5 ms·

Some of the most highly paid, privileged and marketable individuals in our industry, easily in the top 5% of income in the economy... what’s the point of this?

Some of the most highly paid, privileged and marketable individuals in our industry, easily in the top 5% of income in the economy... what’s the point of this? Google employees are a far cry from the romanticized proletariat fighting against the bourgeoisie.

John23832 6y ago
If you read the article, you would see content about contract workers.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I saw that it was mostly that the contract workers don't get the same benefits. But how is this different than other places? In some cases, benefits need to restricted or you risk them becoming shadow employees (ie hands are tied by law).
  - John23832 6y ago
    Again more details in the article. The verge article links a NYT article which goes in depth on the “two tier system” within google. That’s not to say that even outsourced contractors couldn’t benefit from unionizing with google employees. Google has the leverage to improve the lives of its subcontractors, but pressuring the contracting company.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I guess my real question is, how is this different from anywhere in the industry?
      - John23832 6y ago
        Why does it have to be different? If under representation/abuse is prevalent in an industry nothing should be done about it?
        giantg2 6y ago
        What "under representation/abuse"? Contractors typically get paid a higher rate so they can pay for their own benefits.
        John23832 6y ago
        Again, you’re asking things you could easily read in the article.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Perhaps I read the article and don't agree with your assessment.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        "Contractor" is a bit of a misnomer in the case of Google (and other tech companies). You have FTEs and "TVC"s, which is a large group of non-Google employees (of which contractors, the "C" is by far the smallest). The largest are "V", the Vendors. Employees of third party companies contracted to Google to do stuff. Vendors do all kinds of things: clean, cook, manual QA work where necessary, drive cars, etc. The vast majority of the TVCs Google works with are Vendors, and most of them are paid much, much less than tech employees, because they aren't tech employees. But there are a variety of other requirements around working with vendors. The ability to give them gifts, recognition, and treat them like human people is limited by labor law, as if you start to treat them too much like everyone else at the office, they suddenly turn into Employees, despite being employed by a Vendor company, and Google really doesn't want this to happen.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Yeah, I'd like to see the labor laws change. Some of the restrictions seem stupid. Although I also see how it was originally intended to prevent companies from keeping contractors like regular longterm employees but without benefits. Of course, that's not much different from the current situation. Our company doesn't include contractors or consultants (both through vendors, never direct, like even typical contractors are brought in through a place like TCS) in our group activities. They also, have term limits of 3 years or less.
giantg2 6y ago
I somewhat agree. Most tech workers are above the median salary in the US ($35k). I don't make nearly as much as a Google employee, but I would like a union for a couple reasons (they could mostly fix this through legislation and avoid the unions) like removing forced arbitration, or having an actual contract rather than a one pager that says they make the rules and can change them anytime without notice. And speaking of income. It seems like 1% of that group's income is a high number for supporting the union.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  With their current membership of just 230 people, the ~$500k annual memberships probably won't get anywhere near to paying for the protracted legal battle they're surely about to enter...
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I didn't realize the number was so low. I thought they usually have to reach a specific percentage of workers on the petition before they unionize.
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      There are practical and legal thresholds, yeah; if X% of the company doesn't join over the next N months, you'll probably see lines in Google-related articles about the "failed attempt to form a union", even if it doesn't warrant headlines. I should also note that 1% is like, a starting number here. If the union is successfully formed and dues start accumulating "Let's cut the union dues to 0.5%" is going to be an extremely popular position for (prospective) union leaders to take.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Pretty big gamble (even though it shouldn't be) for those people who have signed on if they don't meet that threshold. I think tech has been very resistant to unionize.
andobando 6y ago
1. It includes all workers, including janitors. 2. The unions goal more so here seems to be to democratize the company process over concerns that the corporate structure puts money over people. >Everyone at Alphabet — from bus drivers to programmers, from salespeople to janitors — plays a critical part in developing our technology. But right now, a few wealthy executives define what the company produces and how its workers are treated. This isn’t the company we want to work for. We care deeply about what we build and what it’s used for. We are responsible for the technology we bring into the world. And we recognize that its implications reach far beyond the walls of Alphabet.

John23832 6y ago

If you read the article, you would see content about contract workers.

giantg2 6y ago
I saw that it was mostly that the contract workers don't get the same benefits. But how is this different than other places? In some cases, benefits need to restricted or you risk them becoming shadow employees (ie hands are tied by law).
- John23832 6y ago
  Again more details in the article. The verge article links a NYT article which goes in depth on the “two tier system” within google. That’s not to say that even outsourced contractors couldn’t benefit from unionizing with google employees. Google has the leverage to improve the lives of its subcontractors, but pressuring the contracting company.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I guess my real question is, how is this different from anywhere in the industry?
    - John23832 6y ago
      Why does it have to be different? If under representation/abuse is prevalent in an industry nothing should be done about it?
      - giantg2 6y ago
        What "under representation/abuse"? Contractors typically get paid a higher rate so they can pay for their own benefits.
        John23832 6y ago
        Again, you’re asking things you could easily read in the article.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Perhaps I read the article and don't agree with your assessment.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        "Contractor" is a bit of a misnomer in the case of Google (and other tech companies). You have FTEs and "TVC"s, which is a large group of non-Google employees (of which contractors, the "C" is by far the smallest). The largest are "V", the Vendors. Employees of third party companies contracted to Google to do stuff. Vendors do all kinds of things: clean, cook, manual QA work where necessary, drive cars, etc. The vast majority of the TVCs Google works with are Vendors, and most of them are paid much, much less than tech employees, because they aren't tech employees. But there are a variety of other requirements around working with vendors. The ability to give them gifts, recognition, and treat them like human people is limited by labor law, as if you start to treat them too much like everyone else at the office, they suddenly turn into Employees, despite being employed by a Vendor company, and Google really doesn't want this to happen.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Yeah, I'd like to see the labor laws change. Some of the restrictions seem stupid. Although I also see how it was originally intended to prevent companies from keeping contractors like regular longterm employees but without benefits. Of course, that's not much different from the current situation. Our company doesn't include contractors or consultants (both through vendors, never direct, like even typical contractors are brought in through a place like TCS) in our group activities. They also, have term limits of 3 years or less.

giantg2 6y ago

I somewhat agree. Most tech workers are above the median salary in the US ($35k). I don't make nearly as much as a Google employee, but I would like a union for a couple reasons (they could mostly fix this through legislation and avoid the unions) like removing forced arbitration, or having an actual contract rather than a one pager that says they make the rules and can change them anytime without notice. And speaking of income. It seems like 1% of that group's income is a high number for supporting the union.

londons_explore 6y ago
With their current membership of just 230 people, the ~$500k annual memberships probably won't get anywhere near to paying for the protracted legal battle they're surely about to enter...
- giantg2 6y ago
  I didn't realize the number was so low. I thought they usually have to reach a specific percentage of workers on the petition before they unionize.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    There are practical and legal thresholds, yeah; if X% of the company doesn't join over the next N months, you'll probably see lines in Google-related articles about the "failed attempt to form a union", even if it doesn't warrant headlines. I should also note that 1% is like, a starting number here. If the union is successfully formed and dues start accumulating "Let's cut the union dues to 0.5%" is going to be an extremely popular position for (prospective) union leaders to take.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Pretty big gamble (even though it shouldn't be) for those people who have signed on if they don't meet that threshold. I think tech has been very resistant to unionize.

andobando 6y ago

1. It includes all workers, including janitors. 2. The unions goal more so here seems to be to democratize the company process over concerns that the corporate structure puts money over people. >Everyone at Alphabet — from bus drivers to programmers, from salespeople to janitors — plays a critical part in developing our technology. But right now, a few wealthy executives define what the company produces and how its workers are treated. This isn’t the company we want to work for. We care deeply about what we build and what it’s used for. We are responsible for the technology we bring into the world. And we recognize that its implications reach far beyond the walls of Alphabet.