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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by thu2111 »

lithos wrote: post #171
pacificat0r wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So these are really good examples, but I still don't understand what unions can do for 1% of someone's pay. They kind of look like subscription services, or worse places you have to join or else there are unintended consequences from other examples where they mention looking at union membership as an indicator of some experience (so kind of like a tax). The screen actors guild and all the movie-related guilds seem in…

While not union myself watching how IBEW (international brotherhood of electrical workers) works, it ends up working well for all involved parties. For workers pay is kept higher, benefits stay active between jobs, and benefits stay unchanged between jobs at different companies. Companies also gain the ability to support surges/drops in manning requirements (without ruining life's of workers), and know workers have a…

Companies also gain the ability to support surges/drops in manning requirements

They have that ability already without unions - much more easily because they can reduce staffing without the entire company falling over due to strikes.

and know workers have a minimum level of training

They have that ability already without unions.

Not every union strangles their company like automotive unions

By and large the only unions that remain large and powerful in the west are those organising government employees, where strangling the host is impossible because tax revenues mean it cannot die. In most other industries they did indeed strangle their host industries until they declined.

Look at this thread. People keep talking about Hollywood as an example, apparently unaware of just how much business foreign film studios have taken from it, particularly the UK, due primarily to a much less aggressively unionised workforce.

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

#562

Post by shadowgovt »

lucideer wrote: post #462
jollofricepeas wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. The funny thing about unions is that the HN community believes that every other organization and industry can be disrupted...EXCEPT unions. It’s hilarious. The comments are usually all anecdotal with some story about an uncle or father who was “screwed over” by his union back in the 80s or 90s. We are capable of creating a new type of union and making collective bargaining better than what previous gener…

> the HN community believes that every other organization and industry can be disrupted...EXCEPT unions. The thing about this is, when other organizations and industry are "disrupted", according to the usual west-coast definition of "disrupt" this typically means exploiting a market to the benefit of shareholders by eroding labor standards. What does one erode while disrupting a union, when those same standards are t…

Sounds good. Tech unions can exploit a market to the benefit of shareholders by eroding labor standards.

- The market is labor

- The shareholders are the union members

- The labor standards are the current status quo, which made Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe owners and managers believe this (https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/01/16/37...) was acceptable until the government forced their hand on it. "Erosion," here, would be a disruption that makes the status quo worse for company owners... Makes that kind of one-sided back-room dealing no longer safe for the companies that engage in it, since they no longer fear merely government intervention, but their own employees banding together to say "Knock it off."

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

#564

Post by cced »

finiteseries wrote: post #548
ruph123 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a naive world view is this to think that a large enough company goes “above and beyond” for their employees... As a German these American work ethics are so weird to me. You are being put on a stick and held over a bon fire and all you do is scream “turn me quicker“! What life is this to work your ass off for a company that demands crazy work hours, that can fire you for any reason with laughable notice period,…

That doesn’t describe even the most down on their luck FAANG engineer in the slightest, and the previous comment tried to make that obvious by defining two entirely separate sorts of employer relationships to consider. That you didn’t address the second type of relationship, specifically brought your nationality in, and ended by calling their nation a depressing dystopia brings this dangerously close into nationalist…

It may not be typical of employees at FAANG companies but what OP mentions is far from unimaginable for many other non FAANG companies.

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

#565

Post by thu2111 »

pentagrama wrote: post #404
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.…

Unions are "Red scare" for many. I thinks it comes down to ideology. Pro capitalists view unions with skepticism or hostility because challenges the system, pro socialists view as a way to fight the power structures and injustice. Other people just don't want to be involved in unions because is a sensitive topic and are afraid to lost their jobs.

Nobody in this union is going to fight against "injustice". Look at their list of demands. It's indeed a red scare because they are really, really red. For example, refusing to work with the defence industry - which country in the world would benefit most from a damaged US/European military? China!

We can see what kind of union this is by the fact that:

1. They aren't going to try and bargain collectively

2. Their announcement claims Timnit Gebru was fired and that was terrible, instead of the obvious truth that she said made obnoxious requests and said she'd resign unless she got them, then was told "OK, we accept your resignation". They're a brand new organisation and they're already misrepresenting reality.

In other words it's going to be nothing like the IBEW or whatever. It's yet another left-wing campaigning organisation, pretending to be a union to try and make the members un-fireable no matter how nasty they become.

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

#566

Post by ddingus »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #526
ddingus wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The better organizers will have a priority discussion. What terms improve things for everyone? How should work be? From there, they build solidarity around those terms. When the vision maps to 80 / 90 percent of labor at that enterprise, the effort to unionize can win.

> When the vision maps to 80 / 90 percent of labor at that enterprise, the effort to unionize can win. The odds of this happening at Google in the next ten years are pretty low, I'd say. That's why they organized this as a members-only union rather than trying to do a real unionization drive.

I agree. It will be interesting to see it play out.

Members only does lower the bar considerably.

Size matters. If it gets big?

New ideas matter too.

The traditional union struggle has become very difficult in the US. The high solidarity numbers required today are 20 to 30 points more than necessary before.

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

#567

Post by briandear »

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.…

Except when the unions work to keep non-Union people from working or have ridiculous rules that make producing a film far more time consuming and expensive than it need be.

Have you ever worked on a film set? Want to drive film to the airport? Can’t get paid to do it unless you are in the teamsters. Want to sweep a floor? That’s the janitor Union. “Hey light guy, could you bring me that empty film canister?” Nope. The light guy isn’t in the camera Union. Hey camera guys, can you tape down that cord you keep tripping over? Nope. That’s the gaffer’s job. Are you a brand new sound recordist and want to worn on a Union production? Cant do it unless you join the union first. Need one guy to do a job? If the Union requires three, you end up paying three people to do the job of one.

Hollywood unions are better than the auto workers or teacher unions, but it’s far from “good.”

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

#568

Post by thu2111 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #254
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 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?

The article is quite clear: they don't intend to unite to strengthen their bargaining power.

"Arranged as a members-only union, the new organization won’t seek collective bargaining rights to negotiate a new contract with the company"

It's not really a union. It's a political faction that calls itself a union to benefit from laws protecting union members from being fired for "organising". The assumption was that unions would "organise" to benefit their workers via better pay or conditions, but that isn't the case here.

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

#569

Post by pnw_hazor »

greggman3 wrote: post #310
influx wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience with unions is setting up a booth for a trade show and being unable to plug into the outlets myself because I had to wait for a union electrician. Total scam.

I've had that experience. Also the experience of not being able to carry a monitor to by both to replace one the broke because "only an authorized union person can carry things into the convention center"

I my one experience, they were more than happy to let us breakdown the booths at the end of the show rather than stick around after 5pm on a Friday.

But setting up or carrying things things during the day had to use union people.

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

#570

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN