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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by Apocryphon »

beerandt wrote: post #674
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…

We've seen lots of exodus from Hollywood to states that are less union friendly, or at least that don't yet have a strong related union presence (yet). While there maybe isn't yet a definitive "Hollywood East" or "Hollywood South" etc yet, the desire to find/build an alternative to Hollywood proper seems clear.

Just as workers rights for employees at manufacturing plants improve over time, so will these secondary Hollywoods.

https://deadline.com/2020/08/vancouver-production-to-restart...

https://deadline.com/2020/11/election-2020-entertainment-ind...

And as always, there's an HBO's Silicon Valley for everything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDzTKI9a78k

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

#702

Post by rmk »

This union appears to have formed primarily as a means for political activism. This is just the worst type of union, because members are implicitly assumed to agree with the union’s political ideals (can you imagine conservatives joining this union in large numbers?) and also because if it grows large enough, it may make moves to become certified. That will put paid to Googles chances of doing business as it sees fit without any regard to the politics of what they do. How would collective bargaining work at Google? What would be the demands of such a bargaining group, aside from purely political items?

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

#703

Post by esoterica »

ddingus wrote: post #373
finnthehuman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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.

> What terms improve things for everyone? How should work be?

There is no such thing as "improving things for everyone" because different people have different preferences. Some people want job stability, some people want work life balance, some people just want to get paid, fuck everything else. If a union tries to pursue some priorities over others they are screwing over all the employees who have different preferences.

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

#704

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]

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

#705

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

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.…

> "employees having a voice in corporate decisions than compensation"

Should your waiter, your dentist, your auto mechanic, your daycare worker, your landscaper, etc. have a say in your decisions? They're your employees, albeit temporarily, so why not?

The shareholders are the owners of the company, not employees. The right to set the direction of the company belongs to its owners. The profits belong its owners, just as your paycheck and what to do with it belongs solely to you.

(As an aside on shareholders and compensation, considering how many FAANG people have huge chunks of their compensation in stock, people are well aware unionizing at a FAANG is basically people attempting to pick their own pockets since increasing employee compensation (themselves) is taken from shareholders (themselves).)

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

#706

Post by Shish2k »

subsubzero wrote: post #667
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, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve Agree, things that a union can address: - Pay transparency, Have detailed info about pay bands, and ensure some new hire from a hot company doing the same job as you is not making 2-3x your salary. - Broken promotion process, at my company promotion is completely…

> Unions could fix [tech interviews]

Is the problem really “we know how to fix tech interviews, but the upper management don’t like it”?

Going by HN discussion I thought that the problem was “There are tens of totally different interview methods, everybody thinks one method is obviously the best and all the others suck, but nobody can agree on which one method that is”, and I’m not sure how a union would fix that :P

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

#707

Post by lliamander »

thesuitonym wrote: post #538
finnthehuman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>tell me what the terms of the contract will be and I'll decide for myself. Nobody can tell you what the contract will be because the contract won't be drawn up until the union exists and has enough members to bargain. What you DO know is the current contract you have. You DO know that you have virtually no say in what is in that contract, "accept it or leave," is not having a say in that contract. You DO know that a…

At least an idea of what they are trying to bargain for would be nice.

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

#708

Post by lokar »

cactus2093 wrote: post #605
rafram wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> It’s open to anyone working for Alphabet (besides, if it works like a typical union, management). This to me kind of highlights the disconnect of unions in software engineering. In many companies including Google, there are parallel IC and management tracks. There are ICs in leadership positions but just without any reports. Does that mean, e.g. an L7 staff engineer can unionize but not an L5 manager? And then it l…

From my read of the situation (based on past union experience), this is not a normal union. They do not seek exclusive bargaining power for a contract.

It seems more like an association of employees who seek to influence leadership on specific topics. There influence comes not from the threat of a strike, but rather just numbers (eg we have X% of workers, all willing to put up 1% of pay, you should really listen to us).

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

#709

Post by Aunche »

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.…

Hollywood unions work because they force an artificial monopoly. SAG requires productions to hire a certain percentage of union actors, which screws over non-union members. Without this market manipulation, unions are largely useless because the market will always have room for non-union members.

This doesn't matter too much for Hollywood because plenty of people are willing to write/act for peanuts, but I don't want to see these in-group/out-group in tech.

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

#710

Post by Apocryphon »

Sodman wrote: post #663
commandlinefan wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> put in more hours I'm skeptical of unionization in tech, but the one thing I can imagine unions would fix is the constant unpaid overtime that's associate with tech jobs. In a union situation, you'd be paid more if you were working more hours period, rather than hoping somebody would notice and give you a pay raise at some indeterminate time in the future.

It's not a huge stretch to imagine the following scenario play out though: 1. Tech workers unionize, negotiate with employer that any work > 40 hours / week get paid overtime. 2. The company now has two choices: A) Pay their employees more than their competitors for the same work. Or B) Don't authorize any overtime. 3. In scenario A, they're either running at (much) higher cost than their competitors, and thus a disa…

Maybe B) will lead to fewer poorly-run projects that lead to unnecessary overtime.
Post reply on HN