Live data from Hacker News

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161
post #112
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?

Educational outcome is mainly due to income of parents, nothing else even comes close to matter as much.

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

#162
post #156

Honest question: are there good examples of unionized companies that continue to innovate post unionization? Unionization seems at the surface like the end stage of disruptor where stakeholders begin jockeying for slices of a pie that now grows linearly.

I would also like to know.

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

#163
post #71
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.…

Hollywood makes a valid comparison for being nearby, but the more meaningful comparisons are to more unionized countries like in Europe or America in the past, where unions increased productivity, safety, and living standards.

[deleted]

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

#164
post #71
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.…

Hollywood makes a valid comparison for being nearby, but the more meaningful comparisons are to more unionized countries like in Europe or America in the past, where unions increased productivity, safety, and living standards.

I feel like that all happened a hundred years ago and many of the protections they offered are now backed by law.

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

#165
post #4

> If the union effort at Google is successful, members say they will commit one percent of their annual compensation to the union. Is that a standard rate for union dues? I’ve never joined a union myself in the past and have no reference point for a 1% figure.

Yeah, I think 1% is standard. I think our dues were 1.5%, but I can’t find my old contract right this second. We got a guaranteed 3% annual raise as part of the contract (in addition to any other raises or promotions), so for us, even in a pure cost perspective, the union was a net win, irrespective of all the other benefits.

Unfortunately, and I say this as a big fan and supporter of unions, I don’t see this drive being successful. Compensation and job security are some of the mains reasons people unionize. Companies like Google already offer cost-of-living raises annually, in addition to stock and bonus compensation.

The challenge for most tech companies attempting to unionize — and by this, I mean staff including engineers, not simply the employees who don’t reap spoils, like janitors, bus drivers, receptionists, cafeteria staff, etc. — is that the reason to unionize is largely not going to be about pay. Because realistically, I have doubts in a CBA (which this is not, but let’s assume there was a scenario with one) being more effective at negotiating salary levels than the current system that exists. This isn’t true for all tech companies; most employees at a game studio, for example, could almost certainly benefit from a CBA.

Still, the challenge for an all-encompassing union like this is that for most employees, a union won’t effect compensation (and when it will, it’ll impact the bottom wrung — which is important, but makes it harder to get mass buy-in from the rank and file), it won’t effect perks, it won't effect medical care, parental leave, insurance. All of these things tend to be best-in-class, at least in the United States. So instead, you’re talking about fighting for a union for equally important, but much more difficult to quantify, areas like a voice in what types of contract bids or programs the company takes, hiring policies, sexual harassment policies, etc.

And it’s specifically that difficulty that has led the CWA to organize this as a minority union. And that’s exactly why although I applaud the efforts to do this, I doubt very much it will be effective at all.

To me, a better approach would have been to have a more organized approach focused on specific types of employees, especially vendors/contractors. This “anyone can join but we don't have a CBA and aren’t recognized by the NLRB” thing strikes me as much more akin to trying to form an employee-focused internal lobbying group, rather than an actual union.

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

#166
post #75
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.…

I find really, really baffling the general position in the US regarding unions. It is like there's a general discourse that they are a bad thing, just like with "that other" thing (cough socialism cough). This is even more strange when you find out about police unions - that are widespread -, and what their power is. From my point of view actions of police union are usually borderline "mob-like" (as in, I mostly hear…

Just a few opinions here, focusing on the negatives to try to explain the 'general discourse that they are a bad thing'.

It's in part because the US has a storied history of corrupt unions and their affiliation with the mafia and organized crime.

There's a related facet in that, to an outside observer, the UAW chased American automakers out of the country through unsustainable demands for wages and benefits.

Another part comes from the direct experience of many Americans as members of unions and some portion (we can argue percentages) of those people arrive at the conclusion that the union at best isn't worth the dues and at worse is pathological, in some cases by protecting underperformers and in others by lacking a spine when it is needed. This is where my personal experience the Teamsters and vicarious experience via my wife's membership in the NEA landed me.

It's also in part because many Americans have direct experience working alongside unions and some (again we can argue percentages) become frustrated with the rules and the pace. I've had some experience with this in the HVAC industry and in home building. I was already tainted a bit by my experience as a member above so I'm sure there was some confirmation bias here.

Lastly America has a pretty strong ethos, or myth if you prefer, of individualism and some unions and union members lay on a very thick collectivist twang in their communication that can be off-putting.

I'm not ideologically opposed to unions in any way, I just haven't seen one do a great job in the US. I hope Kickstarter is able to pull off a good example and am all for workers shooting their shot if they feel it is a good idea. I'm just not particularly optimistic.

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

#167
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 some reason, the most vocal aspect of tech workers tends to be this libertarianish pure merit based persona that is insulted by any type of collective bargaining.

I think that attitude rules the day because tech related industries are in an extended growth period, and the more “legacy” aspects of the industry use offshoring and guest workers to maintain total control. (The armies of programmers churning out Java at banks, etc.)

While rockstar engineers exist, and everyone on the internet is a genius, the reality is that almost nobody has meaningful negotiation power over a big tech company. I’ve seen more than my share of top talent at big tech companies get dumped in hardship roles or be mistreated because their big boss/sponsor retired or moved on, and they were held hostage by vesting periods, etc.

Growing up, I had family who were steamfitters, firemen and operating engineers. All of them were treated better as skilled labor or with clear work rules than the bullshit that I’ve been forced to deal with in my career. Not complaining -- I've lived a charmed work life in many ways!

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

#168
On a corp-cultural level it's interesting this is originating at Google, as opposed to say Amazon which is generally considered a more burnout-causing/crushing place to work on the engineering side in some teams. The Google employees I've talked to all seemed remarkably uncynical about their jobs, and still took a certain amount of pride in working at their company. I can contrast this with Amazon, Microsoft, and (to a lesser degree) Facebook employees who sort of hold their jobs at arm's length from themselves; not much of their identity is wrapped up in it. For union organization at higher payscales, maybe peoples' desire to better their workplace will only be effective if they care about their workplace to begin with.

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My union membership more than paid for itself this year. My employer wanted to defer merit increase due to covid and all the uncertainty. The union called them on the bluff.

Was it really a bluff? How do you know if growth projects or other company investments had to be canceled?

We know because we got the merit increase. Do you think they'd give up so easily if they had a good case against it?

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

#170

I've never been in a union, but I have 2 strong impressions of them from friends. One friend was an electrician, he enjoyed working for a union because it gave him extra freedoms in his work. The second friends father worked in management for a mine that used union labor. They went through an ugly labor strike where their windows were shot out of their house and their lives felt threatened. I'm of mixed opinion, but…

Mine workers are very frequently abused by management. Do you happen to have any links to stories covering that situation?
Post reply on HN