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

Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 473 posts

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#401

Post by skookumchuck »

Zarath wrote: post #386
skookumchuck wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Management can "demand" whatever they want, and employees can refuse whatever they want. It's how supply and demand works, and how free markets work. The problems happen when the government interferes in this process. For example, recently Washington State removed the exemption mentally disabled workers have from minimum wage laws. This was hailed as a victory for justice and fairness. The result is those workers can…

"free" markets aren't necessarily "ideal" markets. See concepts like: leverage, cost externalization, etc. The "free" market argument is so tired.

Free markets are the worst basis for an economy, except for all the others.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#402

Post by hoaw »

chrisseaton wrote: post #380
hoaw wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is assuming there aren't also less smart managers who have short term interests of showing swift progress until the project collapses. Management will in best case take a long term interest in the company. They won't take a long term interest in employees. Certainly not employees who doesn't seem to be performing. That is what unions are for. To represent the employees concerns about the future.

And you're assuming there aren't also less benign unions who are just working to protect their senior members the expense of both me and the company. Only I truly have my own interests in mind - not the company and not the union.

No I am not. I don't think this discussion is worth much more than this though.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#403

Post by alpb »

calibas wrote: post #188

So they're undermining worker's rights to protect themselves from lawsuits? And I'm supposed to be okay with it because them pushing to get the rules changes for their own gain is not lobbying, it's a "legal defense". That being said, it's foolish to use workplace email to do things like organize unions.

Given Google's level of internal transparency, many employees (as said in the article) use internal forums to organize action like "walkouts". As you'd imagine having 60,000+ global employees trying to coordinate stuff over their personal email would not be possible.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#405

Post by eecsninja »

firstplacelast wrote: post #359
Aunche wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that software engineers, especially those at Google, have high social mobility and are well educated. I think that unions are inefficient, but I'm sympathetic towards or even support most of them because those workers don't have a better option. Googlers just come off as entitled. They should be intelligent enough to acknowledge when they're making clickbaity populist arguments that misrepresent com…

If those at Google are truly top-tier talent (which I think many are) and if they work in an industry and for a company that is all about disruption, why is this even a valid mentality? "This thing sucks, so let's just do business as usual." If they are truly talented disruptors, their mentality would be "this thing sucks, we can make it better and bring it into the 21st century."

Who says the company is all about disruption?

According to Keith Rabois: https://www.quora.com/Why-have-so-few-successful-startups-co...

"In addition, after Google became successful, the type of candidate who applied and was hired shifted from the entrepreneurial to the smart yet homogeneous type. (Shift was pronounced by 2005.) As I have observed previously, only disruptive people create disruptive companies. (Stated differently, great entrepreneurs do not tolerate rules and constraints very well). Google has screened out personalities of this sort since at least 2004 and maybe since 2002."

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#406

Post by wama »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #241
MattyRad wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relations with Google are definitely starting to sour, here are a few recent examples: - IE switches to Chromium engine, Chrome has full clearance to dominate the web. - Questionable actions toward ad-blocking (seen only just yesterday). - Colluding with China to create a blatantly dishonest search engine. - Questionable products (Google Fi, Pixel phone, Google Home, etc, are share their own controversies) - Search r…

Search results quality is decreasing (which is just my personal speculation, DDG is usually retrieves less polluted results). My experience is that DDG results are terrible. I try it periodically and never lasts more than a day. Has that changed?

I find it good enough for day-to-day use. I do switch to Google when it doesn't work. !g in DDG does a Google search, so it's pretty easy.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#407

Post by rchaud »

stale2002 wrote: post #366
rchaud wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is talking about unionizing at a sub-10 person shop, aka the type of place where bootcamp grads learn the ropes. The companies unionization would affect are behemoths (FAANG but also HP, IBM, Oracle etc) that hire enormous numbers of people, few to none of whom would be a fresh bootcamp grad.

I know lots of bootcamp grads who got their first job at large and mid sized companies (100+). You should go look up the companies that grads from places like hack reactor go to. There are many big names in there (and grads that I know personally, that have gone to work for places like Uber, Airbnb, and LinkedIn).

I have a friend who's a Hack Reactor alum. There is simply no comparison between the rigor of their program and what the majority of bootcamps require. HR is incredibly selective in who they pick; they behave like an elite school in that regard. Their cohorts would likely be successful as self taught devs anyway, so HR knows they can push them hard.

Most bootcamps focus on commerce first; if you can pay, you can attend.

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#408

Post by bmer »

DannyBee wrote: post #97
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just goes to show that a large company is made up of many different people in different departments, sometimes with different agendas The e-mails referenced in the article were unsolicited policy preferences communicated by a multi-billion dollar company to a regulator in writing. These communications were sent following a PR and HR crisis. The chances that this didn't have high-level sign-off is virtually zero.

This is basically fact free. First, you have the timing wrong. " In filings in May 2017 " IE before a PR and HR crisis or whatever you want to call it. Second, it was solicited, as they were written as a legal response to a legal claim. Third, claiming that expresses a policy preference is silly. Do you believe that criminal defense attorneys express a policy preference that say, murder is okay? If you go and read th…

> Like, i can find filings from various "loved" open source companies that make the same argument, etc.

Mind sharing?

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#409

Post by chasontherobot »

skookumchuck wrote: post #401
Zarath wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"free" markets aren't necessarily "ideal" markets. See concepts like: leverage, cost externalization, etc. The "free" market argument is so tired.

Free markets are the worst basis for an economy, except for all the others.

Citation needed

Re: Google Urged the U.S. to Limit Protection for Activist Workers

#410

Post by RickJWagner »

josephv wrote: post #79

These comments read like a bunch of low-income retail shoppers defending Walmart because they provide something they otherwise couldn't get. I think these types of debates are bellwether for programmer/IT professional unionization. These are the exact types of lawsuits brought against organized labor as it was trying to get organized to prevent exploitative behavior. It's disturbing to see these same anti-organizatio…

I don't like your Walmart analogy.

You are right, there are lots of low-income shoppers who buy things at Walmart they couldn't otherwise afford.

To these shoppers, Walmart provides a better way of life. I don't think they'd rather be low-income shoppers buying from more expensive stores that offer fewer choices.

Walmart is beneficial for the shopper. If it wasn't so, Walmart wouldn't be successful.

Post reply on HN