12 ms·

Better workplace protection for whistleblowers and protection from sexism and company retaliation seems like a good thing for google. There have been a stream o

Better workplace protection for whistleblowers and protection from sexism and company retaliation seems like a good thing for google. There have been a stream of these court cases. I think this is actually something that would also benefit google - they seem to constantly struggle with this. I think google is no worse than other tech companies and based on my time there I think the company is well intentioned. They are just so large, a little more structure could help them. Of course, union members with workplace protections don't usually get stock grants, free food, and a free gym. Google needs to address these problems themselves, but of course it's so hard for big companies not to just try to stop unions. Instead of stopping unions, work on those workplace protections. Stop hiding problems and paying off executives with tons of sexual harassment claims to go away.

zajd 7y ago
> Better workplace protection for whistleblowers and protection from sexism and company retaliation seems like a good thing for google. You're delusional if you think these are a "good thing" for the people who are in control of the organization. There's a reason they are anti-unions. Unions are effective and will reduce their profits by enfranchising their workers. Free food, gym memberships, and stock options have nothing to do with Google workers being unionized. If you believe that you're just eating the propaganda the ownership class is pushing. Unions work and are desperately needed. Google will never let it happen, and the US government is happy to stand by and let these sorts of blatantly illegal anti-union tactics keep taking place... because surprise, the same ones collecting Google's profits are the same people who control the government. (and yes, I realize this is in Zurich, which is not in the US, but pretty much all western governments bow to the US so it's irrelevant really)
twobat 7y ago
It always seemed "funny" how come executives with more wealth than some cities get to become sexual aggressors.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
walshemj 7y ago
Talk to my mate at BT (with union regontion) who made £125k tax free on his final sharesave. And Google Et Al only give "free" food as the IRS doesn't tax it as a benefit in kind - quite why they don't as it would be an easy tax to collect.
- hnaccy 7y ago
  I thought IRS started taxing the free food? Bummed me out, since I love it as a perk.
  - anon73044 7y ago
    https://blog.namely.com/tax-reform-takes-a-bite-out-of-office-snacks https://blog.namely.com/tax-reform-takes-a-bite-out-of-offic... vs https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/irs-employer-provided-meals-snacks-tax.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pa... hard to tell what's accurate these days
  - 0xEFF 7y ago
    Yes, free meals are taxed. The worker's employer receives the 1099. For FTE's Google pays the tax, for TVC's their employer receives a 1099-MISC each year. This is why you'll notice all US based offices require you to badge in every meal every time while an office in Canada does not.
minikites 7y ago
>Of course, union members with workplace protections don't usually get stock grants, free food, and a free gym. The reason Google provides those things is because someone crunched the numbers and determined that it was a cheaper way to get employees to work free overtime compared to higher salaries.
- esoterica 7y ago
  How many unionized companies pay higher salaries than Google?
  - Zarath 7y ago
    This is a trick question in so many ways. Almost every single company in the country pays less than Google. So you could say the same about any non-unionized company too. If unions arose out of poor working conditions then it probably follows that salaries for that work were poor. Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean you're not being underpaid or exploited. These software companies aren't some of the most profitable companies in the world for no reason.
    - briandear 7y ago
      > Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean you're not being underpaid or exploited. If you are a Google engineer, you can go work for literally anyone else if you feel you are underpaid and exploited. It isn’t like Google is the only buyer of labor in that market. Some chicken processing plant in Iowa — that might be a different conversation, but this is Google. If you feel you are underpaid, then leave. Go work for Netflix, I hear they pay a lot. Don’t like Netflix? Try Apple, LinkedIn, or start your own company. Plenty of money out there for an “ex-Google engineer” with an idea.
      - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        So here's something I always wonder about when I see arguments that unions aren't necessary at tech companies like Google because the workers are highly compensated and presumably well-treated: if we're all sure that's objectively the case, then why should management fight unionization efforts? Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? And, yes, one answer is "if there are no reasonable demands to be made, the union will make unreasonable ones," and sure, that's possible. Maybe newly-unionized employees will suddenly demand double bonuses, three months' paid vacation a year, and free ice cream for life. But I'm not convinced that's the real worry.
IX-103 7y ago
Was the unionization for Google employees or for their contractors? In the case of contractors Google doesn't have direct control over their compensation or perks (except that they must be excluded from some perks to still be legally considered contractors). The whole contractors vs employee distinction is rather sketchy and I think this is yet another symptom of that problem. Google wants contractors instead of employees (because reasons). They hire a contracting company to get workers. The contracting company treats the workers badly, but Google is legally and contractually bound in how it can interfere with workings of the contracting company. If Google just fires the contracting company, I'm not sure anyone would be better off. Reminds me of a government job I had. We were required to have contractors for some portion of the workforce. The contracting company some co-workers worked for went bust and they had to shop around to find a new agency to work through. They ended up in a good bargaining position since they effectively already had placement. They ended up better off than the direct employees (stupid government pay grade scale). They probably could have done better if they were allowed to create their own contacting agency, but they couldn't because it wouldn't have been on the government's whitelist.

zajd 7y ago

> Better workplace protection for whistleblowers and protection from sexism and company retaliation seems like a good thing for google. You're delusional if you think these are a "good thing" for the people who are in control of the organization. There's a reason they are anti-unions. Unions are effective and will reduce their profits by enfranchising their workers. Free food, gym memberships, and stock options have nothing to do with Google workers being unionized. If you believe that you're just eating the propaganda the ownership class is pushing. Unions work and are desperately needed. Google will never let it happen, and the US government is happy to stand by and let these sorts of blatantly illegal anti-union tactics keep taking place... because surprise, the same ones collecting Google's profits are the same people who control the government. (and yes, I realize this is in Zurich, which is not in the US, but pretty much all western governments bow to the US so it's irrelevant really)

twobat 7y ago

It always seemed "funny" how come executives with more wealth than some cities get to become sexual aggressors.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

walshemj 7y ago

Talk to my mate at BT (with union regontion) who made £125k tax free on his final sharesave. And Google Et Al only give "free" food as the IRS doesn't tax it as a benefit in kind - quite why they don't as it would be an easy tax to collect.

hnaccy 7y ago
I thought IRS started taxing the free food? Bummed me out, since I love it as a perk.
- anon73044 7y ago
  https://blog.namely.com/tax-reform-takes-a-bite-out-of-office-snacks https://blog.namely.com/tax-reform-takes-a-bite-out-of-offic... vs https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/irs-employer-provided-meals-snacks-tax.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pa... hard to tell what's accurate these days
- 0xEFF 7y ago
  Yes, free meals are taxed. The worker's employer receives the 1099. For FTE's Google pays the tax, for TVC's their employer receives a 1099-MISC each year. This is why you'll notice all US based offices require you to badge in every meal every time while an office in Canada does not.

minikites 7y ago

>Of course, union members with workplace protections don't usually get stock grants, free food, and a free gym. The reason Google provides those things is because someone crunched the numbers and determined that it was a cheaper way to get employees to work free overtime compared to higher salaries.

esoterica 7y ago
How many unionized companies pay higher salaries than Google?
- Zarath 7y ago
  This is a trick question in so many ways. Almost every single company in the country pays less than Google. So you could say the same about any non-unionized company too. If unions arose out of poor working conditions then it probably follows that salaries for that work were poor. Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean you're not being underpaid or exploited. These software companies aren't some of the most profitable companies in the world for no reason.
  - briandear 7y ago
    > Just because you make a lot of money, doesn't mean you're not being underpaid or exploited. If you are a Google engineer, you can go work for literally anyone else if you feel you are underpaid and exploited. It isn’t like Google is the only buyer of labor in that market. Some chicken processing plant in Iowa — that might be a different conversation, but this is Google. If you feel you are underpaid, then leave. Go work for Netflix, I hear they pay a lot. Don’t like Netflix? Try Apple, LinkedIn, or start your own company. Plenty of money out there for an “ex-Google engineer” with an idea.
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      So here's something I always wonder about when I see arguments that unions aren't necessary at tech companies like Google because the workers are highly compensated and presumably well-treated: if we're all sure that's objectively the case, then why should management fight unionization efforts? Aren't they confident that the union isn't going to come in and say, "Yeah, actually you guys are pretty good, carry on?" If not, why not? And, yes, one answer is "if there are no reasonable demands to be made, the union will make unreasonable ones," and sure, that's possible. Maybe newly-unionized employees will suddenly demand double bonuses, three months' paid vacation a year, and free ice cream for life. But I'm not convinced that's the real worry.

IX-103 7y ago

Was the unionization for Google employees or for their contractors? In the case of contractors Google doesn't have direct control over their compensation or perks (except that they must be excluded from some perks to still be legally considered contractors). The whole contractors vs employee distinction is rather sketchy and I think this is yet another symptom of that problem. Google wants contractors instead of employees (because reasons). They hire a contracting company to get workers. The contracting company treats the workers badly, but Google is legally and contractually bound in how it can interfere with workings of the contracting company. If Google just fires the contracting company, I'm not sure anyone would be better off. Reminds me of a government job I had. We were required to have contractors for some portion of the workforce. The contracting company some co-workers worked for went bust and they had to shop around to find a new agency to work through. They ended up in a good bargaining position since they effectively already had placement. They ended up better off than the direct employees (stupid government pay grade scale). They probably could have done better if they were allowed to create their own contacting agency, but they couldn't because it wouldn't have been on the government's whitelist.