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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by stale2002 »

ardy42 wrote: post #967
pwned1 wrote: 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.

> 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. That's not a reasonable position, since you're basically asking for someone to predict the future for you (accurately, I hope). Not knowing "how it will turn out" is life, for instance have you ever hired someone ne…

> You never know what a contract will be before you negotiate it

False. What we can do is look at real life examples of how contracts in other unions have turned out. That is a good baseline for what we could expect from other union contracts.

And the actual, real life examples of other unions, shows me that I absolutely would not want to be in a union.

We do not get to just throw away and ignore the decades and decades of examples of union contracts. That is real evidence that we can look at. And the evidence shows me that I do not want to be in a union contract, based on what other union contracts commonly look like.

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

#972

Post by sudosysgen »

zaroth wrote: post #630
capableweb wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This reads like a PAC not a Union. Here’s a statement from United Steelworkers, for comparison; https://m.usw.org/union/our-founding-principles Here’s the SAG mission statement; https://www.sagaftra.org/about/mission-statement The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc.; > negotiating the best wages, working conditions, and health and pension b…

Unions actually legally are very similar to PACs whenever politics are concerned, for a good reason. The United Steelworkers is one example amongst many, I know of a lot of major unions in my city that have similar policy positions.

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

#973

Post by ardy42 »

esoterica wrote: post #695
apexalpha wrote: post #28

Good for them. I work for a large company and am a member of the union. While they're not perfect they're very constructive and provide a lot of benefits to all employees, and also to the company itself. Compensation has become very complex over the years. While most people understand their pay the rest is usually where employers cheap out, things like insurance, sick pay, long-term provider care, pension contributio…

> pension contribution Pensions are horrifically anti-worker. You're basically withholding X% of someone's pay for 40 years, and also confiscating that pay if they don't stay at the same company until the pension vests (so people cannot leave without incurring a huge financial penalty even if they hate their job and can find better options elsewhere).

> Pensions are horrifically anti-worker. You're basically withholding X% of someone's pay for 40 years, and also confiscating that pay if they don't stay at the same company until the pension vests (so people cannot leave without incurring a huge financial penalty even if they hate their job and can find better options elsewhere).

It depends. I have a defined-benefit pension that vested after a short time (5 years? it was a long time ago, but it was about the same as the 401k match). I've never felt tied down by it, and it's a nice thing to have to diversify my retirement assets, since it was one where I wasn't taking the risk.

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

#974

Post by friendlybus »

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…

Unions depend on making a black and white argument. The whole idea can't work with a nuanced argument. Either the company bows to the union or strikes start up. Either the employee joins the union or he/she gets kicked out of the company.

It's socialism for the majority. If you want a nuanced argument, meet your union leader at the church he goes to on sunday and see how fervently committed he is to his goals. You're more likely to get a nuanced argument in the face of God, rather than these big dick, black and white union arguments people endlessly wave in our collective face.

The union structure is not free from religious, political and justice problems. Some of the largest unions in the US spend union funds on politically charged topics that easily divide it's own membership.

You won't get a satisfying answer because it has little to do with rational answers and more to do with sexual security. Union members secure and promote their progeny.

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

#975

Post by _gohp »

I suppose why not. Google employs some of the smartest minds walking earth, subseque tly , this is a reflection of their thoughts. I do not think this is a group of extreme left wingers who have infiltrated google to bring change. I think this is a reaction to the some actions they have observed and decided it is time for an intervention. I do not understand the people who are against this, especially the ones not even working there. Nobody is forced to join the union. Maybe the unions are different in the US. But in Europe they have proven to be a good anti exploitation tool and are the foundation of a happy middle class

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

#976

Post by dogprez »

Nebasuke wrote: post #931
dogprez wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak the the intent of the union in the article but after all of those things you listed you might want to know that your colleagues are getting treated fairly as well. For example, how would you feel about all your benefits if you learned there were contractors that did your same job that didn't have access to the same benefits that you have and haven't been given an avenue to earn those benefits? ( https:/…

The contractor mentioned in the article is not doing the same job, but is instead a vendor (the vendor term is only mentioned in passing in the article). Google classifies contractors that work via an external agency as vendors. Most vendor workers at Google have roles which don't exist as a full time role at all and vendor contracts often even prevent vendor workers from being permanently hired. Cleaners for example…

Right, it's my understanding that the situation described in the article can exist for SWEs as well. It matches what was described to me from a SWE at a subsidiary of Alphabet. In their words they were doing the same work at a fraction of the pay without an avenue for conversion since they were engaged through a 3rd party.

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

#977

Post by shakezula »

TerminalSystem3 wrote: post #965
shakezula wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What exactly makes you think that demand for SWE jobs will evaporate in the next decade? It looks to me like demand should be higher than ever with all the various car, IoT, security related tech news we've seen recently.

I’m not saying demand evaporates. I’m saying supply balloons.

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

#978

Post by dan-robertson »

AshWolfy wrote: post #961
ahepp wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what mechanism will salaries fall? And thus by what mechanism will SWE unions keep salaries high, but gates open?

Salaries are already well below what they used to be, and are continuing to fall Through actions against specific employers and minimum standards. If unions can have some control over wages, then the gate becomes irrelevant

I think this isn’t true, at least for SWEs at companies like Google. Do you have any evidence for this position? Or any example evidence of what salaries used to be and what they are now?

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

#979

Post by 0xy »

shakezula wrote: post #918
spicyramen wrote: post #808

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.

>that scarcity will be gone and you'll be replaceable

That's a wild prediction not based in fact. There's an insurmountable skills shortage in tech and always will be. Appetite for automation, efficiency and software solutions is practically unbounded.

Fact is, software salaries are sky high because there's no union.

No high performer would ever willingly join a union so his salary can be halved or worse with the difference given to someone who is far less good at their job and is essentially unfireable.

Teachers unions ruined education, and a software union would similarly ruin software by protecting the worse engineers and dragging salaries down of high performers.

The best teacher in the US is paid identically to the worst teacher. No wonder education is a disaster.

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

#980

Post by apexalpha »

esoterica wrote: post #695
apexalpha wrote: post #28

Good for them. I work for a large company and am a member of the union. While they're not perfect they're very constructive and provide a lot of benefits to all employees, and also to the company itself. Compensation has become very complex over the years. While most people understand their pay the rest is usually where employers cheap out, things like insurance, sick pay, long-term provider care, pension contributio…

> pension contribution Pensions are horrifically anti-worker. You're basically withholding X% of someone's pay for 40 years, and also confiscating that pay if they don't stay at the same company until the pension vests (so people cannot leave without incurring a huge financial penalty even if they hate their job and can find better options elsewhere).

See, this is why people need unions. In my country pensions are handled by the employer AND the union. All the issues you mention are not present here, since unions would not agree to let employers hold a pension over someone like this.
Post reply on HN