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

Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

m.pghcitypaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 448 posts

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#381

Post by icelancer »

wdb wrote: post #171
tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a contract with the USPS IT department and let me tell you, it is absolutely awesome for their employees. They do about half the work we do in twice the amount of time, get paid more, have more holidays (2 weeks + every single federal holiday) and have pensions. Every worker there clocks in at 9, and clocks out at exactly 5, not a single minute past. If you want a meeting or them to get you something, it need…

Pension, more then two weeks holiday, and 9am-5pm workdays sounds like a normal working conditions for an employee?

>> Pension

>> Normal working conditions for an employee

Basically not anywhere except government-related positions.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#382

Post by mlindner »

rtempaccount1 wrote: post #139
rayiner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT, a fairly left-leaning paper in a left-leaning city, wrote about how the union is causing cost explosion building the second avenue subway. As to the funding—New York’s MTA has a significantly larger budget than London’s very similar system. London, meanwhile, covers 100% of its operating costs from fares, while New York covers just half.

However London's underground system also has unions, so if the suggestion is that it's more efficient than New York, the implication is that it's unlikely to be the presence of a union causing the issues.

European unions in general actually work, for some reason unknown to me. I've never seen, in the modern era, a union in the US do anything but harm its members in general.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#383

Post by AnthonyMouse »

MiroF wrote: post #343
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs I've always found this condemnation odd given how often it's actually true. If you break down salaries by demographics, one of the biggest correlations with salary is age. Senior positions pay more than junior ones. It's an extremely common career path to start off in an entry level job and ultimately end up in management by the end of your career. So the rea…

Extremely common from the perspective of HN commentators but not actually extremely common in reality. Most people do not have a managerial position their entire lives - period.

Actually extremely common in reality. If you're a landscaper, you don't typically go from there to being the CEO of Facebook, but after a few years you may end up in a supervisory position managing other workers. Or you save up enough money for a down payment on some equipment to start your own landscaping company.

There are indeed people who stay in dead end jobs indefinitely, but such people are not the majority of people.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#384

Post by krzyk »

wdb wrote: post #171
tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a contract with the USPS IT department and let me tell you, it is absolutely awesome for their employees. They do about half the work we do in twice the amount of time, get paid more, have more holidays (2 weeks + every single federal holiday) and have pensions. Every worker there clocks in at 9, and clocks out at exactly 5, not a single minute past. If you want a meeting or them to get you something, it need…

Pension, more then two weeks holiday, and 9am-5pm workdays sounds like a normal working conditions for an employee?

Normal for Europe, well almost. Make it a 4 week vacation and we are almost there.

There was an example from UK, now for Poland:

* 40 hour week (anything above is overtime paid +50% more for first 8 hours during week and day, in weekends or night it is +100%)

* 20 or 26 (depending how many years you have worked in your life, usually after 2 years you get 26) + 13 public holidays.

* women after birth get 52 weeks off (plus their usual vacation), dads get 2 weeks off to be used during 2 years (the 52 weeks can be split between parents, so a mom can go to work and dad can stay with child for 32 weeks)

* on top of that when you are sick and go to doctor he/she can prescribe you a time off (sick off?), which is additional to your normal vacation (this is not limited to any number of days, e.g. when you break your leg you can be a year sick/unable to work), but pays 80% your salary

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#385

Post by Consultant32452 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #149
darawk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much." I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing employees at the expense of high perform…

On average unions work better for the most people. People on the upper end will not stop contributing or trying, people on the lower end don't matter much anyway. It's the middle that provides most of the advancement.

The primary mechanism of power used by unions to keep wages high is by reducing the available work force. This is done by lobbying for things like requiring certifications to be legally allowed to perform work and lobbying/negotiating for disallowing non-union members from accepting work. This has the net effect of increasing the wages of the high paid workers while reducing the wages of the low paid workers who could do the higher paid work but aren't allowed to.

Here's Nobel economist Milton Friedman discussing it in more detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#386

Post by ericd »

guerrilla wrote: post #213
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in the Michigan for a couple of decades and observed the behavior of the Teamsters and UAW firsthand so insinuation is not even necessary.

The Teamesters and UAW [1] are not all unions. It's a big world out there, so don't insinuate things about unions that you don't even know exist. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

If you're an auto worker, how easy is it to get completely get away from UAW?

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#387

Post by mike00632 »

rayiner wrote: post #161
anigbrowl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anti- (private sector) union rhetoric. I envy you such selective hearing. You could check out any discussion about the strike against General Motors that's taking place right now and find samplings of both pro- and anti-union rhetoric for comparison, but I wouldn't want you to put your exquisitely tuned eardrums at risk.

Given OP’s reference to anti-union ideology being “inculcated” I was thinking Of authoritative sources. When was the last time you heard an anti union screed from a politician? (Versus anti corporate screeds?)

The common phrase "Right to Work" is anti-union propaganda. Pro-union laws don't prohibit people from working but rather exist for the betterment of workers despite what "Right to Work" suggests.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#388

Post by mike00632 »

staticautomatic wrote: post #144
claudeganon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you square those two. Could you elaborate? Any less durable form of organizing seems likely to have its work undone by the very well-organized and durable cadre of owners/management

To characterize unions-- especially contemporary unions in the United States-- as limited strictly to collective action functions, is factually incomplete and wrong. That unions perform other functions and aim to protect workers in other ways beyond collective action should be a totally uncontroversial statement. Although unions proximately came into existence for the purpose of taking collective action against oppre…

California already has laws that protect employees. Google and other tech companies are abusing loop holes in these laws by calling would-be employees "contractors" to get out of paying them benefits and providing job security.

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#389

Post by mike00632 »

staticautomatic wrote: post #47
claudeganon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.

One can be pro-organizing but not pro-union.

Do Google and other big companies make the same distinction between labor organizing and unions? Or do they quash it just the same?

Re: Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize

#390

Post by mike00632 »

username90 wrote: post #285
anigbrowl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of mandatory membership, but on the other hand if someone chooses not to be a member and is subsequently mistreated by management, there's no reason for the union to assist them and they shouldn't receive any benefits established through collective bargaining agreements.

> they shouldn't receive any benefits established through collective bargaining agreements. Why not? I can just demand that my contract looks the same as the unions, anything wrong with that?

What would you do if you don't get your demands? Strike as an individual?
Post reply on HN