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

431–440 of 493 posts

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

#431

Post by __float »

tablespoon wrote: post #336
alistairSH wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that in the US, treating minorities (BIPOC or otherwise) fairly is polarizing is sad.

> The fact that in the US, treating minorities (BIPOC or otherwise) fairly is polarizing is sad. It is, however "fairly" is a pretty loaded word that leaves too much unspecified. It's important to emphasize that "BIPOC" is a shibboleth , and you can be for "treating minorities fairly" without being aligned with the ideological faction the use of "BIPOC" indicates. And just to be clear, a union effort will almost cert…

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22841166/google-californ...

> According to a diversity report Google released earlier this year, Black women make up around 1.8 percent of its workforce and departed the company at a higher than normal rate. In the report, the company said it had “room for improvement” when it came to keeping underrepresented talent.

How much evidence are you going to demand before considering that perhaps they actually aren't treated fairly, by any reasonable definition of the word? You're largely refusing to engage with the actual topic at hand and instead squabbling over "shibboleths". Do you have an preferred way to discuss this, because I do think there's a legitimate concern here.

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

#432

Post by pandemicsoul »

chrisseaton wrote: post #384
pandemicsoul wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't it valid to say you don't like unions and so don't want anything to do with them? Because you can't possibly have personally experienced every union, and the media isn't good at covering unions generally, so whatever bias you're (or anyone else making this statement is) presenting here feels unearned. This is similar to the bias of racism or homophobia, right? Like, "I saw a Black person steal something,…

Subtly juxtaposing not wanting to be a union to being racist or homophobic there - very low blow choosing the most incendiary things possible to suggest it's similar to. And nobody has to earn the right to decline to be pulled into a political organisation they don't want anything to do with. If someone doesn't want to join your club the right response is to think about how to attract them, not to ask them to justify…

I was just using an example of bias to make my point clearer. It wasn't my intention to make any connection beyond that.

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

#433

Post by joshuamorton »

notahacker wrote: post #399
joshuamorton wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies, generally speaking, already have guidelines around what wages they will pay. So to get significantly better pay you need to leave anyway (how often do you get counteroffers that meet or exceed the competitors offer). Blaming a union for the thing the company already does seems odd.

Companies have guidelines. Wage bargaining arrangements negotiated between companies and unions have binding guarantees. One is obviously easier for a company to ignore if it's in their interests to incentivise a staff member than another. Also, company wage setting guidelines are more likely to prioritise "retain and reward the staff we think are best" in the first place. (Obviously unions prioritising things like r…

> unions can take credit for but accept no blame for any of the changes they negotiate whilst formalising them.

Good thing no one said that then!

> One is obviously easier for a company to ignore if it's in their interests to incentivise a staff member than another.

But in this situation, the offer you're getting is going to be no better than what the other company offers, so if your current company can't match, you don't lose anything.

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

#434

Post by aylmao »

Jensson wrote: post #292
littlestymaar wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are however many examples of modern economies with very little union influence, USA is an example, and USA is a better place to live than most countries. The US is arguably pretty subpar in terms of quality of life compared to other developed nations (little vacation, really expensive school system, poor health system for the masses leading to a lower life expectancy, high criminality rate, etc.). Of course,…

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.

Bucketing countries into the false "hostile to unions vs. hostile to corporations" dichotomy is IMO disingenuous; it makes unions sound scary and unable to exist in a healthy corporate landscape.

Taxes are "hostile to corporations", but you wouldn't categorize a country as "hostile to corporations" based solely on the corporate tax rates. There's much more to the corporate landscape than just taxes.

Canada, the UK, Sweden, Germany [1]— there's plenty of countries that have higher union membership than the USA and are also arguably better places to live.

[1]: https://www.statista.com/chart/9919/the-state-of-the-unions/

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

#435

Post by boh »

Jensson wrote: post #102
boh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess unions do suck, thanks for clarifying. Hopefully people will be smart enough to not interfere with a firm's epic struggle for efficiency and polishing out the friction of overbearing worker compensation and benefits. Sounds like unions are too corrupt and will just interfere with the purity of corporate practices. I love how people have an easier time imagining colonies on mars than giving labor a platform…

US unions are like US healthcare, regulatory capture makes them suck. Unions working well in other countries doesn't mean it works well in USA. And neither party wants to improve the state of unions, democrats are on the side of union leadership while republicans are just anti unions in general, none wants to support workers on this.

As opposed to what? Unbridled profit seeking? Too many people seem to believe their individual success is exclusively the outgrowth of corporate interests. Is it possible that employee compensation and corporate performance are opposed and maybe individual employees have limited capacities to affect the decisions of large corporations in their favor?

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

#436

Post by lliamander »

UncleMeat wrote: post #114
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #12

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…

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" but this is never used to discourage all participation in the labor force because employers are often shitty.

That's not the standard. The standard is "are unions worth the trouble they cause?". I've worked in industries, as a union employee doing manual labor, where I would say yes. I don't think unions are worth the trouble for tech workers.

> But like democratic nations, they provide a powerful resistance to authoritarian abuse and on balance improve the quality of life for their people.

The fact that I can easily switch employers is a more effective protection against an abuse than a union ever could be.

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

#437

Post by wyre »

paisawalla wrote: post #426
wyre wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Unions are a democratic force and it’s important to consider that it’s faults are problems of democracy, not something inherent or restricted to unions. 2. Lots of big words to justify being a bigot here imo. There is nothing cool about being against gay marriage. Also menstrual cups are exactly for people with periods and not women. Why would a post-menopausal woman need a menstrual cup? Your sexism is exclusiona…

As I said, this response is not for you, but for someone who grapples with these issues seriously. >Looks like one small step to racism to me. This word is meaningless when uttered by true believers like you. In my life I've been called all sorts of racially-based slurs, or worse. I've earned the right to refuse the orthodoxy of arrogant white liberals, and follow my own conscience on this topic.

On what basis have you “earned the right to refuse the orthodoxy of arrogant white liberals?” Genuinely intrigued. Cause to me that sounds like ur trying to say you’ve earned the right to be a bigot. Bigotry isn’t a right to earn but a choice to make.

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

#438

Post by dls2016 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #395
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; the libertarian perspective would be "everyone should negotiate their own contract".

I'm as far from a libertarian as I could be, but why should a libertarian think this? If you don't want to work for a company who has signed a contract with a labor union for a closed shop, you can go to a different company and negotiate your own. Surely I have the right as an individual to choose to join a closed shop, right?

Entering into a contract with multiple people to form a corporation = fine

Entering into a contract with multiple people to collectively bargain with a corporation = deprivation of human rights (according to some posts in this thread)

At least the GP admitted that their problem really is just "that kind of contract".

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

#439

Post by dls2016 »

josephcsible wrote: post #372
dls2016 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract. It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!

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.

Partnership contracts bind non-signers from receiving benefits of a partnership. And with good reason: you wouldn't want any ole schmoe laying claim to the fruits of your labor.

Contracts deprive non-signers of things all the time. That's kind of the point.

Do you have a problem with corporations signing "exclusive" deals with other corporations?

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

#440

Post by IncRnd »

airza wrote: post #173
everdrive wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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." We definitely talk about corporations in this way. All the time, in fact!

The point which i don’t think was articulated well by the GP is that depsite these objections to corporate power nobody (ok,few people) in HN threads ever seems to endorse getting rid of corporations.

That's probably a point that wasn't being made, since it wasn't mentioned. Neither was getting rid of unions ever mentioned.
Post reply on HN