6 ms·

What happened to "Don't Be Evil"? How did it go so wrong?

by acruns 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago
Is it really 'evil' to disagree with unions? Doesn't seem like a particularly controversial, unusual, or unreasonable viewpoint, among people from all backgrounds and political alignments, workers and leaders alike.
- brmgb 7y ago
  Yes, it is really evil for a corporation to disagree with the concept of unionisation (I don't actually understand what it means to disagree with unions). The relationship between employer and employee is a fundamentally uneven one. The ability to organise and cooperate amongst employees to bargain on an even ground is an important right, a right which was hard won by our forefathers. > Doesn't seem like a particularly controversial, unusual, or unreasonable viewpoint, among people from all backgrounds, workers and leaders alike. Widespread opposition to unionisation is fairly unique to the USA, a country with both a shockingly low level of unionisation, poor working conditions in regard to its richness and high inequality.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    > Yes, it is really evil for a corporation to disagree with the concept of unionisation Corporations are made of people. Unions lose fair votes all the time. People who oppose unions are smart, honest, hard-working people who love their children and who just happen to have a difference of opinion with respect to policy. Are all of these people "evil"? Are they all morally unredeemable because they prefer a different kind of employee-employer relationship? It's bonkers how many people think the answer is "yes". Deciding that anyone who disliked unionization is just evil is unlikely to be persuasive: instead, it'll just create division and bitterness and create conflict where there could have been cooperation. Accepting the legitimacy of disagreement is a foundational aspect of a healthy,safe, and productive society. When you take that away, you're left with nothing but chaos.
    - brmgb 7y ago
      >> Yes, it is really evil for a corporation to disagree with the concept of unionisation > Corporations are made of people. [...] Deciding that anyone who disliked unionization is just evil I only said corporations opposing unionisation are evil. I didn't say anything about people opposing unionisation. Corporations are not people. Personally I think people opposing unionisation are mostly deluded and often misinformed. I don't think they are evil however. People by themselves are rarely evil. Corporations are owned by people and employ people. These two kinds of people have by design fundamentally different power inside the corporation. A corporation is an organisation whose purpose is to serve their owners goals (generally making money). From the point of view of the corporation, workers are merely an accessory to this goal. Furthermore, the relationship between workers and corporation is a fundamentally asymmetric one. For the corporation, a single worker is pretty much always replaceable while for the worker the corporation is often is main source of income. Thus, without collective representation, a worker will always be at the mercy of its employer. That's why unions are so useful. They give employees a safe way to communicate with, negociate large change with and oppose their employer. Going against that for a corporation seems truly evil to me. > it'll just create division and bitterness and create conflict where there could have been cooperation What is workers cooperating together if not a union ? I think that's where the problem lies. From what I have seen Americans tend to have a rather narrow view of unions and remain unaware of the diversity existing in the world. Apparently Americans tend to equal unions with mandatory membership, reserved jobs and fixed salary which is very far from the idea Europeans have of unions. In Germany for example, you will find unions with vastly different opinions and employees in a company are represented by a plurality of unions. In this context it is not too hard to find one close to what you believe in.
    - blub 7y ago
      I've seen this fake appeal to fairness so many times... Disagreement is one thing. For example I'm disagreeing with you right now. But I'm not hiring a company that will follow you everywhere at work to try to convince you how wrong you are. And I don't have limitless financial resources to dedicate to proving you wrong and fend off any legal recourse you might attempt. If I had and did the above I doubt you'd be so relaxed about the whole thing and call it disagreement.
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    Your post only makes sense when you frame the employer-employee relationship as adversarial. When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both parties, unions, which make money when employees and employers are in conflict, seem like a much less appealing idea.
    - brmgb 7y ago
      > unions, which make money when employees and employers are in conflict That's non sense. Unions are not for profit organisations making money during conflict. Most unions are not for profit association representing their members for collective bargaining. Companies can and do have good relationship with unions. It is in everyone interest that the company works. It's just easier to negociate when you have collective power and can have a meaningful impact. Also companies absolutely are not there to create wealth for their workers. Google especially has an history with non poaching agreements.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      "When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both parties" But it isn't. Especially not Google, who cut the wealth of their employees at the knees via non-poaching agreements.
    - mandevil 7y ago
      When you illegally conspire to hold down the salaries of your employees you lose the benefit of the doubt.
- tristram_shandy 7y ago
  Is it really evil if a few children die in the factory? Is it really evil if the work week is 96 hours? Is it really evil if we go hungry while the profits of labour are captured by people who are already millionaires and billionaires? Unionization is simply democratization of industry. Unionization of the workplace ensures that wages, safety, environmental and social concerns are addressed democratically by workers and management, organized collectively against the short term interests of rapacious capital. So yes, preventing labour from organizing collectively is oppressive, totalitarian, and anti-democratic. It's evil.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    You realize that we are talking about Google, right? These examples are hilarious, but also a little insulting to employees who actually need unions. Which does not include any Google employees.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      > You realize that we are talking about Google, right? The context is "disagreeing with unions", which wasn't further qualified. edit: and certainly not restricted to Google. Just re-read chrisseaton's comment -- downvoting me doesn't change what's written here, it just adds the data point of dishonesty and underhanded tactics. > These examples are hilarious, but also a little insulting to employees who actually need unions. How so?
    - blub 7y ago
      Given that Google was illegally colluding with several other companies to keep employee salaries down, maybe said employees do need an organization to watch their backs.
    - 8note 7y ago
      it seems to me like Google needs unions -- not for pay, but for having a bigger say in what gets made and what shouldn't be created
      - 7y ago
- skyyler 7y ago
  From this firm's website: "The Result: Despite dedicating millions of dollars to their organizing campaigns, the unions did not gain enough support to hold an NLRB-conducted election and were not able to organize any of the employees." I'm not sure how preventing the organisation of labour is anything but evil. The employees wanted to unionize and this firm was able to prevent that. Nice job!
  - GauntletWizard 7y ago
    "The employees" didn't want to organize. Some employees wanted to unionize. It's in your quote. "unions did not gain enough support". Your comment is meaningless and you've been fined ten demerits.
    - skyyler 7y ago
      You don't think that has anything to do with the consultancy that was brought in to prevent unionisation?
      - GauntletWizard 7y ago
        I think that has something to do with it. I don't think they held guns to the workers head and told them "vote union and die", though it was certainly a tactic.the Pinkertons used in the past. Lobbying can only do so much to change ones mind.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > the unions did not gain enough support > The employees wanted to unionize Sounds like they didn’t? Trying to unionise people who don’t want to be unionised, and throwing their money around to do it, sounds not democratic.
    - yabadabadoes 7y ago
pfundstein 7y ago
Google quietly ditched that motto years ago.
Accujack 7y ago
The seldom repeated following phrase "Unless there's money in it for you." probably had something to do with it. More frankly, the original company may have meant "Don't be evil"... but like many idealistic corporate ideas, it's been superseded by the effects of corruption and capitalism in the US.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
I mean, they colluded with Apple et al with non-poaching agreements a long time ago.
freyr 7y ago
When did "evil" become "anything that doesn't personally suit me"?

What happened to "Don't Be Evil"? How did it go so wrong?

by acruns 7y ago

What happened to "Don't Be Evil"? How did it go so wrong?

Is it really 'evil' to disagree with unions? Doesn't seem like a particularly controversial, unusual, or unreasonable viewpoint, among people from all backgrounds and political alignments, workers and leaders alike.

brmgb 7y ago
Yes, it is really evil for a corporation to disagree with the concept of unionisation (I don't actually understand what it means to disagree with unions). The relationship between employer and employee is a fundamentally uneven one. The ability to organise and cooperate amongst employees to bargain on an even ground is an important right, a right which was hard won by our forefathers. > Doesn't seem like a particularly controversial, unusual, or unreasonable viewpoint, among people from all backgrounds, workers and leaders alike. Widespread opposition to unionisation is fairly unique to the USA, a country with both a shockingly low level of unionisation, poor working conditions in regard to its richness and high inequality.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > Yes, it is really evil for a corporation to disagree with the concept of unionisation Corporations are made of people. Unions lose fair votes all the time. People who oppose unions are smart, honest, hard-working people who love their children and who just happen to have a difference of opinion with respect to policy. Are all of these people "evil"? Are they all morally unredeemable because they prefer a different kind of employee-employer relationship? It's bonkers how many people think the answer is "yes". Deciding that anyone who disliked unionization is just evil is unlikely to be persuasive: instead, it'll just create division and bitterness and create conflict where there could have been cooperation. Accepting the legitimacy of disagreement is a foundational aspect of a healthy,safe, and productive society. When you take that away, you're left with nothing but chaos.
  - brmgb 7y ago
    >> Yes, it is really evil for a corporation to disagree with the concept of unionisation > Corporations are made of people. [...] Deciding that anyone who disliked unionization is just evil I only said corporations opposing unionisation are evil. I didn't say anything about people opposing unionisation. Corporations are not people. Personally I think people opposing unionisation are mostly deluded and often misinformed. I don't think they are evil however. People by themselves are rarely evil. Corporations are owned by people and employ people. These two kinds of people have by design fundamentally different power inside the corporation. A corporation is an organisation whose purpose is to serve their owners goals (generally making money). From the point of view of the corporation, workers are merely an accessory to this goal. Furthermore, the relationship between workers and corporation is a fundamentally asymmetric one. For the corporation, a single worker is pretty much always replaceable while for the worker the corporation is often is main source of income. Thus, without collective representation, a worker will always be at the mercy of its employer. That's why unions are so useful. They give employees a safe way to communicate with, negociate large change with and oppose their employer. Going against that for a corporation seems truly evil to me. > it'll just create division and bitterness and create conflict where there could have been cooperation What is workers cooperating together if not a union ? I think that's where the problem lies. From what I have seen Americans tend to have a rather narrow view of unions and remain unaware of the diversity existing in the world. Apparently Americans tend to equal unions with mandatory membership, reserved jobs and fixed salary which is very far from the idea Europeans have of unions. In Germany for example, you will find unions with vastly different opinions and employees in a company are represented by a plurality of unions. In this context it is not too hard to find one close to what you believe in.
  - blub 7y ago
    I've seen this fake appeal to fairness so many times... Disagreement is one thing. For example I'm disagreeing with you right now. But I'm not hiring a company that will follow you everywhere at work to try to convince you how wrong you are. And I don't have limitless financial resources to dedicate to proving you wrong and fend off any legal recourse you might attempt. If I had and did the above I doubt you'd be so relaxed about the whole thing and call it disagreement.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  Your post only makes sense when you frame the employer-employee relationship as adversarial. When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both parties, unions, which make money when employees and employers are in conflict, seem like a much less appealing idea.
  - brmgb 7y ago
    > unions, which make money when employees and employers are in conflict That's non sense. Unions are not for profit organisations making money during conflict. Most unions are not for profit association representing their members for collective bargaining. Companies can and do have good relationship with unions. It is in everyone interest that the company works. It's just easier to negociate when you have collective power and can have a meaningful impact. Also companies absolutely are not there to create wealth for their workers. Google especially has an history with non poaching agreements.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "When you frame it as working together to create wealth for both parties" But it isn't. Especially not Google, who cut the wealth of their employees at the knees via non-poaching agreements.
  - mandevil 7y ago
    When you illegally conspire to hold down the salaries of your employees you lose the benefit of the doubt.
tristram_shandy 7y ago
Is it really evil if a few children die in the factory? Is it really evil if the work week is 96 hours? Is it really evil if we go hungry while the profits of labour are captured by people who are already millionaires and billionaires? Unionization is simply democratization of industry. Unionization of the workplace ensures that wages, safety, environmental and social concerns are addressed democratically by workers and management, organized collectively against the short term interests of rapacious capital. So yes, preventing labour from organizing collectively is oppressive, totalitarian, and anti-democratic. It's evil.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  You realize that we are talking about Google, right? These examples are hilarious, but also a little insulting to employees who actually need unions. Which does not include any Google employees.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > You realize that we are talking about Google, right? The context is "disagreeing with unions", which wasn't further qualified. edit: and certainly not restricted to Google. Just re-read chrisseaton's comment -- downvoting me doesn't change what's written here, it just adds the data point of dishonesty and underhanded tactics. > These examples are hilarious, but also a little insulting to employees who actually need unions. How so?
  - blub 7y ago
    Given that Google was illegally colluding with several other companies to keep employee salaries down, maybe said employees do need an organization to watch their backs.
  - 8note 7y ago
    it seems to me like Google needs unions -- not for pay, but for having a bigger say in what gets made and what shouldn't be created
    - 7y ago
skyyler 7y ago
From this firm's website: "The Result: Despite dedicating millions of dollars to their organizing campaigns, the unions did not gain enough support to hold an NLRB-conducted election and were not able to organize any of the employees." I'm not sure how preventing the organisation of labour is anything but evil. The employees wanted to unionize and this firm was able to prevent that. Nice job!
- GauntletWizard 7y ago
  "The employees" didn't want to organize. Some employees wanted to unionize. It's in your quote. "unions did not gain enough support". Your comment is meaningless and you've been fined ten demerits.
  - skyyler 7y ago
    You don't think that has anything to do with the consultancy that was brought in to prevent unionisation?
    - GauntletWizard 7y ago
      I think that has something to do with it. I don't think they held guns to the workers head and told them "vote union and die", though it was certainly a tactic.the Pinkertons used in the past. Lobbying can only do so much to change ones mind.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > the unions did not gain enough support > The employees wanted to unionize Sounds like they didn’t? Trying to unionise people who don’t want to be unionised, and throwing their money around to do it, sounds not democratic.
  - yabadabadoes 7y ago

pfundstein 7y ago

Google quietly ditched that motto years ago.

Accujack 7y ago

The seldom repeated following phrase "Unless there's money in it for you." probably had something to do with it. More frankly, the original company may have meant "Don't be evil"... but like many idealistic corporate ideas, it's been superseded by the effects of corruption and capitalism in the US.

SamReidHughes 7y ago

I mean, they colluded with Apple et al with non-poaching agreements a long time ago.

freyr 7y ago

When did "evil" become "anything that doesn't personally suit me"?