5 ms·
If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.
by dcre 8y ago
If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.
- smokeyj 8y agoCan you imagine a search engine developed by union labor? It’s actually funny if you think about it. Side note: Do you think police officers act with more accountability or less considering their unions status? As if anyone else can shoot innocent people and take paid leave.
- gumby 8y agoWhy? I built my house with union labor. I think I got a much better result.
- almost_usual 8y agoCan you imagine a city built by Google engineers? It's kinda creepy when you think about it.
- rhizome 8y agoIt would be a simple design, with strong walls, complicated HVAC, and no floors.
- leereeves 8y agoWhen negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone (members or not) from doing the work. Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.
- notacoward 8y agoYes, because there's an infinite supply of completely interchangeable workers, and no costs associated with hiring or training.
- leereeves 8y agoYes, those are two obstacles that employers face when hiring strikebreakers, along with more significant obstacles like laws forbidding strikebreakers, licensing, and union violence. The common factor is that it's not enough to refuse to work, unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.
- notacoward 8y ago> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work. Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?
- leereeves 8y agoI wouldn't, they should be free to work or not as they choose. But they shouldn't be able to abridge anyone else's freedom and I doubt they're as irreplaceable as you think.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- notacoward 8y agoDoubt all you like. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether Google doubts it, and I think they know better. They know the costs of hiring and training and downtime for their business. Do you seriously suppose that they think they could just find a few thousand replacements on a moment's notice?
- leereeves 8y agoNow you're making a different argument. Yes, there are costs involved in replacing employees, and there are costs involved in allowing employees to walk out or refuse to work on certain projects. Naturally Google will weigh those costs. But earlier you claimed they were "the only ones" capable, and that I wanted to abridge their freedom of association. I disagreed with both those statements. Now that you've restricted your position to acknowledging a reasonable cost/benefit tradeoff for Google, I agree.