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

231–240 of 493 posts

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

#231

Post by freen »

Jensson wrote: post #189
airza wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point which i don’t think was articulated well by the GP is that depsite these objections to corporate power nobody (ok,few people) in HN threads ever seems to endorse getting rid of corporations.

Corporations creates enormous amounts of value, as far as we know modern society cannot function without those structures. Unions however are optional, even if they help they still aren't nearly as important as corporations. Edit: For those who disagree, how many modern societies are there without corporations running a majority of the economy? Not a single one. So as far as we know it doesn't work. It can work in th…

I take it you work 7 days a week, no vacation, no lunch break, in incredibly unsafe conditions?

No? Do you consider the fact that very few people have working conditions like those outlined above an enormously valuable thing for society?

Great. Then you agree that Unions have created enormous amounts of value as well.

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

#232

Post by jcims »

nerbert wrote: post #22

Seeing comments from previous posts on this forum, I'd say they kind of succeeded.

I can't think of a single talking point in the union conversation that I haven't heard for 30+ years. I see the same old characters in this very thread, the bitter individualist vs the pious collectivist, both polishing the same ol' turds and lobbing them at each other from deep within their trenches, patting their colleagues and comrades heartily on the back, declaring victory when the volleys stop.

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

#233

Post by woodruffw »

Jensson wrote: post #189
airza wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point which i don’t think was articulated well by the GP is that depsite these objections to corporate power nobody (ok,few people) in HN threads ever seems to endorse getting rid of corporations.

Corporations creates enormous amounts of value, as far as we know modern society cannot function without those structures. Unions however are optional, even if they help they still aren't nearly as important as corporations. Edit: For those who disagree, how many modern societies are there without corporations running a majority of the economy? Not a single one. So as far as we know it doesn't work. It can work in th…

What, pray tell, are those corporations made of?

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

#234

Post by pydry »

chrisseaton wrote: post #222
pydry wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 They are supposed to serve a higher purpose than just make money. If you were being equivalently fair to unions you would say that their sole purpose is to take dues. >a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no co…

> Yes, they do, they lose members. And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If I say I don't want to work for my company any more they'd either say 'farewell' or even offer me money to stay. If you don't want to be part of a union or a strike, you better be prepared to be harassed and intimidated.

>And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'.

If it's a competition for who has managed the most extreme violence in relation to an industrial dispute in America the prize would go to the manager of a coal mine in west virginia who brought in a private air force to bomb strikers (battle of blair mountain).

I somehow doubt youll find a union that has managed that level of unbridled violence.

The most extreme violence isnt in defence of livelihoods, it's in the service of profit.

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

#235

Post by wmil »

pydry wrote: post #212
blululu wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ce…

>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 They are supposed to serve a higher purpose than just make money. If you were being equivalently fair to unions you would say that their sole purpose is to take dues. >a lot unions don't really carry out their core function and there are no co…

> Yes, they do, they lose members.

But membership is mandatory if there is a union at that corp. A union is like a service they can't ever unsubscribe from without changing jobs.

For government work especially, unions can start to take over management functions. So employees end up wanting a second union to protect them from abuses by their main union.

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

#236

Post by lovich »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #158
lovich wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Willing to be convinced == I am willing to here your logic here. This is still just anecdotes with no connection other than that some people can suck

You're right, it's just anecdata, but literally I have a dozen stories like that and almost (not quite) zero countervailing stories. My experience with unions is that they start out with noble intentions, and then within a generation or two of union leaders devolve into just serving themselves; meanwhile, management suffers with worse and worse employees, because they can't do anything to get rid of the bad apples. O…

The unions have just as much an incentive to help the company as the company has to help the workers. Both will have nothing without the other so they can’t extract 100% of the value, but they do want to maximize their take.

What I don’t get from your comments is why you think unions are bad because they can have bad actors, but are ignoring that the company’s bad behavior doesn’t go away if the union does. And this happens even for well compensated roles. Look at examples like when Apple, google, and a few other companies entered into a cartel agreement to suppress engineer wages.

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

#237

Post by the_printer »

boh wrote: post #192
the_printer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#238

Post by chrisseaton »

pydry wrote: post #234
chrisseaton wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, they do, they lose members. And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If I say I don't want to work for my company any more they'd either say 'farewell' or even offer me money to stay. If you don't want to be part of a union or a strike, you better be prepared to be harassed and intimidated.

>And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'. If it's a competition for who has managed the most extreme violence in relation to an industrial dispute in America the prize would go to the manager of a coal mine in west virginia who brought in a private air force to bomb strikers (battle of blair mountain). I somehow doubt youll find a union that has managed…

That was in the 1920s - that's not something I'm legitimately worried about.

But it is a routine occurrence to have picket lines in industrial disputes today, and to deliberately harass people who choose to go into work.

In the coal mining strikes in the UK in the 80s it got to the point where union members literally killed a taxi driver for taking a worker past a picket line.

Google aren't going to kill an Uber driver for taking me to work at Facebook instead.

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

#239

Post by ranuzz »

helios_invictus wrote: post #85
ranuzz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thought might be something that makes employees think that “union sucks”. At a place like Google I assume that everybody thinks they are high-performers and in most cases they are since they got into google. So the majority will always think that they will be “under compensated” and never attempt to unionize. What I want to know is, is it really just another way to convince employees against unions ?

"Everyone is a high performer or thinks they are at....", but not everyone can be with in a given cohort. But who really knows? The employer might know based on their internal metrics, but is that info worth sharing accurately to the employee? Wouldn't you want your high-performers to think they just might be just good enough to keep "performing up" and costs down?

I agree, there is an incentive for employers to create an environment where employees are being gaslighted by the employer but that might turn into a toxic work culture (IMO).

I think creating an uncertain environment where the majority lives in a myth of being a high performer and salary discussion is frowned upon benefits companies the most.

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

#240

Post by pmyteh »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #208
pydry wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who doesn't talk about corporations in this manner? Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? No. Bit of a fringe view, that. The rule is, if it's a court, company, government, NGO or serbian tennis club then corruption should be met with reform. In the predominantly investor owned media, corruption in unions leads to calls to abolish them. It's standard.

> " Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? " People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values; they do not have that option with unionization. If the union allows workers to not join the union, not charge dues for being an non-member, and not support them, then nobody would have a problem with them.

FWIW in the UK it's a legal right not to join or support unions (closed shops are outlawed), and unions can't charge non-members dues (no agency shops either). Lots of people (both company-owners and ordinary citizens) have problems with them anyway. Somebody in my industry recently left the union angrily and publicly, then subsequently criticised the union for not representing their interests after they'd gone. There's no accounting for folk.
Post reply on HN