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

321–330 of 493 posts

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

#321

Post by whimsicalism »

sandworm101 wrote: post #203
UncleMeat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These can all be true things. 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." For some reason we hold unions to an incredibly high standard of "no problems, ever" but this is never used to discourage al…

>> For some reason we hold unions to an incredibly high standard of "no problems, ever" Because they are democratic institutions. They can be held to a no-problems standard because every time a problem occurs then those involved can be sacked and replaced. The level of acceptable corruption is set by the membership. Rules should therefore focus on openness and member participation in leadership selection. Everyone wh…

Your comment assumes a baseline belief of "obviously corporations are reprehensibly undemocratic" that I don't believe most people who hold unions to high standards would agree.

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

#322

Post by woodruffw »

Jensson wrote: post #287
woodruffw wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't understand the argument in this response: unions exist within capitalist systems, and are an integral part of our capitalist system. Our concept of a "union" does not apply to non-capitalist systems. Extolling the virtues of capitalism is, at the absolute best, completely orthogonal to the legitimacy and value of unionization.

Likewise, unions aren't "politically created structure": they're not created in a top-down manner by the state. They're a form of collective organization and bargaining, the sort that is singularly responsible for the quality of life and workplace protections that we all take for granted.

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

#323

Post by 5560675260 »

pydry wrote: post #159
tnel77 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very pro-union, but I feel like a part of situation you are describing is because we needs businesses. We don’t necessarily need unions. Without unions, businesses would still be here. Without businesses, where would the unions be? Edit: I would like to reiterate that I am pro-union. I am just saying that unions are optional, but businesses (or the government as some have pointed out) are more necessary from the…

>We don’t necessarily need unions. I guess we dont necessarily need child labor laws or the weekend... Remember when the cacophony of calls to "End the Olympics Now" when the IOC was found to be grossly corrupt? No, me neither. The investor owned media called for reform. As it will for literally any other institution. Tennis is necessary.

Do we need child labor laws? In countries that are reach enough to have various forms of social security there is no need to send little Timmy to work in a coal mine. In countries that aren't - they do help their parents with sustenance farming and those laws, even if they exist on some level, don't change anything.

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

#324

Post by DetroitThrow »

Jensson wrote: post #299
DetroitThrow wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Labor movements are made up of people, yes. Not sure how that is related to unions. Labor organized in every single democracy regardless if there were unions or not. Labor movements tend to create unions, so unions are often a result of labor movements and not the source of labor movements.

>Labor movements are made up of people, yes.

And so if the people in these movements made smaller organizations to advance the goals of the movement at their workplace, in their local communities, and the national level... we might even credit those organizations, yes? Just like we do with the civil rights movement?

>Labor organized in every single democracy regardless if there were unions or not.

Some economies skipped steam power too, but every early industrial economy had labor unions predate modern labor standards.

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

#325

Post by Jensson »

d4mi3n wrote: post #308
Jensson wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't argue otherwise. USA is however not subpar compared to any country hostile to corporations, which is the important part. A country being hostile to unions isn't nearly as bad as a country being hostile to corporations.

> A country being hostile to unions isn't nearly as bad as a country being hostile to corporations. This is a very subjective conclusion that is likely very dependent on what economic class you fall into. Many folks on HN (myself included) fall into the category white collar or professional workers. For many other parts of the labor market, you're literally trading sweat and toil for money. Add to this that labor int…

Not sure you understand, but every single developed nation has pro-corporation policies. Some of them also have pro-worker policies. But none of them are hostile towards corporations like for example Soviet or old China was. There are plenty of billionaires in Scandinavia etc.

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

#326

Post by z3c0 »

d4mi3n wrote: post #313
rapind wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah when I clicked into the comments I was hoping for a discussion on the ethics of hiring a firm to trash talk unions (for or against). Instead it’s like the Google 50c party arguing the merits of unions. I’m uncomfortable with companies constantly trying to influence their employees opinions. It’s marketing turned inwards. I’m not so naïve to be surprised, but I would never work at a business who employed tactics…

> It’s marketing turned inwards. I believe the word for this is propaganda: prŏp″ə-găn′də noun 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

TBF marketing turned outwards is technically propaganda as well.

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

#327

Post by whimsicalism »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #208
pydry wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who doesn't talk about corporations in this manner? Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? No. Bit of a fringe view, that. The rule is, if it's a court, company, government, NGO or serbian tennis club then corruption should be met with reform. In the predominantly investor owned media, corruption in unions leads to calls to abolish them. It's standard.

> " Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? " People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values; they do not have that option with unionization. If the union allows workers to not join the union, not charge dues for being an non-member, and not support them, then nobody would have a problem with them.

? This seems like a perfectly symmetric arrangement to me.

> People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values

And so if that corporation has signed a security clause agreement with a union, they are free to not work with that corporation.

Unions do not force workers to join a union shop, just as those people are free to not work for corporations whose mission is incompatible with their values, they are also free to not work for corporations subject to a union security clause that their owners voluntarily signed.

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

#328

Post by geodel »

dfxm12 wrote: post #223
blululu wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the difference here is a matter of principles. A lot of people view corporations in a justifiably negative light (very few people say that corporations are an unalloyed good, and I have never heard anyone wish that they could work for an LLC). But a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly and for the most part companies do make money (when they fail to make money, they ce…

a corporation is chartered to make money - we expect it to act accordingly We don't expect a corporation to abuse workers, even if it makes them money. when they fail to make money, they cease existing and the general consensus is 'good riddance' The history of bailouts would suggest otherwise.

Well bailouts were called out a million times. And to think of it bailouts were about "oh what about these thousands of employees and community they lived instead of think of executives and their million dollar bonuses."

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

#329

Post by whimsicalism »

pmyteh wrote: post #240
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Corporations are usually horrendously corrupt so we should abolish them all? " People voluntarily don't work for corporations whose mission or behavior is incompatible with their values; they do not have that option with unionization. If the union allows workers to not join the union, not charge dues for being an non-member, and not support them, then nobody would have a problem with them.

FWIW in the UK it's a legal right not to join or support unions (closed shops are outlawed), and unions can't charge non-members dues (no agency shops either). Lots of people (both company-owners and ordinary citizens) have problems with them anyway. Somebody in my industry recently left the union angrily and publicly, then subsequently criticised the union for not representing their interests after they'd gone. Ther…

Yes, the UK has never been a place with strong freedom of speech and contract protections, so it makes sense they would outlaw business owners from voluntarily entering into security clause agreements with their employees.

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

#330

Post by lovich »

the_printer wrote: post #103
dccoolgai wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People _can_ be awful. I've seen founders, managers and execs bleed people dry - squeezing the life out of critical contributors whole stringing them along with promised of "getting their piece of the pie" that they had no intention of ever sharing. Telling anecdotes about "that one lazy guy who got paid for doing nothing" is tired. We've done that for the last 40 years. Time to try unions again, please.

You’re welcome to your union. Please keep me out of it. Especially in states where union participation is compulsory once formed (e.g. non-right-to-work), I’d leave for a new job before working in a union. Full stop.

Don’t forget to buy your bosses a gift for management appreciation day
Post reply on HN