3 ms·

Yeah, why would Googlers ever be concerned about their safety or pay? It’s not like the company ever fixed wages or paid out millions to an exec accused of sexu

Yeah, why would Googlers ever be concerned about their safety or pay? It’s not like the company ever fixed wages or paid out millions to an exec accused of sexually assaulting an employee. Oh wait...

thu2111 7y ago
Wage fixing was crap, mostly driven by Steve Jobs and stopped when it was discovered/Jobs died. Unionization was not required to solve that, just enforcing existing laws. Isn't it even the opposite - unions are at heart wage fixing cartels, but which claim to be doing it for the benefits of "the workers" against "management". An artificial and essentially Marxist distinction, especially at a place like Google where so many employees have aspects of management responsibility e.g. any tech lead, and where individual contributors are frequently paid more than their managers. As for Andy Rubin, you seem to have assumed that accusation is the same as guilt. But Rubin was being accused by a former girlfriend he dumped: hardly a neutral party. You never heard his side of the story, but I'll give you a hint: he denied it. A senior exec being accused of some sort of sexual misbehaviour happens every day, women know these accusations are frequently treated as true-by-default without anyone caring about the details and use it. Just look at the FBI's own stats on false rape claims as proven by DNA tests. False accusations by women against men with regards to sex crimes is way more common than for any other kind of crime, like an order of magnitude more common. You can't make any assumptions Google or Rubin did anything wrong here, none of us have enough information. But finally, the complainants weren't limiting themselves to wage fixing that for many predated their employment, or Andy Rubin's bedroom habits. They're moaning about enforcement of immigration laws. They know they can't convince the general public to vote for totally open borders because it's an extreme policy that would create massive problems, as is abolition of the Department of Defence. So they've decided to try and get what they want by pressuring firms that act as component suppliers. Organising to make democratically chosen policies unimplementable is not what union protections were meant to be about.
- DoctorNick 7y ago
  This comment is a perfect example of how reactionary the PMC can become, I'm putting this in my cringe compilation.

thu2111 7y ago

Wage fixing was crap, mostly driven by Steve Jobs and stopped when it was discovered/Jobs died. Unionization was not required to solve that, just enforcing existing laws. Isn't it even the opposite - unions are at heart wage fixing cartels, but which claim to be doing it for the benefits of "the workers" against "management". An artificial and essentially Marxist distinction, especially at a place like Google where so many employees have aspects of management responsibility e.g. any tech lead, and where individual contributors are frequently paid more than their managers. As for Andy Rubin, you seem to have assumed that accusation is the same as guilt. But Rubin was being accused by a former girlfriend he dumped: hardly a neutral party. You never heard his side of the story, but I'll give you a hint: he denied it. A senior exec being accused of some sort of sexual misbehaviour happens every day, women know these accusations are frequently treated as true-by-default without anyone caring about the details and use it. Just look at the FBI's own stats on false rape claims as proven by DNA tests. False accusations by women against men with regards to sex crimes is way more common than for any other kind of crime, like an order of magnitude more common. You can't make any assumptions Google or Rubin did anything wrong here, none of us have enough information. But finally, the complainants weren't limiting themselves to wage fixing that for many predated their employment, or Andy Rubin's bedroom habits. They're moaning about enforcement of immigration laws. They know they can't convince the general public to vote for totally open borders because it's an extreme policy that would create massive problems, as is abolition of the Department of Defence. So they've decided to try and get what they want by pressuring firms that act as component suppliers. Organising to make democratically chosen policies unimplementable is not what union protections were meant to be about.

DoctorNick 7y ago
This comment is a perfect example of how reactionary the PMC can become, I'm putting this in my cringe compilation.