A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by bogomipz » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

fovc wrote: post #52

objclxt wrote: 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.…

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

No, you have no such guarantee that a union candidate will be any more experienced than a non-union candidate. Using Hollywood and IATSE(The Editors Guild) as an example, some requirements in order to be considered for membership are:

>"Editors must demonstrate 175 days of non-union work experience within the last three years, prior to the date of application." and

">Colorists must demonstrate 100 days of non-union work experience within the last two years, prior to the date of application."[1]

Each of those is less than 3 months a year. I have many friends in that Union as well as SAG that have other pursuits but always make sure to do the minimum number of hours in order to maintain Union status in order to maintain the benefits. The only guarantee you have is that a union candidate has more hours that a non-union candidate working on union movie productions.

>"... as an employee I know a movie using non union labor is not going to run as smoothly."

Do you have any evidence that movie production in countries without unions runs less smoothly? For instance New Zealand’s uniquely non-unionized film industry has produced many blockbusters - the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" and "The Hobbit Trilogy" being good examples. Is there any evidence that actual "boots on the ground" movie production ran any less smoothly? Would the latter trilogy have even been attempted had the former trilogy been so problematic as a result of it being non-union labor?

[1] https://www.editorsguild.com/Join/Join-West-Coast

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

#252

Post by thinkloop » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #182

karl11 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. There are very few perils of leaving Google - a top tier company in an industry t…

> but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. There are regular complaints about benefits and pay multipliers being cut back. Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible? People don't seem to complain when businesses do that.

> Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?

That is not a fair framing. Labor is not the sole cause of profit. Imagine a company that spent billions to automate every process requiring only a single human to push a button every 10 minutes to produce its output. This company would be making "billions per employee", but it wouldn't make sense to pay that employee billions for that job.

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

#253

Post by koheripbal » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

avianlyric wrote: post #111

rdgthree wrote: post #94

It seems incredibly significant that only 230 people are officially involved with these plans to unionize. As of 2019, Google had nearly 120,000 employees.[0] That seems quite small, relatively speaking. Legally (I think, just learning about this now), to form a union, a majority of workers must show their willingness to form a union. Alternatively, to choose an existing union to join, an election with 30% of the wor…

Reading the article, it sounds like they do need to find ~40,000 votes. The article mentions that now they've announced the unionisation attempt, they're gonna starting doing lots of public campaigning to collect the votes they need.

... and likely that this post is part of that attempt to publicize the effort.

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

#254

Post by mytailorisrich » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

objclxt wrote: 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.…

The point of unions is obviously for employees to unite in order to strengthen their bargaining power.

Engineers at Google are very well paid and have very nice perks (at least that the general perception), so I think what many people might wonder is what better deal do they feel they need strongly enough to unite in order to get it?

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

#255

Post by maxehmookau » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #202

maxehmookau wrote: post #160

Before US-based workers jump on this and start talking about how unions are a bad thing in general, remember to look to Europe. Trade unions are a huge part of the workforce culture here and are mostly a force for good.

In the UK we hear horror stories about French unions going so far as to literally kidnap management and hold them hostage, and in one case strip them naked and assault them with bed pans (?!).

Yeah sure. But you can win any debate by picking the most insane examples of why something is bad.

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

#256

Post by sethammons » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

vegardx wrote: post #169

sethammons wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For the same reason little shops pay protection money to gangs. Just because the money went somewhere does not mean it was the best place. Absolutely, the company likely was acting in bad faith, but it is not guaranteed. Maybe merit increases means they have to cut something else that affects their ability to complete, or maybe it just means less bonus for executives. Just saying that there are two sides. It is not always an evil company. I guess this is an argument for collective bargaining. I’ve never experienced its benefits however, and have seen negative effects.

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

#257

Post by thundergolfer » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

eznzt wrote: post #211

Google wanted a leftist culture, there you have a cultist culture. May this serve as a word of warning to fangless executives all around the country.

Who is the “Google” that you say wanted the leftist culture?

Is it the shareholders? The majority of shareholder ownership in Google is held by wealthy non-employees, who probably didn’t want a leftist culture.

Is it the executives? Seeing as unionisation probably reduces their power and their pay, they probably didn’t want it.

Is it the rank-and-file engineers? These people tend to be left of centre, and the younger ones are likely quite socially progressive, but anti-capitalist? Not many. Seems wrong to generalise that they want a leftist culture.

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

#258

Post by marcinzm » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

sz4kerto wrote: post #173

One difficulty I see with the mission statement ( https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statemen... ) is that it is very broad, and contains a lot of progressive values that are likely not as widely shared as the authors might expect. One might or might not agree with these values, but it is going to be significantly harder to start steering the company's product direction and social responsibility effo…

Seems to me that the organizers are using a union to push their own personal agendas (which they otherwise don't have the power to push) which seems like the perfect way to form a corrupt union that harms workers.

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

#259

Post by 0x445442 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

avianlyric wrote: post #138

karl11 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. There are very few perils of leaving Google - a top tier company in an industry t…

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. You're entitled to as much as you can negotiate. Isn't this a founding principle of capitalism? If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?

What if you're a candidate for employment and can negotiate more individually, as a non-union member?

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

#260

Post by jonahrd » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

appleflaxen wrote: post #153

karl11 wrote: post #60

Don't think we've ever seen Hollywood in the modern era without unions, so not sure how you can claim it's "undeniable" the industry is better off. We basically have no clue if it's better off or not. Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options as there is a single or just a few employers (e.g. Hollywood, teachers, coal mining towns, hospital staff, etc.). Unionizing at Goo…

You list teachers, who in my opinion are the poster children of how problematic unions are. And there are some phenomenal teachers out there. There are teachers that change lives profoundly. But they don't need the unions, and the terrible teachers who should be fired /are/ protected. It's really messed up, most people have first-hand experience with it, and they are a corrosive factor in the end.

I think it's pretty hard to claim that the reason there are bad teachers is because it's hard to fire them because they're unionized.

There are a lot of potential reasons:

- The pay is crap

- The "prestige" is crap

- The barrier to entry is low

In Finland, for example, there are excellent teachers because the profession is treated as on par with doctors. I don't think it's fair to blame unions for this difference in culture.