Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by bane »

Most of the unions that we have here are public service/trades/transportation related and if I'm honest, the results have been very mixed. We used to have more manufacturing related unions, but with the direction manufacturing jobs have gone in the U.S. they're mostly just gone.

The public service unions (e.g. firefighters, police etc.) seem to do a good job to protect their workers on one hand and keep them fairly paid and serviced, but on the other hand provide a powerful force to keep abusive police employed and fight things like police cameras and other actions that protect the population.

The public transportation unions are widely seen as abject failures, providing protection for overpaid, highly underperforming, employees. There's been numerous investigations about failures in things like our local municipal rail systems and why they're such an abomination of service, and outside of funding issues, the fingers usually get pointed in the direction of essentially unfireable and frankly lazy employees.

The trade unions seem to do a good job. Plumbers, electricians, etc. generally seem to be competent, and paid well, and have good relations between employers, customers, and workers.

There's also a large number of public sector unions here. At one end the usual postal workers, teachers etc. and everything seems to run pretty well there. On the other end are the infuriating government maintenance/labor unions who won't let you move a waste bin to the other side of your desk without causing a problem.

Despite all this, unions are not a major factor of life for most of the people in my area. I actually only know one or two people who're union members personally. Despite this, I live in one of the highest average income areas in the country. But I also recognize that for many people this environment prices them out of livable housing and food, and unions can help bolster their pay to make living in this area reasonable for them.

I'm somewhat at a loss as to what better work conditions Google employees are looking for. They're among the most highly paid employees on the planet with absolutely incredible work conditions. If I had to wager, in exchange for whatever protections these employees are seeking, the tradeoff will be the erosion and removal of most of the perks that make Google a desirable place to work for. On the other hand, with Google leadership's behavior the last few years, they've kind of brought this on themselves so, small violins all around.

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

#292

Post by Mauricebranagh »

e40 wrote: post #208
appleflaxen wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the elephant in the room. Unions make it much harder to fire low performers. I think they have great benefits, but this terrible side effect. For another example look at police unions.

No actually what unions do is make sure that any "firing" is done fairly and with the law and not used to harass or discriminate.

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

#293

Post by calvano915 »

finnthehuman wrote: post #98
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.…

>When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions Because everyone talking about unionization refuses to get into the nitty gritty of what I might gain, what I might lose, and the structural changes to the workplaces that are inherent with unionization. And if/when I/others start spitballing about what those might be we're treated like dolts uneducated on organized labor, and should just…

When the company has numerous legal or illegal but usually unpunished methods to suppress the discussion, it can be very difficult to conduct the negotiations between employees necessary for the concise plan/contract you request.

Voting in a union is actually voting first that you opt in to a collective bargaining agreement, then negotiating the terms of the agreement among members. Later, negotiations are had with the company.

Your POV is common to many that will accept much less with certainty rather than working through a decent amount of uncertainty for the prospect of a whole lot more.

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

#294

Post by claudeganon »

zthrowaway wrote: post #69
andai wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, if unions did nothing, Google and Amazon wouldn't be working so hard to prevent them from forming.

Oh they do something, they help destroy a company’s ability to compete. Take a look at unionization of the auto industry in Detroit back in the 70s and 80s which basically killed our lead in the industry and gave it to Japan and Korean companies on a platter.

Most automotive workers in Japan are unionized, so that sounds more a problem with comparable executive decision making than anything to do with labor organizing.

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

#296

Post by nemo44x »

_qulr wrote: post #234
appleflaxen wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is complicated, because public schools (and police departments, mentioned by another replier) are not for-profit entities. I don't think we can treat public employee unions and private employee unions the same. Public schools, police departments, etc., are usually "political" entities, run by elected officials such as school boards and city councils. I would say there's no guarantee whatsoever in these cases tha…

> Part of the reason for public employee unions is to protect the members specifically from political interference.

That’s one side of the coin. The other side is to be a large enough entity to influence elections and then “negotiate” with those you helped get elected. Is it any wonder that states with large public service unions are in debt (even with high taxes) and have unsustainable pension obligations?

I’m not blaming a party here either. Democrats and Republicans tend to align with teachers and police respectively here and it creates the same problem.

It’s why public employees should never be allowed to unionize. FDR himself expressed this of all people. It’s an inevitable path to corruption. We can’t expect a reasonable “collective bargaining” when both sides of the negotiations are in bed.

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

#297

Post by wccrawford »

RickJWagner wrote: post #72

I've never been in a union, but I have 2 strong impressions of them from friends. One friend was an electrician, he enjoyed working for a union because it gave him extra freedoms in his work. The second friends father worked in management for a mine that used union labor. They went through an ugly labor strike where their windows were shot out of their house and their lives felt threatened. I'm of mixed opinion, but…

That certainly sucks, and I'm absolutely against violence in strikes. Of any kind.

But have you considered that perhaps without the union, that strike would have been even worse? Those workers likely decided to do those things on their own, not with union involvement. If they'd been striking without a union to rein them in, things might have been worse.

Of course, it's possible there would have been other problems, especially for the non-union workers.

I'm fairly anti-union, but there are definitely times when I see them as a necessity. My working conditions are not such that I think a union is necessary or even desirable, but mine workers are one situation where I think that unions do their jobs.

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

#298

Post by sanxiyn »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #214
prepend wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Leaving changes nothing Leaving improves conditions for the worker and that’s the biggest thing for me, the worker.

The biggest thing for me, also the worker, is being able to negotiate against abuse in an industry that Eg. Uses h1b to abuse employees on the regular. These employees cant leave.

Why can't H1B employees leave? Can't they go back to their countries?

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

#299

Post by consp »

huffmsa wrote: post #236
Moosdijk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better". This "if you don't like it here, go work somewhere else" kind of reasoning disproportionately balances the power towards the employer. Instead of fixing problems, it leads to removing those that are affected. This is exactly what unions are for.

The traitorous eight leaving Shockley because they didn't like their boss is foundational to the valley.

At that, what is basically a startup, level it is possible but for a company the size of Google it would not put a dent into the system. Totally different power dynamics.

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

#300

Post by Mauricebranagh »

humanrebar wrote: post #93
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…

> Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options... I'm not sure the cause and effect work that way, at least not entirely. Unions do restrain roles of workers and structure compensation to particular patterns. It seems plausible to me that those sorts of restrictions are in some ways detrimental to companies that wish to (or need to) disrupt incumbents. It's plausible that th…

Not really for M&P managerial and professional, SAG doesn't limit what say George Clooney gets for a film for example.
Post reply on HN