6 ms·

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 c

by 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.
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    >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? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote in union leadership that promises to give them more? That's all fine except unions push for these benefits for existing members equally and only existing members. That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > >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? > Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? By this logic every union pushes for every possible benefit. That doesn't seem to be the reality though (at least in the cases I've read, there are often concessions from both sides of th bargaining table).
      - marcinzm 7y ago
        Concessions are part of negotiating, you never ask for what you want, you ask for twice as much and bargain down. Union looks good for pushing hard and company looks good for getting a better deal. It's also more successful to increase the demands gradually over time since no single round of negotiations goes over the "replace them all with non-union" threshold even if together they do.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      > That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things. Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in recreating things from first principles, and claims to embody a spirit of invention, will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past? I thought our whole shtick was about innovating things for the better?
- josefx 7y ago
  > If you are a Google engineer, you can go work for literally anyone else if you feel you are underpaid and exploited. Must be a recent development if this[1] story is true. It only took a few lawsuits too and far from the first problematic agreement they had to end, so very employee friendly and free market oriented. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-ends-no-poaching-requirement-for-former-employees https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-ends...
stvswn 7y ago
You are attributing the profitability of software companies to what you think is the "underpaying" of its workers? And you think that unionization will lead to higher wages? I'm just trying to understand the argument. If the software industry were to unionize, the union would want to collectively bargain for seniority-based job security rules and other schemes to prevent lower-paid new-hires (people not YET in the union) from taking work from existing union members. Other versions of this effect come in the form of union-imposed certification schemes in the trades, "tenure" rules in education, seniority precedence in picking hours in healthcare, etc. The net effect is that the experienced and powerful members make it hard for the young to get into the profession. I have a problem with that, ideologically. But, in more practical terms: collective bargaining only works to increase wages when the counterparty has no other option. This works when you're talking about workers at the docks: the docks are not going anywhere, the ships need to be unloaded, and you can't exactly bus in some scabs and expect it to work out. With software, what do you think will happen if a union somehow manages, via Swiss law, to unionize one Google office? It's software. Google will leave and hire elsewhere. This is exactly why Subaru and Toyota builds cars in the southern U.S. while Ford builds in Mexico, and why industries are flocking to non-union states, and why the people are going with them.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  > If the software industry were to unionize, the union would want to collectively bargain for seniority-based job security rules and other schemes to prevent lower-paid new-hires (people not YET in the union) from taking work from existing union members. Other versions of this effect come in the form of union-imposed certification schemes in the trades, "tenure" rules in education, seniority precedence in picking hours in healthcare, etc. The net effect is that the experienced and powerful members make it hard for the young to get into the profession. Wow, I didn't know the Writer's Guild and Actor's Guild in Hollywood had seniority-based positions.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > Wow, I didn't know the Writer's Guild and Actor's Guild in Hollywood had seniority-based positions. The Writer’s Guild doesn’t have seniority based positions but it does have seniority based pay. That’s why after you get enough years experience in a writer’s room for tv shows work starts to dry up unless you become a show runner. So after ten or fifteen years of working in tv you have to do something else for many years until your awesome pension kicks in. The Actor’s Guild does work very hard to dualise acting, black listing anyone who works with non-members. The median member of the SAG doesn’t make much off it but the minimum rates the SAG negotiates mean if you have steady work you’re making a solid living. Without them many more people would be actors and fewer would make decent money at it.

by Zarath 7y ago

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.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >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? Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? >But I'm not convinced that's the real worry. Why? What incentive does a union member have to not vote in union leadership that promises to give them more? That's all fine except unions push for these benefits for existing members equally and only existing members. That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > >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? > Because the point of a union isn't to do what's fair but to extract maximum benefits for the union. What do they have to lose by NOT pushing for every single possible benefit? By this logic every union pushes for every possible benefit. That doesn't seem to be the reality though (at least in the cases I've read, there are often concessions from both sides of th bargaining table).
    - marcinzm 7y ago
      Concessions are part of negotiating, you never ask for what you want, you ask for twice as much and bargain down. Union looks good for pushing hard and company looks good for getting a better deal. It's also more successful to increase the demands gradually over time since no single round of negotiations goes over the "replace them all with non-union" threshold even if together they do.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    > That leads to pushes for things like seniority based pay, indifference to those who are better at their jobs, certifications, pointless bureaucracy to prevent moving jobs away from the union, etc. Personally, I don't like those things. Why assume that unions in tech, an industry that has had little to no experience with unions, is composed primarily (at least in Silicon Valley) of those who are often interested in recreating things from first principles, and claims to embody a spirit of invention, will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past? I thought our whole shtick was about innovating things for the better?
josefx 7y ago
> If you are a Google engineer, you can go work for literally anyone else if you feel you are underpaid and exploited. Must be a recent development if this[1] story is true. It only took a few lawsuits too and far from the first problematic agreement they had to end, so very employee friendly and free market oriented. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-ends-no-poaching-requirement-for-former-employees https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-ends...

stvswn 7y ago

You are attributing the profitability of software companies to what you think is the "underpaying" of its workers? And you think that unionization will lead to higher wages? I'm just trying to understand the argument. If the software industry were to unionize, the union would want to collectively bargain for seniority-based job security rules and other schemes to prevent lower-paid new-hires (people not YET in the union) from taking work from existing union members. Other versions of this effect come in the form of union-imposed certification schemes in the trades, "tenure" rules in education, seniority precedence in picking hours in healthcare, etc. The net effect is that the experienced and powerful members make it hard for the young to get into the profession. I have a problem with that, ideologically. But, in more practical terms: collective bargaining only works to increase wages when the counterparty has no other option. This works when you're talking about workers at the docks: the docks are not going anywhere, the ships need to be unloaded, and you can't exactly bus in some scabs and expect it to work out. With software, what do you think will happen if a union somehow manages, via Swiss law, to unionize one Google office? It's software. Google will leave and hire elsewhere. This is exactly why Subaru and Toyota builds cars in the southern U.S. while Ford builds in Mexico, and why industries are flocking to non-union states, and why the people are going with them.

Daishiman 7y ago
> If the software industry were to unionize, the union would want to collectively bargain for seniority-based job security rules and other schemes to prevent lower-paid new-hires (people not YET in the union) from taking work from existing union members. Other versions of this effect come in the form of union-imposed certification schemes in the trades, "tenure" rules in education, seniority precedence in picking hours in healthcare, etc. The net effect is that the experienced and powerful members make it hard for the young to get into the profession. Wow, I didn't know the Writer's Guild and Actor's Guild in Hollywood had seniority-based positions.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > Wow, I didn't know the Writer's Guild and Actor's Guild in Hollywood had seniority-based positions. The Writer’s Guild doesn’t have seniority based positions but it does have seniority based pay. That’s why after you get enough years experience in a writer’s room for tv shows work starts to dry up unless you become a show runner. So after ten or fifteen years of working in tv you have to do something else for many years until your awesome pension kicks in. The Actor’s Guild does work very hard to dualise acting, black listing anyone who works with non-members. The median member of the SAG doesn’t make much off it but the minimum rates the SAG negotiates mean if you have steady work you’re making a solid living. Without them many more people would be actors and fewer would make decent money at it.