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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by erk__ »

gandutraveler wrote: post #287
avianlyric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't want to leave a cushy job for one where they would have to work harder for their money, so instead, they are trying other means to have their cake and eat it too. You're saying this like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't employees expect, and get, better working conditions? > engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better" How is individuals leaving "coll…

Unions will only help the rest & vest culture. I worked at Google and trust me there is so much fat that can be trimmed there. Especially the ones who have been there for 7+ years.. With unions it will get harder to fire them and at the same time they will need to be compensated equally. Software is not a profession where output is proportional to work hours like blue collar jobs. This will demoralize engineers to wo…

Do you have any sources that support that from the countries that have unions for software development. Because that is something I would be very interested in reading.

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

#312

Post by salawat »

antisoeu wrote: post #278
UncleMeat wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Just call it what it is, greed. Why is it greedy if company owners want to make money, but "good and social" if workers want to make money? I don't think the "earnings per employee" metric entitles employees to anything.

I disagree, particularly as someone who worked fror a firm making over 1000000 per employee.

It's hard to square that kind of return only benefitting shareholders. You'd be hard pressed as an employee to get a 3% raise or whatnot to keep up with inflation, or you'd have the call center people making pennies, or micromanaged down to the second, but over a milkion per employee was earned.

There is a certain point where one has to stop and reevaluate the nature of the value transfer going on. That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat, but at the first opportunity for equity holders, dropped the floor out by sellout. Not that I'd want to go back given the business model but it does lead to somber reflection and a heartfelt contemplation of tge advantaged position held by the middle-man.

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

#313

Post by nemo44x »

rzz3 wrote: post #264
e40 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Public unions are a bad idea in general. The citizens collectively employ the government, and that government shouldn’t have a right to organize against the people whom it serves. So in my opinion, these two examples of toxic public unions shouldn’t be applied to private unions.

I agree. I’m indifferent to private sector unions. None of my business if it isn’t my workplace. But public sector unions are a path to corruption. Both major parties exploit these so I can’t blame a single party here either.

What better way to consolidate power than by aligning with a public service union and “bargain” with them while being incentivized to grow membership in that union to further consolidate power.

If anything I’d support public sector unions if members were not allowed to vote for offices that represent their “management” or control their budgets.

Could you imagine a private sector union appointing the management of the company they negotiate with?

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

#314

Post by saalweachter »

ATsch wrote: post #92
RivieraKid wrote: post #46

What leverage do unions have over salaries? Google is a very profitable company, redirecting half of the profit from shareholders to employees would result in a very significant salary increase. (Just curious, I'm not stating any opinion on this.)

That depends on a number of things. Theoretically the leverage is infinite, as companies can not get anything done without workers. However in practice, strike funds won't last forever, people won't be willing to strike forever, it's in your interest to keep a relatively good relationship with the company, etc.

Granted, it will vary person to person for a lot of good reasons, but it seems to me like the average white-collar tech worker out have a lot more personal savings than the average blue-collar factory worker.

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

#315

Post by _qulr »

nemo44x wrote: post #296
_qulr wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> The other side is to be a large enough entity to influence elections and then “negotiate” with those you helped get elected.

That's the nature of politics. Businesses and business leaders lobby politicians and donate to their political campaigns too. It's strange to single out unions when there are so many different kinds of political interest groups, often with much more money than unions.

Public employee unions are bad, but the Tavern League, for example (I'm from Wisconsin), is ok? The National Rifle Association is ok? The National Landlord Association? Businesses and interest groups of every kind are donating money to the politicians who will directly regulate them. Why specifically exclude public employees from that?

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

#316

Post by meragrin_ »

koheripbal wrote: post #270
viraptor wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that in the US unions are often seen as a burden Some are, some the opposite. Often people discuss unions like something very homogenous. They're like companies - there will be both loan sharks and non-profit activists (and lots in between). I hope it all turns out well for googlers.

Unions have also been centers of corruption and organized crime. This is what gave them such a bad name in the 1980s and is why it's so easy to "tie" anyone in construction to the mob, such as one famous person in charge these days.

The insinuation seems to be Trump. Sure, he has had buildings built/remodeled, but I don't see how you can say he is in construction.

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

#317

Post by ddingus »

antisoeu wrote: post #278
UncleMeat wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Just call it what it is, greed. Why is it greedy if company owners want to make money, but "good and social" if workers want to make money? I don't think the "earnings per employee" metric entitles employees to anything.

Nobody mentioned entitlement. That money labor left on the table.

Together they can get more of it.

Simple as that.

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

#319

Post by RivieraKid »

losvedir wrote: post #62
RivieraKid wrote: post #46

What leverage do unions have over salaries? Google is a very profitable company, redirecting half of the profit from shareholders to employees would result in a very significant salary increase. (Just curious, I'm not stating any opinion on this.)

What do you mean by profit going to shareholders? Alphabet doesn't have a dividend.

It's either reinvested or saved in the bank so it stays in the ownership of shareholders.

In general, reinvestment is preferred over dividends (or stock buybacks which is similar to dividends) when it's expected that the reinvestment will generate a good return in the future and this return would be given to shareholders.

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

#320

Post by twh270 »

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?

Many people don't know how to negotiate (well), so they are at a disadvantage when entering compensation negotiations with a prospective employer who has HR/management that have the knowledge/skills to be able to negotiate lower compensation.

In addition, even assuming someone is a good negotiator, they generally can live without work for far less time than a particular employer can live without an employee filling a particular role. So people will often take a less-than-optimal compensation package because a job today that pays the bills is far more valuable than a job tomorrow that has the "best" compensation package.

I'm not saying collective bargaining is the only -- or even the best -- solution to this, but it's not as simple as just saying people should negotiate more.

Post reply on HN