Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck” • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by bennysomething » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

kubb wrote: post #63

lbriner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree and this depends on the union also. The RMT in the UK is famously militant. When a new General Secretary was voted in a few years ago (before the current one I think), he didn't promise to "represent his members" but instead promised "that the RMT would remain militant", which doesn't sound great. Another railway union, the TSSA had a generally "no strike" policy but would still provide support for any disagree…

Everyone could get a better comp and work conditions but noo, that one lazy guy won't be fired, we can't have that!

There are quite a few reasons why I don't want unions:

1. I don't want pay banding based on job title, I am capable of negotiating this myself. This is especially true because I can remain at senior Dev level but based on contribution I can be compensated, not by title .

2. Historically there's evidence of damage to industry caused by unions.

3. The unionised work places I have heard about second hand, do not sound like places I want to work. For example unproductive employees not fired, promotions and internal job moves being extremely bureaucratic and check box oriented.

4. I do not want to be forced to pay union dues.

5. I do not want people telling me I must strike.

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

#122

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

the_printer wrote: post #113

boh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

That middle-man has more power than you do in a huge number of cases. There are very few individual workers where the bosses will suffer mightily if they refuse to work. But almost every boss will suffer mightily if a huge portion of their workers refuse to work. That is the leverage unions have over the bosses that individual workers almost never have.

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

#123

Post by oversocialized » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

nosequel wrote: post #20

endisneigh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google does indeed suck, wouldn’t employees leave for a company that doesn’t? I wonder what the attrition looks like

Money. As soon as a lot of people leave a team or location in Google, Google responds by giving everyone bonuses. When a bunch of people started quitting from the Boulder office a few (5?) years back, they offered to send everyone on a trip to Hawaii. Google's Do No Evil has been gone for a long while, but people stick around because they are making so much goddamn money.

Yes big tech employees are equivalent to the wall street bankers in the 80s. Sell their souls for money. They have no room to cry about morals, they know the deal.

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

#124

Post by dubbel » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #41

sanxiyn wrote: post #2

Unions don't suck, Google sucks.

Police unions have made it very difficult to fire bad cops.

From my European perspective it looks In the US the only unions left are the most hardcore, extremist unions.

All the "finding a common middleground", reasonable unions have been eradicated by anti-union policies. And yes, there are lots of unions like that in the countries that I can speak for (Denmark, Germany).

It is sad to see e.g. police unions being used as an argument against unions in general now.

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

#125

Post by bennysomething » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

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?

"so what you are day is" that's a good way to be accused of putting word in someone's mouth.

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

#126

Post by the_printer » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

boh wrote: post #110

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 twentiet…

The idea that people who do more and create more value should be compensated more is perplexing?

What?

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

#127

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

dqv wrote: post #68

tobr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s clearly not an argument against unions, only a reminder that they’re corruptible just like any other organization.

I wouldn't say "just like any other organization." Most organizations are authoritarian and workers have literally zero say in the operations at the top. Unions are democratically controlled. This introduces a meaningful difference in corruptibility.

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

#128

Post by blululu » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #95

blululu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the lesson is? South Korea is a very different country. Their laws and constitution were written by New Deal Democrats at a time when there was almost no existing industry and no opposition from the likes of Robert Taft and Henry Ford. The situation is very different in 21st century America. Unions can be a productive part of an industrial system, but just throwing up a union is not really going to solv…

Their constitution has been completely rewritten several times, most recently in 1987.

The original 1948 constitution stands with a series of amendments. The June Democracy movement of 1987 did not rewrite the constitution, they merely passed an amendment limiting the powers of the executive branch and strengthening democratic process. Collective bargaining rights have always been a feature in the South Korean economy and it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to change this.

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

#129

Post by tnel77 » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #114

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…

These can all be true things. But could you imagine if we spoke about corporations in this manner? "I've worked for corporations and they are a mixed bag. In practice, they often abuse their employees. I've personally witnessed bosses who contributed nothing for years and just played politics." For some reason we hold unions to an incredibly high standard of "no problems, ever" but this is never used to discourage al…

I am very pro-union, but I feel like a part of situation you are describing is because we needs businesses. We don’t necessarily need unions. Without unions, businesses would still be here. Without businesses, where would the unions be?

Edit: I would like to reiterate that I am pro-union. I am just saying that unions are optional, but businesses (or the government as some have pointed out) are more necessary from the standpoint you don’t usually form a union and then start a business. I like unions, but they are technically optional and I think that fact is what leads to people being more critical of them. When businesses/government sucks, there’s kind of a “well that’s how it is I guess.” When a union sucks, there’s a “why even do this then?”

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

#130

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

paisawalla wrote: post #49

ziggus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Professional employees whose work is merit-based don't need labor unions." You're living in a dream world, Neo.

What's your argument? That talented people can't get ahead at Google or competing employers?

[deleted]