Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

401–410 of 493 posts

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

#401
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations creates enormous amounts of value, as far as we know modern society cannot function without those structures. Unions however are optional, even if they help they still aren't nearly as important as corporations. Edit: For those who disagree, how many modern societies are there without corporations running a majority of the economy? Not a single one. So as far as we know it doesn't work. It can work in th…

Unions in Scandinavia are pretty strong, doesn't look worse than the USA.

I never said that unions makes things worse. I am saying that corporations are more important than unions. Scandinavia's economy is still run by corporations and has among the highest concentration of billionaires in the world.

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

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because that's not a contract. Real contracts can only bind people who sign them, but in places that don't recognize right to work, you can be forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed.

You are making the same mistake as the post I replied to. You are "forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed" effectively everywhere in the US, not just in "right to work" states. If 51% of your co-workers agree, they will form a union, and that union will negotiate a contract on your behalf. You're in, baby. "Right to work" only covers whether you can be made to pay union dues as part of this…

Sure, I'll admit that right to work isn't perfect, but it's definitely a big step in the right direction.

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

#403
This conversation makes me crazy. People talk about the merits of unions in the abstract, with no reference to the actual, very specific union at hand: the Alphabet Workers' Union, or "AWU".

AWU is not a traditional workers' union. It is a political advocacy organization. AWU's mission statement is explicitly and emphatically not to further full-time employee's interests. Rather, it is organized primarily as a vehicle for achieving a broader political end ("social justice", as that term is construed by AWU's organizers), potentially at employees' expense. Almost none of AWU's projects have focused on Googlers' work conditions or pay. Instead, they have focused nearly exclusively on modifying Google's products and policing its contracts, often in ways I find extremely objectionable. For example, they have lobbied heavily for Google to increase censorship of YouTube and Search, and to demonetize "problematic" content creators. They consistently advocate increasing institutional support for DEI efforts, and it was their efforts which led to the creation of Alphabet's Chief Diversity Officer position. They agitated on behalf of ex-employee Timnit Gebru against Google's ML work, which is obviously a threat to the hundreds of Google workers whose jobs depend on the models that Gebru's research criticized. Why should ordinary Google workers support such a "union"?

I want to add that I agree with some of AWU political stands. For example, they opposed Project Dragonfly, a censored version of Google Search intended for the Chinese market. They opposed Google contracts with the DoD and CPB. I think these are all worthy causes and I hope that employees continue to agitate against them! But as a former employee of Google, I am under no illusions that AWU would have represented my interests as an employee. Primarily, they are a political action committee set up by an extremely vocal minority of Google's employees to further those employees' political goals.

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

#404

Having worked for both union and non-union employers - it's a mixed bag. Unions have advantages and disadvantages. They are great for worker representation - but that's a double-edged sword. Ideally, unions protects worker's interests. In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team…

Curious: why do we assume that having an anti-union stance is automatically bad? Can't someone simply think that union is indeed bad for both workers and companies?

Disclaimer: My personal view is that union can work for private organizations, but unions of government employees are absolutely evil. The reason is that a private company can die, so the power of its unions is naturally limited. On the other hand, government won't die (or die slowly), so its unions can issue all kinds of unreasonable demand.

P.S., If we assume that an employer is "bad" because it opposes union, isn't it the typical case of attacking one's motive? Scott Adam calls it mind reading. To me, it's one of the most dangerous fallacy in mankind. Read the history of self-claimed do-gooders such as Chinese/French/Cambodian committing genocide, and we can see the progressives in those countries all started with attacking their political opponents' motive.

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

#405
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure being forced to pay union dues is not a violation of any human rights.

Forcing a person to pay something against their will is definitively a human rights violation. That's forced labor.

Against their will? Didn't these employees choose to work at a closed shop? Don't they choose to continue their work there each new day?

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

#406

Having worked for both union and non-union employers - it's a mixed bag. Unions have advantages and disadvantages. They are great for worker representation - but that's a double-edged sword. Ideally, unions protects worker's interests. In practice, they often lead to abuse, stagnation and corruption. I've personally witnessed union employees who contributed nothing for years, get perpetually shifted from team to team…

Sounds like something a union buster contractor would say!

[I'm obviously right, so] everyone who disagrees with me must be a paid propaganda artist!

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

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I truly don't understand why people in tech are so against this. It will likely be a net positive for all tech folks. In Hollywood they have SAG (Screen Actors Guild) so a large union for high paying jobs isn't unheard of in America.

Most members of SAG are not highly paid. The median income for an actor is $43,760, and even the 75th percentile is only $60,760. The numbers for SAG represented actors is similar to these numbers. The thing is that not all tech employees are paid the same, nor should they be. Google and other similar companies often times pay multiple times the median tech salary. [1] https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/actor…

I think you just refuted your own point? Some actors are paid millions a year while half earn less than $43,760. This demonstrates that there are unions that represent workers who are paid multiple times the median salary.

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

#408

This whole debacle is sort of humorous. I fully support the rights of workers to unionize. The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation. This is incredibly unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other human rights.

So a mine exists and a bunch of heirs have a corporation. Through the corporation, a portion of the wealth miners create by mining from that mine goes to the heirs. The workers doing all the work and creating all the wealth organize and strike a deal that the company hires only union members. So the thing which is "unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional and violates a person's right to self-determination and other…

> doing all the work and creating all the wealth

Miners extract resources from someone's else land, using someone's else tools to be sold by someone else via someone's else logistical chains. And that high valuation of a natural resource that keeps mine operational? Miners had nothing to do with it. What miners do here is spend their time to add value to existing resource. In most cases this is done voluntarily and with a fair compensation.

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

#409

If I were to join a union it would have to have the following: 1. No protection for incompetent people 2. No seniority based pay or privileges 3. Narrow focus on comp and quality of life Any of these would be a deal breaker for me. And I just don't see it happening. The people who seem to be into unions are the type of people that can't STFU about politics at the office. And if I hear one word about pronouns instead…

I've been doing some thinking and I think union lifetime limits might adequately cover your concerns.

If a union is incompetent (e.g. protecting lazy workers, is corrupt, is more focused on political ambitions rather than the workers), then the workers can simply vote to kill the union. A five-year lifespan on unions would put pressure on unions to meet their lofty claims rather than the current state of things where it is universally known that unions are a permanent haven for the lazy.

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

#410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a lie, labor movements shaped those long before there were a legal concept of unions. Unions != labor movements. Unions are often a result of labor movements, but they are not the same thing. For example, the 8-hour work week was demanded by labor movements who weren't organized as modern unions are organized. Edit: Labor movements often called themselves unions though, but that was just a group of people get…

I would say that an organized group of workers that calls itself a union and advocates on behalf of those workers for labor rights is a union, and I think most people and dictionaries would agree with me. If that's not what you meant by the word "union", I think the burden is on you to provide an alternate definition for this discussion. For example: "an organization of workers formed to protect the rights and intere…

So you would call a labor party a worker union? Labor seems to be able to organize just fine regardless if there are unions or not, as long as they are allowed to vote.
Post reply on HN