Live data from Hacker News

A group of Google workers have announced plans to unionize

theverge.com

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Sounds like the cart before the horse. Tell me I'm signing up for something that I have no idea how it will turn out, and then present me with a take it or leave it contract months later. And I'm stuck.

Its funny to see someone argue for less control over their workplace because they're used to being handed take-it-or-leave it contracts because they've never had any power in the workplace other than to leave.

The feeling you're describing is called negotiation power. What if you and your coworkers like your job but are getting slavedriven for 80 hours a week and that just doesn't work out for you? Right now you have the following options: 1. Leave.

If you had a union you could: 1. Leave. 2. Decide to stop working along with other coworkers who are also pissed off until they agree to stop slavedriving you. 3. Decide to stop working along with other coworkers who are also pissed off until they agree to pay you more for being slavedriven.

I like the latter myself. Having people who care about an enterprise means you don't end up getting run entirely by a bunch of MBAs who listen to complaints while watching a spreadsheet of average tenure.

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

#912
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…

Tech already uses seniority as a factor much more than they want to admit. I resent it too, but don't act like it's not already basically the de facto standard.

As far as pay goes, the ubiquity of software engineering roles is already causing a down pressure on salaries. In the next decade it's only going to get worse. We might as well get ahead of the curve and use our current leverage to put us in a better position when it inevitably arrives at our door.

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

#913
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the cart before the horse. Tell me I'm signing up for something that I have no idea how it will turn out, and then present me with a take it or leave it contract months later. And I'm stuck.

I (from the UK) don't understand: you don't have to join a union. Keep your current contract and don't have a say in Union representation and negotiation, if that's what you want. It's 'take greater combined power against the corporation you work for' (and in things like representation of your industry before government) or stand on your own as you do now. I don't understand how it's possible to lose? You can even wi…

Additionally to RHSeeger@'s note, in some countries even if you did not join the union, you still have to pay the dues, and take on the new contract.

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

#914
post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all real problems, especially in a lot of today's older unions that have been completely hollowed out and have become a kind of do-nothing "labor aristocracy." They don't function as democratic institutions serving laborers' interests anymore, only their own narrow, elite, institutional needs--often institutional self-preservation at the expense of their members' interests. They're decrepit, corrupt dinosau…

> I still want better working conditions though, for me and for everybody. What do you suggest? Well, a re-brand for one. Don't call it a "union". Call it something else if it is something else. If you make a union patterned after traditional ones, why shouldn't it become a corrupt entity 50 years later just like all the current corrupt unions?

My take on this is the old unions aren't decrepit just because they're unions and they've existed for 100 years. I don't think it's built in to the nature of unions to eventually become decrepit (no more than any other institution anyway).

Their problem is not that they're old, it's that they're not powerful enough anymore to be the kind of adversarial force they once were. They're shrinking instead of growing. Their strategy, if they even have any, is built around defensive self-preservation and survival. It's a siege mentality.

There's a reason for it, and a history to it. In the first half of the 20th century, upstart unions were on the rise, growing all the time, taking over everything, expanding into new sectors, gaining power. There really was a time when it was reasonable to think eventually just about every job in the country would be union, and that's just how things are. Perfectly normal. (And generally speaking, those young unions were more spontaneous and democratic than their progeny today. They were more "bottom up", less bureaucratic. Also much fightier.)

But capital isn't stupid or defenseless and they fought back. The result, for a while, was the Fordist paradigm that ruled the postwar years. The idea was union leaders and management leaders could work together and reach compromises that were acceptable to both sides, and overall productivity and quality of life would be optimized through this kind of give-and-take. We're all Americans, right? We all have the same goals (even if I own the factory and you work in it).

Well, that's all gone now. From the 70s on, the formerly powerful unions got totally pulverized. One major weakness they had is their own leadership had, in the compromise period, gotten pretty cozy with management and formed a kind of "labor aristocracy" whose interests were more aligned with management than the rank and file. This is basically the state the old unions are in today.

In other words, the developments were contingent on dynamics of 20th century history, not the only thing that could have happened. The problem with 20th century unions is not that they have some innate structural flaw, but that they lost the fight.

I don't think we need to re-invent the concept. The boss owns everything you need to do your job, and you have to have a job. You lack power and control over your working conditions. As an individual you can't do anything about it. Banded together with the rest of the workforce, you can. This is a concept everyone can relate to already and I don't see any utility in renaming it for the new generation or something.

I used to drive a 30 year old beat up car. One day somebody crashed into it and smashed it up. I tried fixing up everything I possibly could, but eventually I realized the engine was completely shot, the block had been cracked, and the thing just wasn't coming back. I didn't rebrand and go get a hoverboat or something. I just got another car that wasn't wrecked.

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

#916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These are all real problems, especially in a lot of today's older unions that have been completely hollowed out and have become a kind of do-nothing "labor aristocracy." They don't function as democratic institutions serving laborers' interests anymore, only their own narrow, elite, institutional needs--often institutional self-preservation at the expense of their members' interests. They're decrepit, corrupt dinosau…

Working conditions should be regulated reasonably at a societal level. This already exists in practice via OSHA and minimum wage regulations. Advocate for improved worker conditions via legislature, although be aware of the market counter-reaction of making certain jobs more expensive than they are worth.

Industry-wide unions can work, they are widely used in Europe, but they essentially act as barriers to progress and create arbitrary barriers to entry.

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

#917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> massively powerful, self-interested entity The difference is the union at some level ultimately has to answer to the workers who comprise the union, whereas the corporation is ultimately responsible to the majority stockholders who are expropriating surplus labor time from those working at corporations.

> the union at some level ultimately has to answer to the workers who comprise the union yes, and a democratic government has to "answer" to its people ostensibly. ask russians how it's going for them. unions are just another power structure adding on to the infinite pile of things that are constantly trying to fuck me over as an individual human being. no thanks.

Right, so you should just let corporations keep fucking you then. That sounds like a great plan.

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

#918

Downvote me if you want, but as a SWE I find my job very highly rewarded both economically and technically. I'm happy where I am and in my team. I'm a minority and I have study all my life to be competitive, I have been treated fairly because of my skills. Free food, gym, coffee, stocks, high salaries, mobility, not sure I can ask for more

If you want to have all of that in the future, as SWE jobs grow in ubiquity and quantity, you should want a union. The reason we have those things now is because we had the leverage in scarcity. In the next decade that scarcity will be gone and you'll be replaceable.

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

#919
post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in a unionized IT shop for 6 years (now in SV) and here's my take: Pay transparency: union mandated pay band helps - no 2x/3x pay for the same position that's for sure. Though I do think this problem could be solved without a union. It's really about opening up compensation information. Broken promotion process/age discrimination/interviews: First of all, broken processes are not going to get better with a u…

Will you stay at the unionized shop though?

Yes - if it's setup like Google's union. It's optional and at this point, simply does not have enough clout to make any significant changes to affect my experience :)

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

#920
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't want to leave a cushy job for one where they would have to work harder for their money, so instead, they are trying other means to have their cake and eat it too. You're saying this like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't employees expect, and get, better working conditions? > engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better" How is individuals leaving "coll…

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. There are very few perils of leaving Google - a top tier company in an industry t…

> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Alphabet makes $1.7 million per employee. Its clear that those employees don't necessarily individually have that level of contribution. Nor is it that the business model that sergey and larry made would necessarily be possible with any given number of people who aren't sergey and larry. Its much more about the ratio.

The business idea + investor money is the original capital for the business. Sergey/Larry and the investors deserve to be compensated, and are, wildly. No problem there. Basically everyone believes that inventors and creators have all sorts of rights to be compensated for that. The question is how much, since they utilize the labor of others to realize their goals.

Post reply on HN