Live data from Hacker News

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

This shows how deeply ingrained right-wing ideology has become in America.

Outside America it is obvious that billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs wield power in their own self-interest, and that workers benefit from collective action in their own self-interest.

But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them.

No compensation is too high for billionaires, but if some workers make a good salary, that's seen as extravagant, and the workers should be extra grateful and stop asking for better working conditions, too.

It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.

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

#472
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…

We have history books. Scab.

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

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me that the organizers are using a union to push their own personal agendas (which they otherwise don't have the power to push) which seems like the perfect way to form a corrupt union that harms workers.

What in the mission statement seems to be "personal agendas" to you? Here they are listed: - All Alphabet workers deserve a voice - Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes - Everyone deserves a welcoming environment - All aspects of our work should be transparent - Our decisions are made democratically - We prioritize society and the environment - We stand in solidarity with workers and a…

I suspect many of those values are not shared by a large proportion of the US population and likely by a non trivial percentage of Google workers. They are liberal values and not universal values. You, and me, seem to share those values which is fine but please don't claim they are universally shared. As such they are the personal values of the organizers which they are trying to make company values applicable to all workers.

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

#474
post #340

It seems that Hacker News is rather anti union. I am not sure I fully understand what peoples opposition towards a union is. I've honestly never heard of a negative thing about unions beyond silly unproven things like "unions don't innovate" or other nonsense.

Simply, union interest is not the same as company interest. Its maybe good for the employee but not good for the company. One example of negative things of an union: It makes harder for company to fire people. Look at teachers union right now, they are fighting by all means to refuse to come back teaching in person. Teaching online benefit the teacher but really sucks for the kids and parents.

That's both reductive and false. The employees benefit when the company does well. A union just fights to have the employees share more in that success.

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

#475
post #422
post #231

I think a lot of the back and forth in this thread is dancing around the edges of a couple questions. Who really owns a company? I know legally who owns it. But a company is nothing without the people that work in it and who generate the ideas who keep it going. Shouldn't the majority of people in that company benefit and have a say how its run? Why should a handful of people who don't run the day to day operation or…

A company is nothing without leadership. A company is nothing without the initial investors. A company is nothing without the it's initial idea. It takes a lot of people in different roles and a lot of different resources (be it people, money, opportunity) to make a company work. While there are successful employee-owned companies after, many companies today would not exist if you didn't have the motivation there for…

You can have a thousand investors all chip in to build a factory, but without workers in that factory you have nothing. I'm not sure what this comment is trying to accomplish other than pointing out that the value of initial investment ultimately hinges on the ability to hire and retain workers, and ultimately the value of the labor produced by those workers. The workers have the power.

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

#476
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.…

The point of unions is obviously for employees to unite in order to strengthen their bargaining power. Engineers at Google are very well paid and have very nice perks (at least that the general perception), so I think what many people might wonder is what better deal do they feel they need strongly enough to unite in order to get it?

Presumably in their case a union offers a better way to voice their concerns over eg. objectionable business practices, or just affecting the role out of more routine policies - eg. around time tracking, remote working, childcare, etc.

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

#477
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US unions are not typically per-company either.

But in the US they bargain on the enterprise level, not by sector. I think that was the implication in the comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_collective_bargaining...

Exactly. And as far as I understand the closest thing to US "to unionize" is a to set up a "worker's council", which is actually mandatory for companies above a certain size.

From a European view it is strange that this is a big deal.

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

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boomers often have a major advantage in democratised situations, simply because there are more of them . As such, it's still in your own interest to join a union and be represented. And, with Boomers retiring, this power imbalance in unions can be lessened or reversed.

There are not more boomers than other demographics. Why would you say this?

There are more boomers in power than other demographics

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

#479
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. There are regular complaints about benefits and pay multipliers being cut back. Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible? People don't seem to complain when businesses do that.

Because they are workers. If they want to “capture” some of that profit, to start their own company, or work at a different company. Unions today are more about punishing the owners for making too much profit than it is about keeping anyone safe or fair. Just because you work at a company does not give you “ownership.”

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

#480
This is like buying a house that is built close to an airport and then suing to have it shut down because you don’t like the noise of planes taking off. Google did not have a union when you asked them to hire you - which you happily accepted. Now your plan is to collectively mutiny against your employer to extort additional control or compensation. I’ve always believed that you treat your employer with the respect they garner by supporting you and your family. If you are not satisfied with you income or relationship with your employer go seek other avenues. Just my 2 cents.
Post reply on HN