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

261–270 of 493 posts

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

#261

Post by geodel »

airza wrote: post #173
everdrive wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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." We definitely talk about corporations in this way. All the time, in fact!

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.

As important HN may be it is big world out there, so why wouldn't someone simply try eliminating at least a single corporation of medium size (200-1000 people) with plain union organization for employment. I am sure it wouldn't need HN approval.

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

#262

Post by sam0x17 »

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…

Whether they are a mixed bag or not, it is extremely inappropriate, unethical, and should be illegal for an employer to discourage or manipulate employees into not unionizing or joining a union. This is in my opinion the moral equivalent of your employer giving you unsolicited accounting or medical advice (but actually worse than that, since they have bias on the matter as well) and I hope someday the law reflects that.

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

#263

Post by dls2016 »

exabrial wrote: post #120

This whole debacle is sort of humorous. I fully support the rights of workers to unionize. The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. This is incredibly unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights.

Which other human rights are violated by representation dues?

I can name dozens of corporations who have used their profits not to increase worker compensation, but instead to lobby directly against their workers. And the workers have no vote or voice in the matter. Google in the article, for instance. But think of all the other dubious lobbying corporations engage in. It's never discussed in this context because your pay check doesn't include a line item for "lobbying fees".

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

#264

Post by hkt »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #135
flavius29663 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Google should just hire 100,000 devs this year, why not? They're not going to go under, who cares that they won't be able to contribute to the success of the company?

> Then Google should just hire 100,000 devs this year, why not? Hold up that's actually a good idea. It would help a lot of entry level devs bulk up their resume and learn hands on skills. This would lead to an influx of sorely needed new talent to the entire tech industry and enable a lot more innovation than was possible before, if only due to HR red tape.

That'd be a sort of corporate keynesianism. It is both neat and scary to think that a few companies could meaningfully stimulate their entire sector over a period of years through their hiring policies.

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

#265

Post by Tinyyy »

discardedrefuse wrote: post #247
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #17

A related topic would be collective bargaining - which is often (but not always) associated with a unionized workplace. If you're a sub-standard employee, you win big through collective bargaining because pay bands will move toward the mean. If however, you are a high-performer, you will likely be under-compensated in a collective bargaining environment because your excess effort will be used to compensate those who…

This is non-sense. There's no rule that says collectively bargained contracts can't include rewards or incentives for higher-performance. In fact, many do. Look at any professional sports contract. Players usually get bonuses for hitting predetermined stat goals on the field. Look at any teacher contract. Teachers get bonuses for attaining higher education and certifications, or simply taking on leadership roles.

How much do you think Lebron James would be paid in a free market without collective bargaining?

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

#266

Post by colejohnson66 »

arbitrage wrote: post #116
sanxiyn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5% does seem excessive. I worked at a unionized tech company, and I paid 0.5% as union due.

that's b/c the figure of 5% is made up bullshit.

It's not. I worked at a grocery store years ago, and my $300-$350 weekly paychecks had a $15-$20 union due line (I don't remember the exact amount). Sure, some unions can have lower amounts, but single digit dues do exist.

Don't get me wrong. I'm for unions, but when people don't see an improvement, it'll leave a sour taste in their mouths.

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

#267

Post by VirusNewbie »

Unions are helpful when you have a homogeneous workforce all doing similar work with similar outputs.

We have studies showing how different software engineering is, where some workers vastly outperform others, some workers are interchangeable, some are specialists, and some underperform.

This is exactly the wrong type of work that benefits from collective bargaining and gatekeeping.

Unions help subpar workers. They do not help anyone else (other than their power structure that they themselves carve out using other workers wages).

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

#268

Post by discardedrefuse »

kerneloftruth wrote: post #119
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #17

A related topic would be collective bargaining - which is often (but not always) associated with a unionized workplace. If you're a sub-standard employee, you win big through collective bargaining because pay bands will move toward the mean. If however, you are a high-performer, you will likely be under-compensated in a collective bargaining environment because your excess effort will be used to compensate those who…

Yes, and the high achiever will be further blunted by seniority-based promotion practices. If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors, as the quality talent will leave $BIGCO for better opportunities in the smaller companies.

> by seniority-based promotion practices

Seniority-based promotion isn't the standard. I'm unionized and any job opening in my workplace must be advertised publicly. Anyone who wants it must apply, qualify, and interview for the position.

> If FAANG-type companies unionize, one can see a possible positive outcome for the smaller competitors

Accurate or not, this really sounds like a win all around!

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

#269

Post by dls2016 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #183
exabrial wrote: post #120

This whole debacle is sort of humorous. I fully support the rights of workers to unionize. The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. This is incredibly unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights.

>The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. You are badly misinformed about what "right to work" is. In a union shop, the unionized "coerce" all employees in their bargaining units to participate, even in "right to work" states! Everyone is covered by the same contract! That's the whole point! Even in "right to work" st…

> In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.

It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!

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

#270

Post by MarkMarine »

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…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN