Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#251

Post by mbostleman » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

manifestsilence wrote: post #206

mbostleman wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the tendency to fix markets by "organizing". I wish there was more of an attraction to work with the market. Just quit and work somewhere else. Spread your ideas and persuade others to do the same. It's a lot healthier in my opinion for all involved, not to mention the consumers of the product.

This opinion reflects a particular kind of career and living situation. If you rent and work in a field that has many options per city, and/or remote work, things are fine. I've heard it said that programming is an industry that favors lateral movement. On the other hand, if you own a house and the economy has tanked to where it's worth less than you owe on it, and you work for a large company that is a unique indust…

I'm familiar with that argument. My take is that I don't make much of a distinction between a worker and an entrepreneur. I think the healthiest approach is for everyone to see their personal financial journey the same as if it were a business. The situation of owning (or rather heavy leveraging the purchase of) a house and working for a company that is unique in the town, etc. is the result of a series of risk/reward decisions that were made. Sometimes they're made well and pay off and sometimes they're not and end up biting you.

For those that have a particular lack of innate ability for making good decisions (for whatever reason), I would rather see the community have a sense of responsibility to work with them to provide assistance either proactively (to keep them out of trouble) or retroactively (to keep them afloat after disasters). Without the community approach, it seems like the alternative is to allow compromises to principles - in this case the temptation to manage the market. Theoretically that's not the end of the world, but in practice what I feel happens is that bad actors are hanging around these doors egging others to crack them open. And as soon as that happens, they rush in and take advantage of it.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#252

Post by 908087 » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #218

908087 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the subject, the fact that he works for Google should make you question his motivations, not lend him more credibility and assume he's being honest.

No, it shouldn't, actually. But it seems you will.

Because nobody holding a high level position would ever attempt to distort the truth to protect the company they work for?

"He's a lawyer and works at Enron. Even if you don't agree with him, he's knowledgeable and honest about the situation."

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#253

Post by Tiktaalik » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

wasdfff wrote: post #153

kome wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberalism is a right-wing ideology...

In every context besides economic journals it refers to social liberalism: the progressive left. No one is calling reagan or bush liberals even if they are by the economics definition of the word.

You can be "socially liberal" and not be terribly progressive at all, and in fact that's what I usually see in the tech industry.

Eg. Support gay rights and environmental causes, but don't really give a shit about poor people.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#254

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #167

0x262d wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN especially attracts people who think like "I'm a super smart 10x hacker and deserve the fact that I earn 5x median salary and poor and dumb people can starve". it's sad. reverse class consciousness.

I mentioned this in other comments, actors have unions but they still have different salary(superstarts will earn much more then a new unknown actor) and they seem very eager to join the union(or guild or how it is named I am not from US). So it seems that programmers were scared by some bad stories that everyone will have same salary.

Unions also often times throw up massive barriers to entry in order to keep out new comers.

I absolutely do not want everyone to be forced to get a degree, and a certification just to be allow to make a freaking web app.

Right now there is nothing preventing companies from hiring someone who just went to an 8 week bootcampers, and this is a good thing. I know many people who have done this route.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#255

Post by Zeklandia » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #235

jackpirate wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all these ideas (regulation, minimum wage, laborisation, etc) protect existing workers and harms lower skilled or newcomers, foreigners, minorities, etc. I don't understand your point at all. Unions explicitly fight to support all of these people. The standard argument against unions (esp. in the tech sector) is that they harm high-skilled overperforming workers by capping the maximum benefits they can receiv…

> Unions explicitly fight to support all of these people. Unions fight to support newcomers? Common union tactics such as closed shops and seniority-based pay agreements are deliberately and severely hostile to newcomers. > overperforming workers Only a union supporter could argue that a worker can 'overperform'! Tell them to stop doing so well they're making everyone else look bad!

Overperformance is when a worker overexerts themselves, by working themselves harder or for longer. Overperformance is a problem because it exerts pressure on the other workers to do the same, leading to a runaway effect of increasing expectation for results while workers are left exhausting their bodies and their time, and often their own personal resources, trying to meet that expectation in order to not be fired or miss out on bonuses or promotions. They are not "making everyone else look bad" they are raising the bar higher than most could even reach.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#256

Post by drdeadringer » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

wasdfff wrote: post #158

bmj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder at what point working for Google will lose its shine, and their hiring pace will drop off.

People make a living building missiles payed for with public money that blow up schoolbusses across the world just to put their own children in a better school district. When people get a decent paycheck no one thinks about how much that dollar cost.

Some of us do, and then switch to other companies and/or industries.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#257

Post by Apocryphon » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #235

jackpirate wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all these ideas (regulation, minimum wage, laborisation, etc) protect existing workers and harms lower skilled or newcomers, foreigners, minorities, etc. I don't understand your point at all. Unions explicitly fight to support all of these people. The standard argument against unions (esp. in the tech sector) is that they harm high-skilled overperforming workers by capping the maximum benefits they can receiv…

> Unions explicitly fight to support all of these people. Unions fight to support newcomers? Common union tactics such as closed shops and seniority-based pay agreements are deliberately and severely hostile to newcomers. > overperforming workers Only a union supporter could argue that a worker can 'overperform'! Tell them to stop doing so well they're making everyone else look bad!

Why couldn’t a union created by presumably innovative, disruptive tech workers, invent a better mechanism than seniority-based pay? All of this anti-union rhetoric imagines that unions are inherently stuck in the 19th century and lack imagination.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#258

Post by nailer » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #81

cf141q5325 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think anyone is arguing it wouldnt be better for stock owners. Workers rights are generally the opposite of an improvement for stock owners. Thats not what they are there for. Its targeted at improving and safeguarding workers and in a broader sense society. In this case its so employees arent just silently doing what they are told matter the consequences those actions will have for the rest of the world.

He's also speaking as an employee who is uncomfortable with the current state of Google. Do workers rights include the right to not be constantly bombarded with political messaging you don't agree with and to be intimidated into keeping your own opinions silent? This poster's message and the internal dialog that came out during the Damore hearing make Google sound like a horrible place to work that is aggressively ov…

> the internal dialog that came out during the Damore hearing make Google sound like a horrible place to work that is aggressively overly politicized

Sundar Pichai made almost the same argument as Damore - that interest in CS may be gender based - in an interview a few months later. Nobody tried to destroy him.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#259

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

davinic wrote: post #203

simion314 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is different then the acting though? Actors have unions that protect their rights but don't affect their salaries AFAIK (maybe they were abused so much that the history if fresh for them still?)

The major benefit of the acting unions is the ability to limit the labor supply. In a growing industry like tech, this isn't necessary as the demand has always been greater than the supply of talent.

https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/non-members-need-...

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#260

Post by Apocryphon » Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #170

zozbot123 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of the benefits of collective bargaining aren't applicable to people who are relatively easily able to switch jobs or work as a consultant. The other side of the coin is that collective bargaining itself makes switching to a different employer or working as a consultant a lot more difficult than if the sector wasn't unionized. Sure, some people will have trouble doing these things anyway, especially at the low…

Thank you. As someone who worked in a union before switching jobs, it is not all rainbows and unicorns like so many people try to present it. In one shop I worked in, I was a truck driver delivering fuel to airplanes. If my truck broke down in any way , even something as stupid as the key got jammed, if I pulled out my leatherman and pulled it free, I could be fired for violating union agreements. Even most of the me…

These are great comments because they underline pain points that 21st century labor unions can work to solve and iterate upon