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

Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 411 posts

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#311

Post by coffeefirst »

awb wrote: post #219
queuebert wrote: post #23

Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position. Instead, treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders. There is no shame in fighting for yourself. You are worth it.

> treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders Exploit you with industry leading pay and perks? Unions are designed to balance out monopolistic / low pay / highly geographical companies like large auto manufacturers or airlines. There is so much competitive hiring in tech, it’s one of the easiest c…

On the other hand, I can think of all kinds of issues where highly paid developers might find use for a union.

1. On-call and off-hours expectations

2. Return to Office rules

3. Whether and how pay is based on where you live

You can also imagine it pursuing things that are much more contentious and annoying.

The question to me isn't about whether unions are good or bad, but making sure you its members know and agree on the organization's purpose and purview.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#312

Post by BuckRogers »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #203
CPLX wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 11 years old, grinding down spot welding tips on a lathe Where did you store the lathe at night? Where did you plug it in? And how did you get the electricity to that outlet, was there an account in your name with the power company as an 11 year old?

>"Where did you store the lathe at night? Where did you plug it in? And how did you get the electricity to that outlet, was there an account in your name with the power company as an 11 year old?" I'm not the GP but you're being obtuse and counterproductive. The idea that no one does anything completely on their own is not particularly revelatory or insightful. It comes off as dismissive more than anything else.

As GP, I agree. You hit the nail on the head there. I actually think the guy you're responding to and myself agree if we sat down and discussed in a more open and honest way. He's trying to prove a point about my opportunity, and win the internet. My response to that attitude always is: you win! See ya! It's why I don't use Twitter.

That's the thing- I'm 50/50 on this issue. I believe there's inherent advantages that people have, and it's also about discipline and will.

Some people will never grasp opportunity when it comes knocking. That's why many that do grasp (and are lucky to have) opportunity are often pretty upset when others try to dismiss their success. I get that. It's true too. Both can be true at the same time, some are fortunate by no effort of their own, and some are unambitious. It's a Venn diagram of conditions.

But in 2022, everyone wants to be the victim. I don't believe in victimhood as a lifestyle. I firmly believe that "no one has more control over your life, than you".

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#313

Post by agumonkey »

I wonder if big places like Xerox PARC were like Google. It seems (of course I'm reading the legends from Kay and others) it was a lot more innocent and never deviated from good spirit and good work. Or maybe they also turned into a game theoretic mine field.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#314

Post by elliekelly »

awb wrote: post #219
queuebert wrote: post #23

Imputing altruistic morals to profit-seeking entities and then continually being surprised and offended when companies act shady puts employees in a pointlessly weak position. Instead, treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders. There is no shame in fighting for yourself. You are worth it.

> treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders Exploit you with industry leading pay and perks? Unions are designed to balance out monopolistic / low pay / highly geographical companies like large auto manufacturers or airlines. There is so much competitive hiring in tech, it’s one of the easiest c…

Most people would rather have better work/life balance than things like ping pong tables and on-site yoga classes. A union can help accomplish those goals.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#315

Post by bradleyjg »

jason0597 wrote: post #220
busterarm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shh, every time those of us who have been in actual unions and actually had terrible experiences voice our opinions we get downvoted into oblivion. It's not worth it, m8.

So the current arrangement of service workers being paid slave wages and given disgusting conditions is working fine?

Why do you think such a strident and unnuanced statement is going to be convincing to someone that’s already implied he has direct experience in the subject?

Don’t you have any real questions for someone that lived it, instead of the same party line all the time?

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#316

Post by vgeek »

Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick would be proud.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike

The whole "we're highly paid, ruggedly individualistic engineer" schtick buys into what the companies want. Sure, you may make 400k total comp as a SWE, but what if it were 500k had your employer was not been actively plotting ways to distort the labor market through collusion with competing companies. If activist shareholders understand that they need large blocks of shares to drive change, why wouldn't workers organize into blocks to drive change in their own favor?

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po...

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#317

Post by babycake »

teddyh wrote: post #221
4ec0755f5522 wrote: post #180

When I was very young I worked a tough job that had a mandatory union and it was quite terrible / weak. Working conditions were pretty bad, physical labor, etc. But it was not until I worked a job with no union that I realized every element of that job that didn't suck was due to the union. For example we had supervisors but they didn't follow you around and micromanage you. You were just expected to do your job. If…

> Starbucks, Google, Amazon, these companies will spend millions to fight unions. This is prima facie evidence to me that unions benefit workers. Technically, that does not follow. What can be inferred is that companies believe that unions will cost the company money , but this does not necessarily mean that the employees will get any of that money. One could imagine a theoretical evil union which takes all the extra…

We can infer from labor history itself. All of our benefits today came from workers who lost their lives in fighting for better working conditions.

But even if we don't look at history, the fact that all companies worldwide consistently unite together against this one issue (unions), as well as spending millions to counter it, should make any employee suspect. In contrast to millions of dollars lost due to bad CEO leadership or fraud, employee attrition/retraining, managers favoring nepotism, etc. Curious how they don't unite to fix that stuff when it plagues all companies just as hard.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#318

Post by ravenstine »

brightball wrote: post #117
mhoad wrote: post #3

Seems to have worked amazingly well based on all the times I recall reading the comments of stories posted here involving unions.

Campaigns aren't really necessary. There's plenty of history and first hand experience to go along with it. No question unions led to many improvements historically in the lives of American workers, but they're also responsible for a lot of problems (including causing many businesses to close entirely). In many cases their tactics have been questionable. Sometimes those demands lead to a lot of long term side effects…

> In a software industry that's seen dramatic increases in demand and compensation, it's also questionable why people would even see a need? What is supposed to be the big benefit in this field that pays well, offers great flexibility in hours and location, cushy benefits and numerous opportunities for personal development?

Exactly. I really can't name one reason, besides in a hypothetical scenario where an entire tech firm was made up of employees who are married with kids and aren't being paid enough such that 2 to 4 months of unemployment would be a big deal. But even in that case, I have a hard time seeing that being a huge problem because it just seems so rare that anyone gets let go unless the company is in serious trouble.

Plus in tech so many of us have the skills to be our own employer if need be. That's not to say it's always an alternative to employment, but that's an opportunity there for many of us that doesn't exist in most other fields.

A particular company would have to have serious problems and its employees would need to lack leverage for a union to be conceptually necessary in tech, at least in the United States. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#319

Post by lovecg »

sangnoir wrote: post #302
awb wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> treat the relationship as adversarial and come ready for battle every day against the legal structure designed to exploit you for the benefit of distant shareholders Exploit you with industry leading pay and perks? Unions are designed to balance out monopolistic / low pay / highly geographical companies like large auto manufacturers or airlines. There is so much competitive hiring in tech, it’s one of the easiest c…

> Unions are designed to balance out monopolistic / low pay / highly geographical companies like large auto manufacturers or airlines. Directors Guild of America says hello!

Exactly. A guild for software engineers could be a good thing, with rules around ethics, code quality, security - all the things companies love to underinvest in.

Re: Google Had Secret Project to ‘Convince’ Employees ‘That Unions Suck’

#320

Post by palmetieri2000 »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #271

Proponents of unions seem not understand that unions only exist to enrich existing members and not benefit society, future members, the profession, or anything else. There's a reason why new teachers, doing the same job with the same title, make less than half of what teachers with seniority do. There's a reason why many unions use credentialing as a way to restrict the free market and the only way new people can joi…

This is just outright not true on a global level, maybe in the US, but even then it seems unlikely.

Many of the actions a union will take will do things that do not just 'enrich' its members. Here in Australia, unions will often use their organisational power to lobby government for things like increased safety standards, fair treatment for workers regarding discrimination or after an injury, maternity leave etc. I dont know if you can call keeping your salary during a a time of hardship 'enrichment'.

Further, in Australia we have something called an enterprise agreement (or an 'award' depending), which all workers whom fill the description of the task automatically fall under, this sets the minimum salaries, expected working hours, penalty rates for holiday work, etc. When the government (usually at the behest of an industry or company) wishes to alter the EA, they must negotiate with the union whom will act on behalf of the workers covered by the EA to argue for their desired changes (or things that shouldn't change). These changes are then applied to everyone who works under that EA, union or not. So, here at least, most workers passively benefit from union activity.

Caveat: Probably not 100% correct with minutia of EA and awards, been a while since I took the class that covered this.

Post reply on HN