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

191–200 of 493 posts

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

#191

Post by geofft »

tnel77 wrote: post #129
UncleMeat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I think talking about the benefits of "unions" in the abstract is a little weird because - at least in the US - unions are highly regulated by laws that were written primarily envisioning the model of early-20th-century manual labor. That is to say, unions were designed in a way that fit not just for-profit businesses but very particular types of for-profit businesses.

So you need to separate the more conceptual parts of unions - that maybe we should value sustainable and secure employment over shareholder value, that laborers should be able to negotiate collectively and not individually, that you can do good work that is beneficial to the public by prioritizing happy laborers - from the very specific implementation of unions that we happen to have. Without our current model of for-profit businesses, the implementation of unions would not be a coherent concept (and admittedly they are a bit less coherent now and when applied to e.g. tech companies than they were in the past for the businesses for which they were designed - which isn't to say they're the wrong answer, just that they're an awkward fit). But the values are still valid.

As a sibling comment said, worker-owned cooperatives are one model here. Another similar option is very small companies: the concept of a solo founder unionizing makes no sense, but the solo founder of a bootstrapped "lifestyle business" has most of the benefits one generally wants from unions, and communities of such businesses can choose to federate for a better voice in the market. There are certainly a lot of other options besides the idea of a large business owned by its founders or publicly traded.

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

#192

Post by boh »

the_printer wrote: post #126
boh wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This sentence is perplexing, not sure what drew you to that conclusion. What's also perplexing is that all compensation should be based on an individuals capacity to negotiate.

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

#193

Post by mikkergp »

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…

'Never' used to discourage all participation? Have you visited /r/antiwork? Also, I think some of the backlash to unions is that they are often described as an unmitigated force for good, but for some it just feels like being squeezed between two beurocracies.

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

#194

Post by blululu »

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 think that the difference here is a matter of principles.

A lot of people view corporations in a justifiably negative light (very few people say that corporations are an unalloyed good, and I have never heard anyone wish that they could work for an LLC). But a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly and for the most part companies do make money (when they fail to make money, they cease existing and the general consensus is 'good riddance').

A union on the other hand is chartered to advocate for the rights and needs of workers. The standards and expectations for a union are fundamentally different than for a corporation. It depends on the union, but a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no consequences for this failure. Given that Unions claim a democratic mandate to advocate for labor, people are justifiably upset when they see their union doing nothing to represent their interests.

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

#195

Post by pydry »

tnel77 wrote: post #180
pydry wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We don’t necessarily need unions. I guess we dont necessarily need child labor laws or the weekend... Remember when the cacophony of calls to "End the Olympics Now" when the IOC was found to be grossly corrupt? No, me neither. The investor owned media called for reform. As it will for literally any other institution. Tennis is necessary.

I feel like the first line is kind of a little hyperbolic. I know that unions gave us a lot of the luxuries we take for granted today and I will state once again, for the record, that I am pro-union. I’m just saying that they are in a position where it is easy to criticize and reject them if they do something wrong. For better and for worse.

I think it would be remiss to characterize child labor laws as luxuries.

I could point to a hundred nonluxuries America doesnt have because it doesnt have enough union density, too - e.g. paid maternity leave.

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

#196

Post by gunfighthacksaw »

the_printer wrote: post #133
kubb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, money wins, people will fight against their own interest, etc etc

It’s incredibly presumptuous to assume you know someone else’s best interest better than them. If someone makes a different decision than you, maybe it’s because they value things differently than you and not that you’re sooooo much smarter than them,

Ah, the old reductio ad puerilem.

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

#197

Post by sanxiyn »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #152
sanxiyn wrote: post #3

Learn from South Korea: all top tech companies are unionized. #1 search engine (Naver), #1 messenger (Kakao), #1 game company (Nexon), etc.

Is that why their software is so good? Is that why they have better work life balance and higher pay?

Honestly yes? Higher pay, less overtime.

Enjoy https://github.com/line/armeria from a unionized tech company of South Korea!

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

#198

Post by briffle »

CreateAccntAgn wrote: post #155
tnel77 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The are police and other public sector unions. The point of unions is to protect labor interests. Unions can exist as long as labor does.

And those police unions are exactly why in many cases, an officer gets to see ALL evidence and video about a situation, with a required rep or lawyer, before making an official statement in many jurisdictions. Something you and I certainly don't get. In fact, they often try to trick suspects.

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

#199

Post by spaetzleesser »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #55

At one place I worked, I discovered that an employee had intentionally broken a machine that resulted in more than $8m in losses, but because of union negotiations, no one would do anything about it. At a different company, a union worker actually aimed a forklift at me, apparently because I was in IT. Unions historically served an important role, but they're an anachronism in the U.S. -- especially for coders at Goo…

There are plenty of stories of executives and boards of directors who mess up big time, cost the company big money and get rewarded with multi million dollar severance packages. Is management and board of directors an anachronism too?

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

#200

Post by wbl »

savant_penguin wrote: post #185
UncleMeat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are things I do not want to be democratically controlled. My ability to negotiate salaries with my boss is one of them. The scope of my job (some unions get to decide what you are allowed to do). Who should get fired (teachers unions make it impossible for bad teachers to be fired, so students are forced to put up with them) If you should be allowed to work. Some unions forbid you to work during strikes. Often…

The screen actors guild doesn't limit it's members ability to make money.
Post reply on HN