" that they had no intention of ever sharing. Telling anecdotes about "that one lazy guy who got paid for doing nothing" is tired. We've done that for the last 40 years. Time to try unions again, please.

Once a union is in place, it's hard to remove it, especially if you end up with a lot of union employees that act like the above. It's important for the workforce starting a union to choose, but they surely need to know both the pros and cons, right?

Do we really think not knowing the cons is an issue? Companies can literally force employees to go to anti-union training.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#102

Post by Jensson »

boh wrote: post #69
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #12

Having worked for both union and non-union employers - it's a mixed bag. Unions have advantages and disadvantages. They are great for worker representation - but that's a double-edged sword. Ideally, unions protects worker's interests. In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team…

So I guess unions do suck, thanks for clarifying. Hopefully people will be smart enough to not interfere with a firm's epic struggle for efficiency and polishing out the friction of overbearing worker compensation and benefits. Sounds like unions are too corrupt and will just interfere with the purity of corporate practices. I love how people have an easier time imagining colonies on mars than giving labor a platform…

US unions are like US healthcare, regulatory capture makes them suck. Unions working well in other countries doesn't mean it works well in USA. And neither party wants to improve the state of unions, democrats are on the side of union leadership while republicans are just anti unions in general, none wants to support workers on this.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#103

Post by the_printer »

dccoolgai wrote: post #56
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #12

Having worked for both union and non-union employers - it's a mixed bag. Unions have advantages and disadvantages. They are great for worker representation - but that's a double-edged sword. Ideally, unions protects worker's interests. In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team…

People _can_ be awful. I've seen founders, managers and execs bleed people dry - squeezing the life out of critical contributors whole stringing them along with promised of "getting their piece of the pie" that they had no intention of ever sharing. Telling anecdotes about "that one lazy guy who got paid for doing nothing" is tired. We've done that for the last 40 years. Time to try unions again, please.

You’re welcome to your union. Please keep me out of it. Especially in states where union participation is compulsory once formed (e.g. non-right-to-work), I’d leave for a new job before working in a union. Full stop.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#104

Post by cduzz »

tobr wrote: post #39
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #12

Having worked for both union and non-union employers - it's a mixed bag. Unions have advantages and disadvantages. They are great for worker representation - but that's a double-edged sword. Ideally, unions protects worker's interests. In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team…

Is this the argument against unions? They are made up of people and people can be awful?

Unions are made up of people, and thus can be terrible.

Corporations are (according to M.Friedman) Sociopaths guided by attorneys who define what's strictly legal, who's sole goal is to maximize profits.

I guess that means there are people in corporations too? Does the transitive property apply?

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#105

Post by bena »

And I'm just here like "Yes, and?"

Any non-unionized company would like to remain that way. It is in their best interest to do so. I would expect them to act like it. Way back in the day when I worked retail, there were training videos and at least one or two of them were pretty much "unions suck".

And this isn't to say that unions are good or bad overall. But I would expect any large corporation to do at least something to resist unions or other sort of collective bargaining units. Because whether or not unions are good for employees, they're always a negative for employers. Because at the very least, unions take some of the power away from the employer.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#106

Post by chrisseaton »

sanxiyn wrote: post #25
Extropy_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do we learn from that?

That unions work in tech companies. Naver/Kakao/Nexon almost simultaneously unionized in 2018, and now some time has passed it is possible to evaluate. It worked great so far.

But you're not telling us how it's great. You're just repeating that it's great.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#107

Post by arbitrage »

tw04 wrote: post #66
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #12

Having worked for both union and non-union employers - it's a mixed bag. Unions have advantages and disadvantages. They are great for worker representation - but that's a double-edged sword. Ideally, unions protects worker's interests. In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team…

So what you're saying is you think everyone should have a worse standard of living to prevent that one lazy guy from not pulling his weight?

Nobody is saying that.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#108

Post by fallingknife »

brightstep wrote: post #84
fallingknife wrote: post #40

If I were to join a union it would have to have the following: 1. No protection for incompetent people 2. No seniority based pay or privileges 3. Narrow focus on comp and quality of life Any of these would be a deal breaker for me. And I just don't see it happening. The people who seem to be into unions are the type of people that can't STFU about politics at the office. And if I hear one word about pronouns instead…

It won't happen because those criteria are antithetical to the purpose of a union. Unions are about solidarity as a working class against corporations. It doesn't work unless members see eachother as on the same side regardless of perceived competence

I'm not on the side of the dead weight I have to pull at work. Not ever. I'm not on the side of the useless union official who makes a multiple of my salary (taken out of my paycheck) for preaching "solidarity" to me. Results or GTFO. Union people talk like you, which is why Google doesn't need to convince me that unions are bad. Unions have already done the work for them.

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#109

Post by lovich »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #94
lovich wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m willing to be convinced here but how does 2 shitty people convince you that unions are an anachronism, especially when we are in the middle of an effective nationwide labor revolt over how shitty workers have been paid and treated for years?

Thanks! these are not the only stories I could tell, but just two picked at random.

Willing to be convinced == I am willing to here your logic here. This is still just anecdotes with no connection other than that some people can suck

Re: Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck”

#110

Post by boh »

0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #17

A related topic would be collective bargaining - which is often (but not always) associated with a unionized workplace. If you're a sub-standard employee, you win big through collective bargaining because pay bands will move toward the mean. If however, you are a high-performer, you will likely be under-compensated in a collective bargaining environment because your excess effort will be used to compensate those who…

Being a "high-performer" by definition suggests you are operating at a higher level than the average, suggesting you are a minority. The idea that labor policy should exclusively cater to a minority to get better compensated due to their superior contribution and negotiation skills is perplexing. Society requires a stable labor policy. The culture of the narcissistic self which powered the second half of the twentieth century isn't going to work in the low growth environment we're currently living in.
Post reply on HN