4 ms·

> Advocating for parental leave? Politics. Mothers rooms? Politics. Prayer rooms? Politics. Trans inclusive health care? Politics. Domestic partner benefits? Po

by flukus 7y ago

> Advocating for parental leave? Politics. Mothers rooms? Politics. Prayer rooms? Politics. Trans inclusive health care? Politics. Domestic partner benefits? Politics. Yep all politics. As political issues they should be dealt with in the political arena of whichever branch of government is responsible. If you strongly believe in these rights and priveleges you'd be spending your time advocating for universal access to them. Doing it on a per company basis is ineffective and selfish, there will always be a race to the bottom and it gives your competitors an advantage.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Companies should only do the minimum required by law? We only win if everyone gets the benefit? I disagree, you are making perfect the enemy of good. The only solution is not "make the government mandate the solution".
- flukus 7y ago
  > Companies should only do the minimum required by law? Whether they should or not is irrelevant, it's what they do. Companies com and go, companies that spend more than they have to tend to go faster, employers change even more frequently. Do you want to put up this fight every time you change employers? Do you want to be stuck at one employer because changing jobs means losing benefits? > We only win if everyone gets the benefit? I don't consider getting these benefits for the privileged few with job mobility to be much of a win. Even for them it's probably not a long term win. > The only solution is not "make the government mandate the solution". It's not the only solution just the best solution, more unionization would be another solution that's way better than a piecemeal company by company approach though. The government solution also offers up some much better alternatives in cases like healthcare.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Companies should only do the minimum required by law? Google goes to extensive lengths to pay the minimum taxes required by law, exploiting every loophole they can find. Just saying.
pas 7y ago
What this has to do with state/country level politics (sure, besides everything, but)? You are simply saying to your employer (or potential employer) that I have this need (healthcare, mothers' room, 4 day workweek, whatever), and that were they willing to provide that you are going to work there. Naturally if many people band together that constitutes a better bargaining strategy. (Sounds familiar?) But unions and all the formal groupings are problematic, because they quickly regress to representing only the very common issues and/or smaller issues themselves become bargaining chips. Solidarity organically grows these flocks of people banded together, and thus pragmatically these kinds of ad-hoc organizations have the same bargaining power as formal unions. (And the fact that Google fears this so much that they are willing to risk breaking the law because of it shows this.)
- baq 7y ago
  google (or any large organization) feels it needs to be in control of itself. having an out-of-band organization like an union is in direct opposition to that goal. note that HR is an organization that does for employers what the union is supposed to do for employees. no wonder HR will make most aggressive moves to not allow any union to form at almost any cost.
- flukus 7y ago
  > You are simply saying to your employer (or potential employer) that I have this need (healthcare, mothers' room, 4 day workweek, whatever), and that were they willing to provide that you are going to work there. You are simply saying to your employer (or potential employer) that I have this need (disabled toilets, minimum wage, safe working conditions, whatever), and that were they willing to provide that you are going to work there. Should we end government disability regulations and let workers negotiate it for themselves? Is it really too much too ask governments to provide a base regulation for prayer rooms like they do disabled toilets? Minimum working conditions have always been set by government, especially for people who lack job mobility, which is why I consider a privileged few campaigning to do it at there tech corp to be selfish.
  - pas 7y ago

by flukus 7y ago

Pfhreak 7y ago

Companies should only do the minimum required by law? We only win if everyone gets the benefit? I disagree, you are making perfect the enemy of good. The only solution is not "make the government mandate the solution".

flukus 7y ago
> Companies should only do the minimum required by law? Whether they should or not is irrelevant, it's what they do. Companies com and go, companies that spend more than they have to tend to go faster, employers change even more frequently. Do you want to put up this fight every time you change employers? Do you want to be stuck at one employer because changing jobs means losing benefits? > We only win if everyone gets the benefit? I don't consider getting these benefits for the privileged few with job mobility to be much of a win. Even for them it's probably not a long term win. > The only solution is not "make the government mandate the solution". It's not the only solution just the best solution, more unionization would be another solution that's way better than a piecemeal company by company approach though. The government solution also offers up some much better alternatives in cases like healthcare.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Companies should only do the minimum required by law? Google goes to extensive lengths to pay the minimum taxes required by law, exploiting every loophole they can find. Just saying.

pas 7y ago

What this has to do with state/country level politics (sure, besides everything, but)? You are simply saying to your employer (or potential employer) that I have this need (healthcare, mothers' room, 4 day workweek, whatever), and that were they willing to provide that you are going to work there. Naturally if many people band together that constitutes a better bargaining strategy. (Sounds familiar?) But unions and all the formal groupings are problematic, because they quickly regress to representing only the very common issues and/or smaller issues themselves become bargaining chips. Solidarity organically grows these flocks of people banded together, and thus pragmatically these kinds of ad-hoc organizations have the same bargaining power as formal unions. (And the fact that Google fears this so much that they are willing to risk breaking the law because of it shows this.)

baq 7y ago
google (or any large organization) feels it needs to be in control of itself. having an out-of-band organization like an union is in direct opposition to that goal. note that HR is an organization that does for employers what the union is supposed to do for employees. no wonder HR will make most aggressive moves to not allow any union to form at almost any cost.
flukus 7y ago
> You are simply saying to your employer (or potential employer) that I have this need (healthcare, mothers' room, 4 day workweek, whatever), and that were they willing to provide that you are going to work there. You are simply saying to your employer (or potential employer) that I have this need (disabled toilets, minimum wage, safe working conditions, whatever), and that were they willing to provide that you are going to work there. Should we end government disability regulations and let workers negotiate it for themselves? Is it really too much too ask governments to provide a base regulation for prayer rooms like they do disabled toilets? Minimum working conditions have always been set by government, especially for people who lack job mobility, which is why I consider a privileged few campaigning to do it at there tech corp to be selfish.
- pas 7y ago