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

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551

Post by ineedasername »

JediWing wrote: post #529
ineedasername wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Howe…

This isn't a power trip by union leadership/ "the organization of the union itself" though? It's a real concern about the safety and working conditions, and how a lack of a unified front can lead to fissures when negotiating that could actually hurt a majority of union members. The unions members probably mostly prefer work from home due to safety concerns. Should the school district wish to demand all teachers repor…

The schools are sanitized nightly and those who go in literally don't have to see anyone else, and by policy are not supposed to.

"Unified front" That is not the purpose of the union. The union exists to serve it's members. If serving it's members might be slightly more difficult if it actually accommodates the choices of the members it serves, well that's it's job. It's job is not to make it's job easier, it's to serve the members. If the district tries to pressure other members because some make a certain choice, or not provide a safe working environment, That is the fight the union should fight. Not bullying members against making the choice the members feels is the right one to best serve the students.

The possibility of adversarial action by the school district is insufficient to justify the union's actions, especially when, in the case of my school district, the district has otherwise been very responsive to the concerns of the union with respect to health & safety protocols.

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

#552

Post by thu2111 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #428
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…

I work at Google, and when I started, I thought the idea of unionizing there is ridiculous. They already have a very well defined leveling system. The promotion and hiring system - people hate - but it is as un-nepotistic as possible and (I think) fairer than pretty much anywhere else. The compensation is already higher than basically everywhere - as you mentioned - ESPECIALLY considering expectations for your work.…

Yes, exactly. There is no "workers rights" argument for a union at Google.

It is purely a hard-left power grab, just like at Kickstarter when they unionised for the pure, noble purpose of forcing their employer to allow fundraisers that were threatening violence against conservatives (and thus had been taken down as a ToS violation).

As a former Googler myself (not for quite some years), I see this as the inevitable end result of always kowtowing and giving in to ever more radical left extremism. It started with nice but trivial sounding language about how there should be more women in tech, and it ends with hiring endless full time activists like Timnit Gebru.

If Google is ever to regain its former glory, it needs a serious purge. There won't be one: instead I suspect it will become a cautionary tale spoken about quietly throughout the world, for many decades to come. The lesson drawn will be: don't hire SJWs or else you might end up like Google did, with managers being deposed by a unionised mob demanding endless and ever-spiralling purity warns.

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

#554

Post by jskell725 »

criddell wrote: post #144
mhb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the way that educational outcomes have been improving as a result of union teachers with seniority being paid more?

The union seeks out what the membership wants. Teachers want seniority to be protected and rewarded, so that's what they fight for.

What force prevents unions bosses from becoming corrupt and self serving; just like we can agree a corporate boss can become? It's silly to pretend they just "always work"

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

#555

Post by grumple »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #148
ignoramous wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yeah, a bizarre line of reasoning. Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since. Today, your average footballer (plying their trade in the upper tiers of English football) makes more in a month than most tech engineers make in a year (g…

> Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since Incorrect, the first footballer's union was from 1898 [1]. > I don't think unionization had any effect on their salaries Despite the existence of the union, clubs could impose a salary cap on players well into the 1960s, and could trade them like slaves under the "retain-and-transfer" system [2] until the EU forbade that practice in the 1990s [3]. Al…

The NBPA has overseen a huge increase in NBA player's wages over the past few decades, both at the top and for the average or minimum player. Yes, there's a salary cap, but that actually helps the vast majority of players, because otherwise Lebron would get paid 200M/year and the minimum/average players would get basically nothing, and it also ensures competitiveness.

A salary cap is not a reason unions are bad when the salary cap is 800x the average person's income...

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

#556

Post by matsemann »

Siira wrote: post #263
appleflaxen wrote: post #172

The recurring theme in the comments against unions can be captured by a simple truth: Unions don't protect your interests; they protect their interests. Which is fundamentally true, and cannot be changed. So if your employment situation is so bad that you need a second, massively powerful, self-interested entity to negotiate with the massively powerful, self-interested entity in the hopes that your interests may happ…

Unions also fuck non-union members, which in turn creates a lot of economic deadweight and inefficiency.

No, that's just normal anti-union-FUD. A union doesn't have to imply that it controls everything, or that everyone has to be part of the union to work somewhere.

A union could also just be a large entity that collectively bargain on behalf of the workers, and can do so better than they could separately. Often that involves stuff like better safety, pay, getting rid of bad stuff like non-competes etc. And where I'm from those new things are enforced company wide, not just for the union. So every worker profits from the union, even non-union members.

If anything, the non-union members are the deadweight where I live. They get the benefits, without paying any membership fee.

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

#557

Post by tmpz22 »

finnthehuman wrote: post #98
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.…

>When I talk to colleagues in tech about unions I hear a lot of misconceptions Because everyone talking about unionization refuses to get into the nitty gritty of what I might gain, what I might lose, and the structural changes to the workplaces that are inherent with unionization. And if/when I/others start spitballing about what those might be we're treated like dolts uneducated on organized labor, and should just…

What do you think the software industry will be like 20 years from now? Do you think the cushy salaries and relative lack of gate keeping will stay around? I sure as hell don't.

Unionize now, even if you earn a little less, while you have the most bargaining power, so that later you don't have to fight through pinkerton detectives just to get a seat at the table.

There's a reason companies like Google suppress initiatives to form unions, and build strong zeitgeists within their employee base that unionization is bad. If unionization is so bad why do companies spend so much money breaking it up? For the good of the workers? Bahahaha.

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

#558

Post by sircastor »

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.…

Random anecdote: I remember in his book, Wil Wheaton talks about going to auditions and how the producers are supposed to pay a nominal fee to everyone, but no one ever collects it because it means you’d never get called for further auditions.

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

#559

Post by shadowgovt »

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.…

The misperception that unions are only for blue-collar workers is one of the causes of the decline of quality of life for the average American worker.

America made a massive shift from labor-backed economy to service-sector-backed economy, and in doing so, the percentage of workers in unions dropped drastically. Unions aren't for only labor; they're for any situation where there's an asymmetry in negotiating power between the company owners and the employees (which is, basically, every company).

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

#560

Post by cactus2093 »

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 don't know much about Hollywood, but clearly the biggest examples of abuse in recent years were all the examples that came out of the #metoo movement. What exactly did SAG do for all of Harvey Weinstein's victims for all those years that it was being swept under the rug? If not sexual abuse, what other kinds of abuse in Hollywood have these unions put a stop to?
Post reply on HN