Google hired union-busting consultants to convince employees “unions suck” • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by discardedrefuse » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

Tinyyy wrote: post #265

discardedrefuse wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Probably the same, maybe less. Professional sports players get paid on merit. What they do on the court directly translates into what a team is will to pay them.

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

#282

Post by hkt » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #154

chrisseaton wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In tech almost all workers are heavily invested in their companies.

Which is an anti-labor-power strategy. If you consider the case of publicly-traded employers (there's a different argument for pre-exit startups that comes out to a similar conclusion): they could give you your compensation entirely in cash, because shares are pretty liquid. And you could buy stock in your own employer. But very few people think that's a good idea, because now you have correlated risk across your own…

This is one of the best summaries I've seen of the power dynamics at play with employee share schemes. Kudos.

What has always bothered me is that whenever I've been paid partly in shares, it has been non-voting shares or options (or both). Still no representation either way. If government was done with no representation we'd be within our rights to revolt - it gas always struck me as odd that even employee shareholders are denied that same representation.

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

#283

Post by brendoelfrendo » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

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…

"It's only unethical if I have to pay for it!" - GP, probably.

If anything, right to work is more unethical because it allows people to receive the benefits of union coverage without the input. Of course, that's the point: starve out the unions by making it so no one has an incentive to pay into the union.

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

#284

Post by blululu » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #243

wmil wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> But membership is mandatory if there is a union at that corp This is untrue in every state. In some states you have to pay dues even if your aren't a member, but closed shops aren't legal.

Technically untrue, but if you are required to pay union dues then membership is effectively mandatory. It depends on State Law here. Some states are "right to work" so people can opt out, but this effectively destroys the Union. The Wagner act does not allow multiple unions or compete/cooperate so the issue in the US is framed in pretty all/nothing terms.

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

#285

Post by rdedev » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

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…

A bit tangential but check this video out

https://youtu.be/yZHYiz60R5Q

It talks about other forms of worker representations in an company. I think it's provides a couple of decent alternatives to just having unions and their pros and cons

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

#286

Post by MarkMarine » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:11 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #102

boh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess unions do suck, thanks for clarifying. Hopefully people will be smart enough to not interfere with a firm's epic struggle for efficiency and polishing out the friction of overbearing worker compensation and benefits. Sounds like unions are too corrupt and will just interfere with the purity of corporate practices. I love how people have an easier time imagining colonies on mars than giving labor a platform…

US unions are like US healthcare, regulatory capture makes them suck. Unions working well in other countries doesn't mean it works well in USA. And neither party wants to improve the state of unions, democrats are on the side of union leadership while republicans are just anti unions in general, none wants to support workers on this.

Things like the 5 day, 40 hour work week, and not having our 8 year olds injured in factory accidents are only here because unions in the USA fought, bled, and died for them.

Think about that while you’re bashing them.

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

#287

Post by Jensson » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #233

Jensson wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Corporations are a structure of workers. Both the structure and the workers are essential. Workers without structure doesn't produce much value leading to a poor society. Politically created structure leads to bad outcomes so also leads to a poor society. Capitalist created structure creates a lot of value and leads to rich societies. There might be alternatives, but so far capitalism is the only known way to create such structures at scale.

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

#288

Post by DetroitThrow » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #257

freen wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those were thanks to labor movements, not unions. They are not the same thing, labor movements happens thanks to Democracy. Democracy is crucial, I agree, it lets groups organize, protest and fix problems with how society works. But what we call unions today are not that. I'm all for labor engaging in politics, but they can do that without paying union dues for working at a company. The problem USA's workers face tod…

>Those were thanks to labor movements, not unions.

Ahahaha, do you also think that voting rights and anti-segregation laws were due to the 'civil rights movement', and not civil rights activists such as MLK jr or civil rights organizations such as the NAACP?

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

#289

Post by Natfan » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #31

nosequel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. As soon as a lot of people leave a team or location in Google, Google responds by giving everyone bonuses. When a bunch of people started quitting from the Boulder office a few (5?) years back, they offered to send everyone on a trip to Hawaii. Google's Do No Evil has been gone for a long while, but people stick around because they are making so much goddamn money.

Ok, so unions aren't designed to make companies not be evil. They're designed to increase comp. So since you have stated that Google pays lots of money, what's the point of a union.

Unions are also used to make working conditions safer, fairer and less exploitative. While money is definitely a key part of unions, it isn't the be all and end all.

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

#290

Post by defen » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

Tinyyy wrote: post #265

discardedrefuse wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In this hypothetical are you also removing the salary cap? If anything he'd probably get more because I suspect that replacement-level players would be willing to play for less than the mandated minimum salary of about 1 million dollars.