A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by JKCalhoun » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

karl11 wrote: post #110

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…

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.

This article (from 2015) "Apple Makes $407,000 Profit Per Employee, Walmart And Retail, $6,300: Who's The Exploiter?":

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-ma...

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

#382

Post by scsilver » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

karl11 wrote: post #110

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…

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 full on support their goal to clean up their yard before moving somewhere else. Employees are stakeholders and can use their leverage as they please. You somehow cast a negative moral light on workers for using this leverage when every other stakeholder, managment, stockholders, board members, government agencies, voters all use their leverage to change the ecosystem.

Entitlement?

You are entitled to what you can get the world to render for you. Not asking is allowing others to over entitle and enritch themselves at your loss.

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

#383

Post by boomlinde » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

gandutraveler wrote: post #307

boomlinde wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better". I.e. not collectively bargaining, instead hoping that enough other people will individually decide put their livelihood on the line to give employers the impression that things should change up, after which they will not be able to enjoy the changes because they switched job (which can be a pain in the ass regardless…

All unions end up being political. The elected union leaders are voted and the democratic process compels the leaders take decision that helps them stay in power. This is what causes the problem where you have elected union leader whose values don't align with helping companies bottom line. This will be the slow death of Google as the company we know. Can't wait to see right wing and left wing groups forming within G…

The organization of people around common goals and trying to define those goals is inherently political. Organizations without politics are like unicorns without horns, whether they're nation states, corporations or trade unions. Unions come with all that's good and bad about that.

I don't believe that you can argue in good faith that unions will somehow be the first to introduce political schisms within Google.

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

#384

Post by 14 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

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…

Have you ever been part of a union your comment makes me doubt it?

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

#385

Post by humanrebar » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

Mauricebranagh wrote: post #300

humanrebar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It limits pay scales, how credit is given, and what Clooney can do as a producer to get his film made.

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

#386

Post by alkonaut » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

rdgthree wrote: post #94

It seems incredibly significant that only 230 people are officially involved with these plans to unionize. As of 2019, Google had nearly 120,000 employees.[0] That seems quite small, relatively speaking. Legally (I think, just learning about this now), to form a union, a majority of workers must show their willingness to form a union. Alternatively, to choose an existing union to join, an election with 30% of the wor…

The 100k+ figure is globally though, correct? I'm assuming there are other countries where white collar workers, Including Google employees, are already commonly unionized.

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

#387

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

mikecoles wrote: post #342

CydeWeys wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only optio…

Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.

So when a company tries to squeeze as much labor out of as little compensation as it can, it’s a shrewd business move… but when employees try to get the most compensation for the least labor, they’re lazy? Do you see the double standard here?

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

#388

Post by ddingus » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

finnthehuman wrote: post #370

calvano915 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>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. Don't you put that on me. You're explicitly talking about a scenario where we're not even comparing notes on the possibility space of that uncertainty until I'm downside-committed.

Seriously, go look up a few good organizers. They have written books on all this. You can see how things get done.

Won't answer whether they should get done. That question is open right now.

The market research goes like this:

Who are the influencers?

What do they think?

What does rank and file think?

Is there potential for high degree of solidarity in all that?

There is your basis for an effort to be put forth for you to consider right there.

Then the real work begins. Sort the people out and work toward a winning scenario.

There is risk. The better organizers manage that by how and with whom and when organizing is done.

By the time you reach potential downside commit, there will be a much more clear deal to consider.

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

#389

Post by PragmaticPulp » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

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, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve.

This statement holds true regardless of which side of the argument you’re on.

The modern discourse around unions seems to revolve around a lot of stereotypes that aren’t entirely accurate.

Yes, unions can be effective for changing working conditions. However, it’s important to remember who those unions serve.

The most common misconception is that unions serve the general public in pushing back against the corporation. Not true. The unions serve existing employees of those companies, usually as prioritized by seniority.

This is a great situation if you are already a senior member of that company, but it’s not as beneficial if you’re a young person trying to break into that industry or move up within a company.

The screen actors guild is a flawed analogy because film productions are very time limited operations. This would be like Google creating a new company for every project and picking which workers to “hire” into the new company. This conveniently skirts all of the issues around seniority that unions tend to bring to a company, because people are only involved in productions at whatever level they’ve been hired into. It’s also not as easy to break into the SAG as you might think. Ask young actors about the hoops they have to jump through and fees they have to pay to get into the SAG at the beginning of their careers.

For examples of how unions don’t always benefit employees, especially younger employees, listen to This American Life’s podcast about how bad teachers can’t be fired due to union rules in some districts, so they’re kept on the payroll and placed into an empty room to avoid running afoul of the union. Now imagine how much better off we’d all be (kids, aspiring teachers who could take those jobs, taxpayers) if the unions allowed the school district to simply fire the bad teachers and hire good teachers without fighting the union.

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

#390

Post by scsilver » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 2:47 PM UTC

mikecoles wrote: post #342

CydeWeys wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only optio…

Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.

Yeah and network effects add value, coordination adds value, individual contributors can only do so much, a well oiled group of engineers has outsized production, and by bargaining collectively, leverage their productivity for better compensation.

Why allow yourself to be divided and conquered?