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

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by ineedasername »

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.…

I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve

Unfortunately, through my own experience being in one & observing other unions, they often end up serving the organization of the union itself. They may still work for the workers, but also end up making decisions that are better for the union than for the workers.

Right now, my kids are learning remotely. However, the school district has encouraged teachers themselves to still report to their classroom to teach from there because seeing that environment lends at least a little bit more normalcy to the experience. You might agree or disagree, but the teachers have the choice. However, teachers are being told & subtly bullied by the union into not doing this for some vague justification that it weakens the union. At least one member I know of has said they're teaching like this, but they hope the union doesn't find out because they would "get in trouble".

I think unions can be a good & important tool in equalizing the power imbalance between an individual worker and their larger employers. Unfortunately, those who seek & rise to position of authority within the union structure are often those who end up seeing the union are a "good" unto itself rather than serving the members & their wishes.

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

#482

Post by whimsicalism »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #438
antisoeu wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Germany unions (in tech) will for example make sure that older employees can't be fired, so the younger employees will be fired instead. So I don't think you can simply claim they are beneficial for everybody.

This is the detail that most people miss: Unions don’t protect the general public against a company. They protect the ranking members of a company. That means the union also protects members of the company from the general public who might be looking to take their job by offering to work harder or better or cheaper. If you’re a young person getting started in this industry it might be fun to imagine working in a unio…

Is that why in Ford's recent deal struck with UAW, one of the sticking points for UAW was that there be a "Guaranteed path to permanent full-time employment for temporary employees"?

That would seem to be entirely contrary to the idea that union's goal is to make it harder for people to join these companies.

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

#483

Post by bumby »

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…

>Unions are intended for industries where a worker doesn't have a marketplace of options... engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better".

I don’t know that you’ve put forth a convincing argument here. There is no defining union industry in principle, only in past embodiment. The intent of a union is to balance the leverage of workers compared to management via collective bargaining. So a union is valid anywhere there is a real or perceived imbalance of leverage.

Claiming one can go get a job anywhere else only balances the leverage when certain assumptions are met (e.g., symmetry of information, no conspiracies to suppress wages or prevent hiring etc.) Considering the tech industry hasn’t always met these assumptions, I don’t know that your claim proves true

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

#484

Post by capableweb »

marcinzm wrote: post #473
capableweb wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I suspect many of those values are not shared by a large proportion of the US population

That's not really relevant, the union will focus on Google and it's workplace, not the US as a whole. Maybe in the future they'll have impact in US politics, but that's not how unions start out.

> likely by a non trivial percentage of Google workers

I guess that's why they announced this, to see how many agree with it. We already know by fact that Google try to prevent internal discussions about unions, hence the people wanting to unionize, have to communicate in other ways (press releases to reach more people).

> As such they are the personal values of the organizers

They might also be the personal value of the organizers, but the explicit goal of setting up a organization (or more specifically a union) is to setup an organization that reflects those views. Once the organization is setup, it's the organizations values, not their personal values.

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

#485

Post by throwaway2245 »

missedthecue wrote: post #424
throwaway2245 wrote: post #336

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?

Why do you think they are called "boomers"? There was a population boom.

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

#486

Post by rafram »

chrisseaton wrote: post #89
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.…

> None of these unions are limiting the work their members are carrying out. I don't believe that this is a truthful statement. Does Global Rule One in the SAG not limit the work that members can carry out? If they union doesn't want you to work on a production then you are not allowed to work on that production.

No, you’re completely misunderstanding the rule. Because the film industry works on a freelance basis, the union only has bargaining power if it doesn’t exist alongside a non-unionized body of workers who are willing to work for cheaper. By requiring that union members only work unionized jobs, they ensure that no non-union production can ever benefit from any non-union labor. This pushes productions to negotiate terms with the union in order to get talent, and that in turn helps union members get jobs.

It’s not about whether the union likes you or thinks you deserve to work. It’s about whether the production is willing to play by union rules.

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

#487

Post by seneca »

capableweb wrote: post #461
seneca wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I would never join a tech union. Just read their mission statement: this is about enforcing political goals via any power source they can get their hands on. Much like a lot of recent codes of conduct in open source projects.

I think you might misunderstand the goal of a union. It's inherently political, that's the whole point of it. And the values from the mission statement does sound like something every company should aim for, but sometimes they forget we're all humans here, so we need something to keep companies in check. I'm not sure comparing unions to code of conducts are suitable. Unions are a historically old and proven way for w…

> I think you might misunderstand the goal of a union. It's inherently political, that's the whole point of it.

I think this is disingenuous. It's inherently political, yes, but historically it is the politics of the workplace that a union focuses on. Specifically workplace safety, compensation, and benefits. This mission statement is explicitly dragging larger social activism into the workplace.

> Unions are a historically old and proven way for workers to enact change in workplaces, industries and even entire countries. Code of conducts in open source is a fairly new invention (officially, written down ones at least) with no such track record.

It is the same pattern of dragging social activism into a domain where it is not inherently relevant, and using bureaucracy to force it onto members. One mechanism of doing so being old or new isn't the point.

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

#488

Post by marknutter »

> Everyone deserves a welcoming environment, free from harassment, bigotry, discrimination, and retaliation regardless of age, caste, class, country of origin, disability, gender race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Until and unless they demonstrate that they intend to protect conservative employees, there's not a chance I would trust them to actually uphold this value.

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

#489

Post by missedthecue »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #485
missedthecue wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why do you think they are called "boomers"? There was a population boom.

That's great, but the millennial generation had more births, and given all the deaths that the boomer gen has had since 1946, millennials are a much larger block at this point.

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

#490

Post by capableweb »

yanderekko wrote: post #467
capableweb wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I were a Google employee with an active social media account that promoted conservative politics, this would be pretty alarming to me. It's similar to the CoC debates - the visionary goals foreshadow the darker enforcement strategies.

Now I'm not super into US politics, partly because it's so polarized today, but which one of these values are against conservative ideals? Seems to be pretty basic human decency, like everyone deserves a voice, welcoming environment, decisions are made democratically and more. Are those really against conservative ideas?

Edit: My comment seems to have spawned replies to unrelated subjects so I'll repeat the question hopefully a bit more clear: What of the values proposed so far in the "Google Union", goes against modern conservative values in the US today?

Post reply on HN