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

Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

m.pghcitypaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 448 posts

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#21

Post by youeseh »

dev_dull wrote: post #14
tyingq wrote: post #4

"HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between $30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely." That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.

The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and quickly find more gainful employment. It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.

This is not true. There are a large number of contractors working at Google, Facebook and other companies in engineering and other skilled roles. Their contracts are from 3 to 6 months long.

If you're in a bind and need a job, you get placed quickly by one of the firms supplying contractors to the large companies. Since you're in a bind, you accept making a lower salary, which ends up being around 60-75% of the base salary of a full-time employee without any of the other benefits of being full-time.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#22

Post by burtonator »

1-6 wrote: post #18

Good, if unions can make it less appealing for Google to hire less temp, vendors, and contractors, they might hire more full time employees. There's already a chasm forming between TVCs and FTEs. It's only going to grow bigger.

I had a recent request for a HIGH-level position at Google that was not an FTE... they're really pushing it now.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#23

Post by erikpukinskis »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #12
KirinDave wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.

That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims th…

I do think it’s Google’s responsibility to ensure their suppliers are adhering to basic standards of decency, whatever Google thinks decency is. The government has nothing to do with that.

I don’t think the government should be adjudicating virtue, nor do I think companies can say “I outsourced that part of my product, so it’s not my concern how it gets made!”

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#24

Post by tyingq »

dev_dull wrote: post #14
tyingq wrote: post #4

"HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between $30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely." That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.

The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and quickly find more gainful employment. It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.

Looks like IT analyst work:

https://www.indeed.com/q-Hcl-America-Google-jobs.html

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#25

Post by denormalfloat »

youeseh wrote: post #21
dev_dull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and quickly find more gainful employment. It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.

This is not true. There are a large number of contractors working at Google, Facebook and other companies in engineering and other skilled roles. Their contracts are from 3 to 6 months long. If you're in a bind and need a job, you get placed quickly by one of the firms supplying contractors to the large companies. Since you're in a bind, you accept making a lower salary, which ends up being around 60-75% of the base…

There are more than 100k TVCs at Google. I don't think you can speak generally about them, because there is high diversity in their job roles.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#26

Post by statusquoantefa »

adamnemecek wrote: post #2

It's funny how progressive everyone is until it impacts their bottom line.

It's funny how everybody covets more power and more money, employers and employees alike, and always want to wrap it all up in a facade of being the moral choice.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#27

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #23
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims th…

I do think it’s Google’s responsibility to ensure their suppliers are adhering to basic standards of decency, whatever Google thinks decency is. The government has nothing to do with that. I don’t think the government should be adjudicating virtue, nor do I think companies can say “I outsourced that part of my product, so it’s not my concern how it gets made!”

I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees. Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a particular anti-union activity on the part of a contracting partner crosses the line of legality.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#28

Post by rdiddly »

I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much."

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#29

Post by pcnix »

tyingq wrote: post #4

"HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between $30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely." That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.

For Indian developers that's above average pay, and HCL has a heavy Indian presence.

Prices for developers outside of the US and Europe are actually quite low, and part of the reason is the low costs in other countries that let companies get away with paying less, and another part is that there's a lot of engineers available.

Even if the average engineer is not as good, there's so many engineers in India that companies have a huge candidate pool from just the above average ones.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#30

Post by JamisonM »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #12
KirinDave wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.

That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement. It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment. I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims th…

  I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate 
  the remedy that some people here are proposing. 
  People are saying to terminate the contract with 
  HCL. What? What good would that do?
If there are no consequences for union-busting then what? This is the same question for US companies that do overseas human rights compliance audits on their supply chains, it is true that if a supplier fails the people being mistreated lose their jobs, but if the threat of losing the contract does not exist the managers have every incentive to simply cheat and lie and then apologize when they get caught.

The willingness to lose your employment in the battle for labour fairness in an important element of organized labour, it is that sort of solidarity that gives you the leverage you need to win.

Post reply on HN