7 ms·
From the article i don't quite see if this is a worker's union or a group of people with certain ideological claims they want to enforce. The comment about the
by choeger 6y ago
From the article i don't quite see if this is a worker's union or a group of people with certain ideological claims they want to enforce. The comment about the AI researcher that was allegedly fired for being "critical" hints at the latter.
While a union that represents workers interests is a good thing, I think it would be dangerous to give even a part of google to people with ideological fervor. If, for instance, this group actually wants to and succeeds in turning google into a tool of the cancel culture, things will get ugly soon.
Now that leaves me wondering if it is wise to leave this comment here...
edit:
Just an example from the mission statement:
> We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.
What this means is, not all google workers will be treated equally by this union. "Victims", i.e., persons will be ordered by their "oppression status" and gain preferential treatment. Now it will probably be fun to watch the details in this valuation process (e.g., "is a woman more victim than a black (disabled) male?"), but this inherent categorization of human beings into more and less worth is ugly as hell.
- runawaybottle 6y agoI think it’s fine if it starts off ideologically. A union is only as good as the total membership count. Get everyone in with whatever pretense, then you have bargaining power.
- choeger 6y agoThat's a very risky proposition. From what I can tell from the outside, many "progressives" throw equality and freedom out of the window when it comes to voting. By the tone of that article, I would not even be surprised if white males don't get to vote in that union or are excluded from influential positions.
- runawaybottle 6y agoThink of the long game. Getting a union is the hard part. The ideological fervor will change with seasons, but the core issues will remain the same across decades (the stuff workers want to be able to negotiate). Nothing is free, some price must be paid. Nothing pisses off a company more than workers organizing, so take whatever help you can get.
- dazilcher 6y agoWhy would I want to piss off the company I choose to work for?
- runawaybottle 6y agoBecause now you have numbers :p Check out how the collective bargaining agreement works with the NBA Player’s union and NBA. They get pretty fair terms, led by Chris Paul/LeBron James (who have it the best but they lead the union). https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94ae33f-2017-NBA-NBPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94a... ^^ I can promise you the list of things negotiated in that could never be done well enough by the company itself. Oh, and that’s a union for multi millionaires.
- toopok4k3 6y agoDon't piss them off alone, piss with others and they might treat you better. You might want to think about the balance of the system. Are you actually choosing to work for them instead of the system making it look like they are the best job? Could it be better with some re-balancing?
- ForHackernews 6y agoBecause you can get more money, better working conditions, and guaranteed rights, and that will irritate your bosses' bosses' owners and their investors.
- toopok4k3 6y agoA lot of silly ifs you are throwing out. Maybe ask them yourself and get involved?
- maxehmookau 6y ago> I would not even be surprised if white males don't get to vote in that union or are excluded from influential positions. Good point. Traditionally white men are massively underrepresented and we should be making more of an effort to make sure they're represented at every level of tech. /s
- westmeal 6y agoDo you not realize that judging based on skin color was the same reason the idea of 'representation' exists? A vote should hold equal weight regardless of who you are or what you look like.
- dahfizz 6y agoYou want to judge people by the content of their character instead of their skin color? That's racist. /s
- maxehmookau 6y agoExactly. Except, that isn't what happens right now. Most people aren't intending to make decisions based on skin colour, yet it happens.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bjourne 6y agoHow come you think this union is imbued with "ideological fervor" but not the myriads of investors, executes, and other people who already controls Google? Perhaps Google already is a tool of the cancel culture (cue the X-files intro music)?
- choeger 6y agoSimple. These other people never made such claims in an article.
- beebmam 6y agoDo people who don't publish their views not filled with ideological fervor? This isn't an argument...
- darkerside 6y agoI believe the claim here is that, people should have rights to their own strong ideological opinions, but not the right to enforce their own upon others.
- logicchains 6y ago> Do people who don't publish their views not filled with ideological fervor? I mean, that's pretty much exactly what fervour means? We'd never say "Joe is a fervent supporter of X!" if Joe never talked about X.
- thrill 6y ago"We" would do, and frequently have done, just that if it supports "our" agenda. Hence the rise of the use of such broad brushes as "silence is complicity", etc.
- oh_sigh 6y agoIs "pragmatically want a return on investment" ideological fervor? Words need to mean something at some point.
- John23832 6y agoUnions are ideological groups... > Now that leaves me wondering if it is wise to leave this comment here... Oh how high minded of you.
- nicky0 6y agoUnions are political groups not not necessarily ideological.
- John23832 6y agoSplitting hairs over the difference between political thought and ideology is ridiculous in my opinion.
- nicky0 6y agoI have some sympathy with you, because national politics has seemingly become more and more ideological lately, but politics does not necessarily imply ideology. The word politics in its general form simply refers to the ways people organise to collectively make decisions.
- profunctor 6y agoUnions have ideologies and goals above increasing pay and holidays. Holding management to account is common.
- maxehmookau 6y agoIn the UK, being a member of a trade union usually includes a contribution to the Labour party. Trade union membership and ideological politics are intertwined. This is a good thing and by design.
- code-is-code 6y agoNo this is not a good thing. Binding workers right to political views is dangerous and other countries show that unions can work without any party propaganda.
- Griffinsauce 6y agoThis is so confusing, "workers rights" is political by definition. Aligning to a party can be argued, I'd say it's best to break things up into policies more than "teams" but still.
- ForHackernews 6y agoFighting for "workers rights" is a political position. Maybe you're making a distinction between party politics (e.g. endorsing specific candidates) and pushing for general policies, but I think it's incoherent to claim that labor unions are apolitical.
- nicky0 6y agoThe point is that joining a union shouldn't necessitate supporting a certain political party.
- maxehmookau 6y agoIt doesn't. You can join a non-affiliated union or even opt-out of political campaigning and contributions. It's just not all that common.
- nicky0 6y ago
- pjc50 6y ago> ideological fervor "Don't be evil". (Of course, that ended up being the opposite of ideological fervor, being both ill-defined and tepid) It's also quite remarkable that people regard being "cancelled" (complained about on the internet) as more serious than fired, which comes with actual costs.
- choeger 6y agoYeah right. "Cancel culture" would never, ever, ask for firing people. Or remove them from schools. Or harass them in real life. Everything stays civilized on twitter and the rest is alt-right propaganda.
- RHSeeger 6y ago> "cancelled" (complained about on the internet) You are completely misrepresenting what being "cancelled" means to a lot of the people it happens to. It can mean the public causing them to be fired from their job, prevented from finding another job, disconnected from both social and other contacts. Cancelling someone isn't just complaining about them; it's commonly putting for effort to ruin their life.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoCame here to say the same thing. This “union” sounds more like a splinter branch of a far left political party, not an organization dedicated to the collective bargaining rights of its members. I expect it to fail simply because the ideological tone will turn off most people.
- dkarl 6y agoI think you're correct, but I doubt it will be as far left as you say. Any union at Google will be dominated by "workers" with economic interests and social and educational backgrounds virtually identical to management. They're the same educated meritocratic progressive technical/managerial class who dominate the Democratic Party. They don't believe anything different from what most of the country believes; they just take pride in being further ahead because they're smarter and work harder.
- AlstZam 6y agoI don't understand this "ideological" issue. (but maybe it's just due to language as English is not my mother-tongue) Lots (/most) of what you choose to do (or not) can be see as a result of your own ideological standpoint. (investment, buying, culture, laws, politics, culture, media...) I prefer when the so-called ideological point is explain in an article rather than discovered after fact. This is more honest.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoUnions are traditionally there to bargain collectively for their members. Typically that means higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things. This union seems less focused on that and more on pushing sociopolitical ideas currently in vogue in left-wing political circles.
- bovermyer 6y agoI'd argue that higher salaries, better work conditions, and so forth is exactly what this union is being formed to address. The idea is that collective bargaining can equalize the salaries, work conditions, etc. for all members, not just the pale-skinned ones.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoMaybe, but if that were their real goal, they’d lose all the activist language and moral judgments.
- desgrior 6y agoBy "pale-skinned" you mean women ? https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/04/google-found-it-paid-men-less-than-women-for-the-same-job/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/04/google-found-it-paid-men-l...
- sojournerc 6y agoYou seem to be implying Google plays its white employee pays more because of overt discrimination, and that is impetus for a union. Any evidence for this belief?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Bresenham 6y ago> While a union that represents workers interests is a good thing, I think it would be dangerous to give even a part of google to people with ideological fervor. On a practical level, a union that concentrates just on its members interests, is not able to concentrate on its members interests. Just as one person can be crushed by a company, a union at one company can be crushed by an industry. The UAW organized GM, then Chrysler then Ford (one of the weapon carrying workers in the GM strike was Larry Page's grandfather). This kind of thing is necessary for the survival of one union. If FedEx is not unionized (it is not), that weakens the union at UPS. The AI researcher said there were racist aspects of Google AI, IIRC. Whatever the specifics of that case, unions do not prosper over the long run with a racial divide. There are numerous cases of jobs traditionally done by black men replaced by white scabs, or vice versa. It is why Bernie Sanders wants less immigration, despite the disapproval of upper middle class liberals to his right - too many unassimilated Latin American workers can be played against native workers in a divide and rule sense.
- conanbatt 6y agoAny effective union will need an ideology to rile people up. That's not what's bad about unions. The first thing they would do if they have any power is kick out immigrants.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoI think this ultimately will doom this type of organization. Workers don't want to be on a crusade they want rights like better pay, better hours, freedom to choose, rights for parents, etc. It's not a social crusade if that's what they're planning on doing, they will tune out 1/2 or more of the other workers there. I think you're a bit harsh on people standing up for their status like preferred gender, sexual orientation, etc. You seem to be dismissing their concerns entirely. I don't think a worker's union is the right place to try and enforce anything other than an equal rights workplace as idealistically most labor unions say that they're for.