3 ms·

Sundar Pichai is an employee and board member. He's not a "regular" employee, but I don't think a regular employee gets enough perspective to make effective dec

by Aunche 7y ago

Sundar Pichai is an employee and board member. He's not a "regular" employee, but I don't think a regular employee gets enough perspective to make effective decisions across the company. They would have to take their board position more seriously than their full time job, which would make them not a regular employee anymore.

empath75 7y ago
The point of having employee representation in the board isn’t putting a janitor in the board room, it’s putting someone on the board who represents the interests of employees first. She doesn’t have to be a regular employee. I think it’s the kind of idea that sounds good on paper, but it’s trivially easy to corrupt someone once they’re in that sort of position of power.
- mtgx 7y ago
  Make it so the representative is paid directly by the workers via a mandatory fee (whatever sum is necessary to pay their salary), and then make it illegal for the company to pay or reward that board member in any way. If the latter is breached, put the company's CEO in jail. No weaseling out with "fines" or "settlements" -- straight to jail. Maybe my version is slightly too extreme, but I think we can be creative enough to find a good solution for this. It doesn't sound impossible to me at all. Other countries already have similar laws in place.
  - no_wizard 7y ago
    So, a Union? Isn't this basically what a Union is? Paying fees (dues) for continued employee representation. Sounds like Unionizing is what people are looking for, but not calling it that. I don't see a distinguished difference between any ideas of employee representation like this and a professional/labor union.
- cmsj 7y ago
  An employee council could provide a person to the board, with the power to replace that person as they see fit.
nerpderp82 7y ago
I am not sure what you did there, an Ouroboros argument about a continual and inseparable membrane between the owners and the workers? Is it _really_ not possible to have employee representation? I find that hard to believe.
- erinnh 7y ago
  Look into work councils. Its one solution that does work. Employees are elected by all employees to represent them in the council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    I have some experience with work councils in Germany and they have some significant downsides, including for employees, that we need to be honest about. Yes, employees get credible representation at the most senior levels of management, but that comes at a cost. My experience may not be universal but from what I gather it is representative. First, works councils are strongly biased toward the organizational status quo by default. They can deny/delay opportunities to individual employees against the wishes of that employee and even though the works council has no credible claim to skin in the game. I've seen it happen and it demotivates employees it happens to. Companies use a lot of hacks to informally let people reorganize themselves without the consent of the works council to get around this. Second, many trivial and inconsequential operational decisions become glacially slow because works councils tend to micromanage all of them at ponderous speed. Even obvious employee issues which would be resolved in 30 seconds at an American company can take months when the works council is involved, all to the benefit of no one really. This takes a very visible toll on speed of execution. It creates interesting dynamics when the company is global because the rest of the company may not be able to wait for the works council, so the employees under the works council may feel like they are on the outside looking in as the rest of the company moves forward. The loss of autonomy over my own career would bother me as an employee. The loss of operational agility and execution speed would bother me as a business.
    - 7y ago
dmos62 7y ago
Well if you're right, that works both ways the: if an employee can't take the company's interests into perspective, the board can't take the employees'. Of course, the premise is wrong. Both "worlds" are perfectly compatible, if you can come off the greed horse and compromise on the quarterly profits.
- Aunche 7y ago
  I'm sure some companies can benefit from employee representation on the board, but I don't think Google is one of them. Google is possibly the cushiest company to work for in the entire world. I and I imagine most shareholders would rather Google spend more money on self-driving cars than solving every little grievance employees have.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > Google is possibly the cushiest company to work for in the entire world It has an enduring reputation for having been cushy in the past - and it might still feel cushy if you happen to mesh well with the prevailing company culture. But many people don't see it that way, apparently - to the point where they feel that their work itself is being impacted. And the way the whole Rubin story has been handled is also indicative of very real problems, to be sure. Many people want to work in a thoroughly professional environment, some place they can feel genuinely proud to be within - I can't blame the Google folks for walking out.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      >And the way the whole Rubin story has been handled is also indicative of very real problems, to be sure. Maybe Google has gotten worse, but the way the employees reacted to this "scandal" leads me to believe that they're acting entitled. Rubin was accused of harassment and asked to leave. That's all that should matter from an employee's perspective. The $90 million payout was a hedge to ensure that Rubin doesn't sue Google and cause negative publicity. It's not coming out of the employee's paycheck, so it's none of their business.
    - 7y ago

by Aunche 7y ago

empath75 7y ago

The point of having employee representation in the board isn’t putting a janitor in the board room, it’s putting someone on the board who represents the interests of employees first. She doesn’t have to be a regular employee. I think it’s the kind of idea that sounds good on paper, but it’s trivially easy to corrupt someone once they’re in that sort of position of power.

mtgx 7y ago
Make it so the representative is paid directly by the workers via a mandatory fee (whatever sum is necessary to pay their salary), and then make it illegal for the company to pay or reward that board member in any way. If the latter is breached, put the company's CEO in jail. No weaseling out with "fines" or "settlements" -- straight to jail. Maybe my version is slightly too extreme, but I think we can be creative enough to find a good solution for this. It doesn't sound impossible to me at all. Other countries already have similar laws in place.
- no_wizard 7y ago
  So, a Union? Isn't this basically what a Union is? Paying fees (dues) for continued employee representation. Sounds like Unionizing is what people are looking for, but not calling it that. I don't see a distinguished difference between any ideas of employee representation like this and a professional/labor union.
cmsj 7y ago
An employee council could provide a person to the board, with the power to replace that person as they see fit.

nerpderp82 7y ago

I am not sure what you did there, an Ouroboros argument about a continual and inseparable membrane between the owners and the workers? Is it _really_ not possible to have employee representation? I find that hard to believe.

erinnh 7y ago
Look into work councils. Its one solution that does work. Employees are elected by all employees to represent them in the council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  I have some experience with work councils in Germany and they have some significant downsides, including for employees, that we need to be honest about. Yes, employees get credible representation at the most senior levels of management, but that comes at a cost. My experience may not be universal but from what I gather it is representative. First, works councils are strongly biased toward the organizational status quo by default. They can deny/delay opportunities to individual employees against the wishes of that employee and even though the works council has no credible claim to skin in the game. I've seen it happen and it demotivates employees it happens to. Companies use a lot of hacks to informally let people reorganize themselves without the consent of the works council to get around this. Second, many trivial and inconsequential operational decisions become glacially slow because works councils tend to micromanage all of them at ponderous speed. Even obvious employee issues which would be resolved in 30 seconds at an American company can take months when the works council is involved, all to the benefit of no one really. This takes a very visible toll on speed of execution. It creates interesting dynamics when the company is global because the rest of the company may not be able to wait for the works council, so the employees under the works council may feel like they are on the outside looking in as the rest of the company moves forward. The loss of autonomy over my own career would bother me as an employee. The loss of operational agility and execution speed would bother me as a business.
  - 7y ago

dmos62 7y ago

Well if you're right, that works both ways the: if an employee can't take the company's interests into perspective, the board can't take the employees'. Of course, the premise is wrong. Both "worlds" are perfectly compatible, if you can come off the greed horse and compromise on the quarterly profits.

Aunche 7y ago
I'm sure some companies can benefit from employee representation on the board, but I don't think Google is one of them. Google is possibly the cushiest company to work for in the entire world. I and I imagine most shareholders would rather Google spend more money on self-driving cars than solving every little grievance employees have.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > Google is possibly the cushiest company to work for in the entire world It has an enduring reputation for having been cushy in the past - and it might still feel cushy if you happen to mesh well with the prevailing company culture. But many people don't see it that way, apparently - to the point where they feel that their work itself is being impacted. And the way the whole Rubin story has been handled is also indicative of very real problems, to be sure. Many people want to work in a thoroughly professional environment, some place they can feel genuinely proud to be within - I can't blame the Google folks for walking out.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    >And the way the whole Rubin story has been handled is also indicative of very real problems, to be sure. Maybe Google has gotten worse, but the way the employees reacted to this "scandal" leads me to believe that they're acting entitled. Rubin was accused of harassment and asked to leave. That's all that should matter from an employee's perspective. The $90 million payout was a hedge to ensure that Rubin doesn't sue Google and cause negative publicity. It's not coming out of the employee's paycheck, so it's none of their business.
  - 7y ago