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

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#141

Post by Consultant32452 »

objclxt wrote: post #38

When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve. People often seem to think of unions as being purely blue-collar operations, and this just isn't true. For example, I've had people tell me that they don't support unions in tech because they'll be "paid less", or less competent engineers will be promoted faster.…

Unions create artificial scarcity. This is good for themselves but bad for everyone else. If I'm not a member of SAG then I cannot offer my services at competing rates because SAG has cut me out, regardless of my skill level. This creates a moat between the poor and working class. They contractually protect themselves from being undercut by the lower classes, perpetuating wealth inequality.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#142

Post by virgilp »

geraltofrivia wrote: post #43
booleandilemma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon anti-union video: https://youtu.be/AQeGBHxIyHw

Wow, what the fuck! “We’re not anti union, but we are not neutral either”

It's almost as if they claim to be pro-union :D

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#143

Post by ocdtrekkie »

mondoshawan wrote: post #63

Googler here, these articles are literally the first I've heard of it. No internal emails, rabblerousing, or any kind of comms about it, and it seems as though the union discussed doesn't actually exist yet. Seems a bit odd (and bad reporting), but we'll see where it goes. After watching how a mechanics union did absolutely nothing while CEOs ripped apart my Dad's pension and put him through hell, I have a bit of a d…

Part of the reason for this may be because Google in fact pushed the NLRB to disallow organizing activity on internal emails! https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/18/21028033/google-labor-bo...

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#144

Post by criddell »

mhb wrote: post #112
fovc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One positive byproduct is that union membership is a quality signal for both employers and employees. I.e., as a producer, I know non-union candidates will be less experienced; as an employee I know a movie using non union labor is not going to run as smoothly. Could be good for the startup market if this additional data point becomes reliable

So the way that educational outcomes have been improving as a result of union teachers with seniority being paid more?

The union seeks out what the membership wants. Teachers want seniority to be protected and rewarded, so that's what they fight for.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#145

Post by tjpnz »

chrisseaton wrote: post #95
avianlyric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't want to leave a cushy job for one where they would have to work harder for their money, so instead, they are trying other means to have their cake and eat it too. You're saying this like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't employees expect, and get, better working conditions? > engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better" How is individuals leaving "coll…

Aren't most employees also shareholders, in the tech industry? Don't we have representation through that mechanism and why isn't it enough?

That sounds more like a cooperative. Outside those situations stock ownership means very little for rank and file employees.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#146

Post by toper-centage »

avianlyric wrote: post #84
karl11 wrote: post #60

Don't think we've ever seen Hollywood in the modern era without unions, so not sure how you can claim it's "undeniable" the industry is better off. We basically have no clue if it's better off or not. Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options as there is a single or just a few employers (e.g. Hollywood, teachers, coal mining towns, hospital staff, etc.). Unionizing at Goo…

> People don't want to leave a cushy job for one where they would have to work harder for their money, so instead, they are trying other means to have their cake and eat it too. You're saying this like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't employees expect, and get, better working conditions? > engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better" How is individuals leaving "coll…

For a recent example on why tech needs unions, look up N26 (German modern Bank) and their employees attempts at creating a Works Council. The way management handled it was nothing less than despicable, including filing 2 restraining orders against 2 of their organizers, and reporting them to the police because of health (covid) concerns (the police came, everything was safe and in order, then left). https://www.worker26.com/

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#147

Post by alextheparrot »

prepend wrote: post #122
the_other wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that leaving equates to collective bargaining is false, and even if it had a ring of truth it would be ineffectual at FAANG companies. Leaving changes nothing, it just accelerates the bad behaviour because the obstacle to the bad behaviour removed itself. A single person, even a team of engineers, leaving a FAANG company will have near-zero impact on the behaviour, functioning or profitability of that compan…

> Leaving changes nothing Leaving improves conditions for the worker and that’s the biggest thing for me, the worker.

The entire post talks about effects on the company. If we’re trying to be unreasonably obtuse, it doesn’t change conditions for a worker either because a person not working is not a worker.

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#148

Post by MagnumOpus »

ignoramous wrote: post #77
objclxt wrote: post #38

When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve. People often seem to think of unions as being purely blue-collar operations, and this just isn't true. For example, I've had people tell me that they don't support unions in tech because they'll be "paid less", or less competent engineers will be promoted faster.…

> For example, I've had people tell me that they don't support unions in tech because they'll be "paid less", or less competent engineers will be promoted faster. Yeah, a bizarre line of reasoning. Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since. Today, your average footballer (plying their trade in the upper tiers of English football) makes more in a month than most tech engineers make in a year (g…

> Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since

Incorrect, the first footballer's union was from 1898 [1].

> I don't think unionization had any effect on their salaries

Despite the existence of the union, clubs could impose a salary cap on players well into the 1960s, and could trade them like slaves under the "retain-and-transfer" system [2] until the EU forbade that practice in the 1990s [3].

All in all, football is a very bad example for the success of unions. Unions helped jack shit to get players out of an exploitative situation - every improvement was hard-won in courts by individual footballers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_Footballers%27_Uni...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retain_and_transfer_system

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#149

Post by eropple »

prepend wrote: post #122
the_other wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that leaving equates to collective bargaining is false, and even if it had a ring of truth it would be ineffectual at FAANG companies. Leaving changes nothing, it just accelerates the bad behaviour because the obstacle to the bad behaviour removed itself. A single person, even a team of engineers, leaving a FAANG company will have near-zero impact on the behaviour, functioning or profitability of that compan…

> Leaving changes nothing Leaving improves conditions for the worker and that’s the biggest thing for me, the worker.

Not a leading question, I promise: do you believe you don't own your externalities?

Re: A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

#150

Post by [deleted] »

ahelwer wrote: post #129
mondoshawan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first I've ever suggested an opinion on it publicly, and I'm a line engineer, not management. Internally, I don't usually talk about things like this, either.

Ah, then it's likely that by chance someone just never got around to talking to you about it. It's a big company! Hopefully you'll soon get to talk to an organizer about your specific doubts.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN