A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by rafram » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #395

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.…

unintended consequences 1. Fat cats. What are the due fees? %1 now?, later then? %5 of gross annually? 200 people * 300k year * %5 of salary = 3 million. They will use this on fancy dinners with Google execs? Or spend it in "wrongful terminations" law suites with google for years? What happens when 50x more join. 2. Who runs it? Will it be a 10 year long president? What is her union salary? A non-google person? Will…

[flagged]

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

#502

Post by impalallama » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #431

SiempreViernes wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically Google has targeted people that advocate for unions.

Especially when they abuse internal systems to promote it.

yes, abusing internal systems.

imagine using tools explicitly created to facilitate communication and organization between employees but suddenly its abuse when used for organize something other than a potluck

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

#503

Post by da_big_ghey » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

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'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 am such a person. For most workers, you're right that a union will probably increase wages. But for me, it will do the opposite. In most jobs I have worked, I ended up paid significantly more than counterparts in the same job. I usually was better at my job and put in more hours, so this was warranted. And for promotions, I don't see how this is wrong: most every union of which I'm aware ends using seniority as a factor in promotions, which I generally resent.

I never liked the mandatory nature of unions, either. If they're that good for workers, quit trying to force the whole company to join. I also hate the idea of being forced to strike.

As far as my interests are concerned, a union would end up taking money and promotions from me and giving it to others. So, I will always vote against them. If one shows up at my workplace, I will probably move because someone else offers better terms of employment.

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

#504

Post by splaytreemap » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #451

marcinzm wrote: post #258

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…

Pretty much every politician ever has used manipulative language to try to make themselves sound better than they are. It's why abortion activists call themselves pro-life/pro-choice. To take their words at face value is incredibly naive. For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. And the line about a "welcoming environment" is an outright lie as shown by these same employees' bullying and harassment of numerous wrong-thinking employees (James Damore and Miles Taylor come to mind as a few examples).

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

#505

Post by scsilver » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

panarky wrote: post #471

scsilver wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

Hey thats protestantism for you...

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

#506

Post by sz4kerto » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #451

marcinzm wrote: post #258

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…

The 'personal agenda' refers to the fact that it is unclear whether these values represent the opinion of an overwhelming majority at Google.

Some of these statements are _actually_ controversial. (Without saying whether I personally agree with them or not -- I am saying that they are far from being universally accepted.)

Examples:

> All aspects of our work should be transparent, including the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values.

Not sure how the company should approach this exactly. I'll bring up some extreme (and maybe stupid) examples. Let's say Google wants to monetize the Google search page even more, while employees working in the UX team disagree with this direction. Should Google be able to let them go (in case there's no other UX role in the company) or not?

> Our decisions are made democratically, not just by electing our leaders who set the agenda, but by actively and continuously listening to what workers believe is important.

This approach of corporate decision making practically doesn't exist anywhere, and there's not much proof that it'd work, so I consider this controversial.

> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.

Google had a massive impact on the world by creating the search engine and broadening access to information to people around the world. Should it have other social missions as well? What should those be? What happens if the company's core mission (organizing the world's information) becomes at odds with other social mission(s)?

Normally the leaders of the company are responsible for making decisions here.

> Everyone deserves a welcoming environment

I think this is something most people would agree with, if there weren't many examples of people abusing these policies.

> We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs. We can make money without doing evil.

Sure, no reason to not agree with this sentence. Question is: how is this actionable? Who is going to decide what's evil, what's worth it? By default the executives do, that's their job.

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

#507

Post by confidantlake » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #323

jonahrd wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty hard to claim that the reason there are bad teachers is because it's hard to fire them because they're unionized. There are a lot of potential reasons: - The pay is crap - The "prestige" is crap - The barrier to entry is low In Finland, for example, there are excellent teachers because the profession is treated as on par with doctors. I don't think it's fair to blame unions for this difference in…

Your first two reasons are not valid reasons for being a bad employee. Both are knowable before taking the job. If you take a job knowing the pay is bad and you justify being a bad employee because the pay is bad, you’re a shitty person. The third reason I don’t think is true. Teaching is in the class of occupations that require government certification.

It isn't about the employee choosing to do a shitty job because the pay is low. It is about the super talented, smart, ambitious person never going into the field in the first place because the pay is shitty.

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

#508

Post by tomerbd » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

Vacation days compensation for being on call

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

#509

Post by maya24 » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

gandutraveler wrote: post #307

boomlinde wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better". I.e. not collectively bargaining, instead hoping that enough other people will individually decide put their livelihood on the line to give employers the impression that things should change up, after which they will not be able to enjoy the changes because they switched job (which can be a pain in the ass regardless…

All unions end up being political. The elected union leaders are voted and the democratic process compels the leaders take decision that helps them stay in power. This is what causes the problem where you have elected union leader whose values don't align with helping companies bottom line. This will be the slow death of Google as the company we know. Can't wait to see right wing and left wing groups forming within G…

Slow death of Google as the company we know it today is not a bad thing.

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

#510

Post by vitus » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #413

vitus wrote: post #392

The prevailing fixation seems to be on how unionization would help the highly-compensated engineers, when the people who need and would benefit most from unionization are the TVCs, who aren't considered Alphabet employees, don't get benefits, are regularly excluded (from all-hands, mailing lists, even affiliating with Google on LinkedIn). Suppose a barista's phone dies. Employees are not permitted by policy to chip i…

Unions would also add additional hurdles to young engineers looking to join or move up within the company. We like to think of unions as protecting members against the corporation, but traditionally unions also protect members against outsiders looking to take their jobs. In this case, those outsiders are young people breaking into the industry or trying to move up the ranks within Google. Before going all-in on unio…

Are you not proving my point by bringing the conversation back to "how will unionization impact engineers"?

> Before going all-in on unions, consider if you’re ready to start making it harder for Googlers to get fired or make it more difficult for someone to get promoted based on their work rather than seniority (number of years worked).

There _are_ issues around Google employees being terminated unfairly -- mostly around those who dare to speak out (most recently and notably, Dr. Gebru).

While I do think that poor performers should be fired regardless of seniority, I also think that the current process for identifying and removing poor performers is both inefficient and, frankly, cruel.

After receiving poor performance ratings, an engineer may have responsibilities slashed (thereby making it more difficult to demonstrate level-appropriate impact) and put onto a performance improvement plan (to demonstrate impact, but also siloed from the rest of the team). To add insult to injury, due to performance ratings, the engineer will have compensation slashed to effectively the salary band for a lower level. If the engineer does not meet the lofty goals by the end of the 3-month period, management may offer an ultimatum: take this severance package and voluntarily resign, or go through the review that you most likely will fail, and get nothing when you're fired.

Meanwhile, it can take two performance cycles (i.e. a full year) to identify and remove poor performers, during which time said poor performer can drag down an entire team.

It is already a meme at Google that the easiest way to achieve L+1 (i.e. get promoted) is to leave and re-apply at a higher level after a year or two at a different company. While I don't advocate promoting primarily based on seniority, I _do_ think Google does need to invest more on building up leadership by promoting from within, rather than encouraging people who want to break into senior leadership to leave Google.