60 ms·

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled

by karl11 6y ago

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. There are very few perils of leaving Google - a top tier company in an industry that is continuously struggling to hire enough people. If you are an engineer at Google and can't get a job somewhere else, I don't know what to tell you. Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc.

CydeWeys 6y ago
> It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only options are to stay and shut up or leave and be vocal?
- ATsch 6y ago
  It probably comes the people that would prefer you shut up and stay.
- mikecoles 6y ago
  Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    So when a company tries to squeeze as much labor out of as little compensation as it can, it’s a shrewd business move… but when employees try to get the most compensation for the least labor, they’re lazy? Do you see the double standard here?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's not a shrewd business move! Companies should pay well and treat their employees well, both because it's good for business and because it's the right thing to do. The adversarial model of employment where passionate employees fight against penny-pinching bosses is neither natural nor inevitable, and I think everyone who can avoid it should do so.
      - wrsh07 6y ago
        What if paying their employees who work in their warehouses as little as possible and tracking them to maximize productivity is actually what maximizes their profits? What if they don't have a shortage of labor but do employ a large number of people in a town? Should the company continue to provide awful working conditions? What should motivate the company to treat their employees better, if not the employees getting together collectively to say "we're not going to take this anymore"? Are the employees dependent on their plight becoming a national scandal that shames their employer? Or should they be able to cause the change they need themselves? See, for example, https://revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-crisis/ https://revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-cri...
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Respectfully, I just don't understand what your stream of angry questions is about. As I said, what should happen is that companies just provide good pay and working conditions in the first place. If workers are being mistreated, I have no objection to them collectively organizing against it.
        ygjb 6y ago
        And respectfully, despite the fact that Google is an objectively good place to work for many people (good pay, good opportunities for growth and advancement, etc), there is an abundance of evidence in recent years that for minorities, and for teams under specific leaders, Google has not been a good place to work. Unions aren't just about wages and workloads, it's entirely possible that employees of tech companies (and shareholders of tech companies) that are unionized could be protected from the impact of shitty leaders through the power of collective bargaining and action that demands that abusive leaders and managers be held accountable.
  - scsilver 6y ago
    Yeah and network effects add value, coordination adds value, individual contributors can only do so much, a well oiled group of engineers has outsized production, and by bargaining collectively, leverage their productivity for better compensation. Why allow yourself to be divided and conquered?
    - slumpt_ 6y ago
      > Why allow yourself to be divided and conquered? Most are convinced they are “special” or otherwise immune from anything that would warrant union representation. At least until they maybe sustain an injury that makes them less productive, or even simply grow old enough to face age discrimination. It’s always the privileged and somewhat myopic that discount the value of collective action. We act together to lift each other up. To extract the best conditions for our work and the most support from our employer because the ‘free market’ has given us coordinated wage suppression among tech giants and a mountain of sexual and racial discrimination in the workplace. Together we are stronger. America used to get this more in the early 1900s. Then the ruling class got better at controlling the narrative and crushing class consciousness. To the kids reading this who think they don’t need a union - nearly every positive workplace condition you have is a result of collective action in the past.
  - 14 6y ago
    So mistaken. My union has done so much for me and my fellow workers. Any time I have a meeting with management my union sits at my side. If I was wrongfully fired my union would fight it and even hire a lawyer. Why would I not want those protections? How is that not needed in a modern world? And finally what do you do for work that hour industry needs no union I am very curious?
  - wrsh07 6y ago
    So when the mlb & mlbpa negotiated stricter covid protocols (which both allowed them to complete the season and improved player safety), you're saying that provided the players no benefits? This is a statement made in ignorance. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-mlbpa-reportedly-agree-to-new-covid-19-safety-protocols-rule-breakers-face-season-long-suspension/amp/ https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-mlbpa-reportedly-agre...
  - orestarod 6y ago
    Ironic, how do you think better conditions and pay were earned historically?
  - cad1 6y ago
    Unions are involved in more than pay negotiations. Sure I can work hard and earn a promotion and pay raise. Working hard cannot, for example, get me out of signing a non-compete agreement. Unionized employees could collectively bargain to ban non-compete agreements.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      They also can, under certain circumstances, collectively demand that the company stops hiring anyone outside the union, and make other unsubstantiated demands such as mandatory membership fees, that benefit the union itself and not high-skilled individual employees who know how to beneficially sell their skills to the employer without third-parties involved. Also, contractors with individual LLCs usually don't sign non-compete agreements, so you don't need a union to be able to benefit from an expertise that is currently in high demand.
      - adamsea 6y ago
        Yes that can occur. Lots of things can and do occur. If we think unions are bad because they do bad things under certain circumstances then that should also apply to corporations, no? Worker exploitation, ignoring externalities and such? So, we could get rid of corporations and unions? Or ... have both, since like any human institution, both are fallible.
        ghostwriter 6y ago
        > Yes that can occur. Lots of things can and do occur. so, what's your solution to the problem of fallible unions? > Or ... have both, since like any human institution, both are fallible. You are yet to prove that unions solve anything in the setting that you outlined. How about just having corporations and a small government that doesn't prevent new players entering the market by restrictive laws and quotas, in place of those that fall prey to corruption, fraud, and short-sighted destructive practices? There's more than two options to consider.
        6y ago
avianlyric 6y ago
> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. You're entitled to as much as you can negotiate. Isn't this a founding principle of capitalism? If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?
- q-big 6y ago
  > If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more? It is not clear whether these employees are actually in a good position for negotiating. The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs). I consider how many products were scrapped by Google as quite some evidence that Google would be nearly as successful if it fired the unionized employees and continued working with some "core team". This does, of course, not mean that I endorse this reality, but when you negotiate, you better know what leverage you actually have.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    > The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs). It's also illegal.
    - q-big 6y ago
      > It's also illegal. Then you find another pretense for firing many of them. Addendum: There exist so many oblique "performance metrics" you can apply on the employee to find such a pretense.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        It's super obvious if the unionized employees have a much higher firing rate than the non-unionized employees.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
UncleMeat 6y ago
> but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. There are regular complaints about benefits and pay multipliers being cut back. Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible? People don't seem to complain when businesses do that.
- qeternity 6y ago
  They absolutely should. And companies/management have a fiduciary duty to give them as little as possible. This is the competition that gives rise to capitalist efficiencies. The concern from people like myself is that another word for a union is a cartel. When companies form cartels and engage in anti-competitive behavior, we penalize them severely (in theory at least...but that's another issue). Yet when labor colludes, we simply call it a union. Tech is especially interesting because the usual claims of "workers have less power individually" (which is always true in all industries) is really really not a great argument in tech. The labor market in tech is so unbelievably competitive, and the average worker has leverage that is only seen in the upper echelons of other industries.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Sure, but will these salad days continue forever? I feel like most of HN is too young to remember the dot-com crash. Seems far better to unionise and try to institutionalise and lock-in better pay and working conditions then to count on always having a hypercompetitive labor market and obscenely profitable employers.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    Management is a cartel. I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.
    - 6y ago
ilaksh 6y ago
This is for the contractors also.
Spooky23 6y ago
You're entitled to nothing. Given that it's 2021 and the entire workplace is in play, it's foolish to assume that the status quo is the status quo. The smart move is to have a contract that addresses various aspects of work.
- mrzimmerman 6y ago
  That is exactly what unions do. They setup contracts with the employer to ensure protections and compensation using collective bargaining to balance out the power of the employer for the employer. Collectively bargaining for hundreds or thousands of employees is obviously more powerful then a single individual bargaining against the same employer, especially when you factor in the information and resource asymmetry that exists in the latter situation.
  - chartpath 6y ago
    As the article says, that is not the kind of union they set up. They set up a "members only union" which is voluntary to join or not. Either you are unhappy with conditions and need protection so you join for the the support network, or you are happy with conditions but join anyway out of solidarity with the lower classes of employees. https://tcf.org/content/report/members-only-unions-can-they-help-revitalize-workplace-democracy/ https://tcf.org/content/report/members-only-unions-can-they-... Or not join at all, which is fine, but punching down and across at your coworkers comes across as not being a team player.
alistairSH 6y ago
* but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google* Oh how quickly we forget. It wasn't all that long ago that Google was involved in a massive wage fixing scandal (along with darn near every other major player in the "big tech").
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  There was no wage fixing. This was a non recruiting agreement that had an imputed effect of reducing wages.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    You mean an act of agency resulted in control over wages?
parasubvert 6y ago
Seems pretty straightforward. Sometimes you fight for reform inside a system instead of leaving it. This is how those inside gain leverage.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. This article (from 2015) "Apple Makes $407,000 Profit Per Employee, Walmart And Retail, $6,300: Who's The Exploiter?": https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-makes-407000-profit-per-employee-walmart-and-retail-6300-whos-the-exploiter/?sh=72397aee4bac https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-ma...
scsilver 6y ago
I full on support their goal to clean up their yard before moving somewhere else. Employees are stakeholders and can use their leverage as they please. You somehow cast a negative moral light on workers for using this leverage when every other stakeholder, managment, stockholders, board members, government agencies, voters all use their leverage to change the ecosystem. Entitlement? You are entitled to what you can get the world to render for you. Not asking is allowing others to over entitle and enritch themselves at your loss.
- panarky 6y ago
  This shows how deeply ingrained right-wing ideology has become in America. Outside America it is obvious that billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs wield power in their own self-interest, and that workers benefit from collective action in their own self-interest. But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them. No compensation is too high for billionaires, but if some workers make a good salary, that's seen as extravagant, and the workers should be extra grateful and stop asking for better working conditions, too. It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.
  - scsilver 6y ago
    Hey thats protestantism for you...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - spicybright 6y ago
    Don't know why this is down voted, because it's spot on. It's what gives us advantages in areas like medical/technical research, powerful mega corporations that can effect global markets, and schooling. All at the cost of the lives of people that crank the cogs forward to maintain it all.
onion2k 6y ago
It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. Employees pushing for change from the inside is probably the only thing that could ever make Google change, so this is absolutely a good thing. If you are an engineer at Google and can't get a job somewhere else, I don't know what to tell you. Something few people seem to understand about massive companies is that they employ some of the most niche specialists imaginable because they're literally the only business that needs those skills. Working you way up and getting more and more specialized can be very lucrative, but also very limiting in the number of employers who want your skillset. Leaving usually comes with a big step down in terms of money and title. You're essentially dropping back down to where you were before you specialized. It's not hard to imagine a lot of senior engineers at Google might feel a bit trapped there.
- htrp 6y ago
  Amazing point that very few people get....
- kortilla 6y ago
  Oh, the perils of having a 600k TC job and having to step down to a job only clearing 250k while you climb the ladder again. Oh those poor senior Google SWEs. That’s not being trapped. That’s being greedy. There’s nothing wrong with trying to preserve massive TCs with the WLB of Google but let’s not pretend there is actually any plight here.
  - fckthisguy 6y ago
    I find it so hypocritical that so many people espouse the "American Dream" of working your way up and earning more and more, they get so upset that someone might want to protect what they've earned. The truth is, many Google software engineers are unhappy with the political choices that Google are making. Yeah, they could vote with their feet and quit, but would you take a massive pay cut and financially destabilize your family as the first course of action? I wouldn't; I'd try to exact change from within, whilst protecting the benefits I'd earned in the workplace. And all that's just looking at the individuals benefits. Unionising would mean that I, a straight white man, could help support policies that empower my minority co-workers.
WhyNotHugo 6y ago
Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't work at Google for a few extra bucks, because I know the price of these few extra bucks is payed by society as a whole. If you're a talented professional at Google, and want to make a positive impact in the world, join a company that cares about making a positive impact in the world.
wing-_-nuts 6y ago
>Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc. Ah there it is. The libertarian's go to when one compares the US to any country with better institutions such as universal healthcare, unions, etc. We couldn't possibly do that here, no, American 'exceptionalism' only goes so far it seems.
wbl 6y ago
Not having sexual abusers in management stay with no repercussions? Why shouldn't Googlers be entitled to more of what they produce?
ProjectArcturis 6y ago
"Entitled" has nothing to do with it. Workers get paid based on how much they can negotiate. Forming a union improves bargaining power.
mcot2 6y ago
It clearly states in the article they are not looking for better pay for fulltime staff. The things mentioned are the contractors/vendors, huge severence payments for sexual harrasement and unethical government contracts.
Ragnarork 6y ago
> It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. So you missed the part of the article that explained they will commit a portion of their salary to fund the union? They are working for a company known to hire union-busters, fire employees trying to unionize or point out issues, and you want to argue that this is the safe way to try to follow their ideals and principles? This doesn't make much sense.
jgwil2 6y ago
> Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc. What nonsense. Comparing two countries is not the same as equating them. Of course we can compare and contrast the two, taking into account the differences. To suggest we cannot compare two different things is to deny a crucial tool of abstract, critical thinking.
adamsea 6y ago
> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Entitled? Who's talking about entitled? I thought we were talking about negotiation and leverage, since, you know, corporations are all about money and profit. Is there some theoretical upper limit on what employees are entitled to?
orthecreedence 6y ago
Never thought I'd see the day Karl argued against unions...
8note 6y ago
Getting a job somewhere doesn't mean being able to negotiate for the things you want. Eg. Google workers don't like the facial recognition or censoring search results in China. Getting a new job isn't going to change that, nor is closing down orgs going to be part of your job offer negotiation
Arelius 6y ago
> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google I think one important aspect is this union includes their contractor workers, which are treated far worse than Google SWE's, this allows the union to do collective bargaining on their behalf. Which I do think is a pretty worthwhile goal.
taurath 6y ago
> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Alphabet makes $1.7 million per employee. Its clear that those employees don't necessarily individually have that level of contribution. Nor is it that the business model that sergey and larry made would necessarily be possible with any given number of people who aren't sergey and larry. Its much more about the ratio. The business idea + investor money is the original capital for the business. Sergey/Larry and the investors deserve to be compensated, and are, wildly. No problem there. Basically everyone believes that inventors and creators have all sorts of rights to be compensated for that. The question is how much, since they utilize the labor of others to realize their goals.

by karl11 6y ago

CydeWeys 6y ago

> It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only options are to stay and shut up or leave and be vocal?

ATsch 6y ago
It probably comes the people that would prefer you shut up and stay.
mikecoles 6y ago
Absolutely not. People that want to unionize are the lazy or those whose dreams are sprinkled with unicorn glitter. Or a combination of the two. There are no benefits to modern unions. They are another level of bureaucracy. If you want better conditions or pay, earn it.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  So when a company tries to squeeze as much labor out of as little compensation as it can, it’s a shrewd business move… but when employees try to get the most compensation for the least labor, they’re lazy? Do you see the double standard here?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's not a shrewd business move! Companies should pay well and treat their employees well, both because it's good for business and because it's the right thing to do. The adversarial model of employment where passionate employees fight against penny-pinching bosses is neither natural nor inevitable, and I think everyone who can avoid it should do so.
    - wrsh07 6y ago
      What if paying their employees who work in their warehouses as little as possible and tracking them to maximize productivity is actually what maximizes their profits? What if they don't have a shortage of labor but do employ a large number of people in a town? Should the company continue to provide awful working conditions? What should motivate the company to treat their employees better, if not the employees getting together collectively to say "we're not going to take this anymore"? Are the employees dependent on their plight becoming a national scandal that shames their employer? Or should they be able to cause the change they need themselves? See, for example, https://revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-crisis/ https://revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-cri...
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Respectfully, I just don't understand what your stream of angry questions is about. As I said, what should happen is that companies just provide good pay and working conditions in the first place. If workers are being mistreated, I have no objection to them collectively organizing against it.
        ygjb 6y ago
        And respectfully, despite the fact that Google is an objectively good place to work for many people (good pay, good opportunities for growth and advancement, etc), there is an abundance of evidence in recent years that for minorities, and for teams under specific leaders, Google has not been a good place to work. Unions aren't just about wages and workloads, it's entirely possible that employees of tech companies (and shareholders of tech companies) that are unionized could be protected from the impact of shitty leaders through the power of collective bargaining and action that demands that abusive leaders and managers be held accountable.
- scsilver 6y ago
  Yeah and network effects add value, coordination adds value, individual contributors can only do so much, a well oiled group of engineers has outsized production, and by bargaining collectively, leverage their productivity for better compensation. Why allow yourself to be divided and conquered?
  - slumpt_ 6y ago
    > Why allow yourself to be divided and conquered? Most are convinced they are “special” or otherwise immune from anything that would warrant union representation. At least until they maybe sustain an injury that makes them less productive, or even simply grow old enough to face age discrimination. It’s always the privileged and somewhat myopic that discount the value of collective action. We act together to lift each other up. To extract the best conditions for our work and the most support from our employer because the ‘free market’ has given us coordinated wage suppression among tech giants and a mountain of sexual and racial discrimination in the workplace. Together we are stronger. America used to get this more in the early 1900s. Then the ruling class got better at controlling the narrative and crushing class consciousness. To the kids reading this who think they don’t need a union - nearly every positive workplace condition you have is a result of collective action in the past.
- 14 6y ago
  So mistaken. My union has done so much for me and my fellow workers. Any time I have a meeting with management my union sits at my side. If I was wrongfully fired my union would fight it and even hire a lawyer. Why would I not want those protections? How is that not needed in a modern world? And finally what do you do for work that hour industry needs no union I am very curious?
- wrsh07 6y ago
  So when the mlb & mlbpa negotiated stricter covid protocols (which both allowed them to complete the season and improved player safety), you're saying that provided the players no benefits? This is a statement made in ignorance. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-mlbpa-reportedly-agree-to-new-covid-19-safety-protocols-rule-breakers-face-season-long-suspension/amp/ https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-mlbpa-reportedly-agre...
- orestarod 6y ago
  Ironic, how do you think better conditions and pay were earned historically?
- cad1 6y ago
  Unions are involved in more than pay negotiations. Sure I can work hard and earn a promotion and pay raise. Working hard cannot, for example, get me out of signing a non-compete agreement. Unionized employees could collectively bargain to ban non-compete agreements.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    They also can, under certain circumstances, collectively demand that the company stops hiring anyone outside the union, and make other unsubstantiated demands such as mandatory membership fees, that benefit the union itself and not high-skilled individual employees who know how to beneficially sell their skills to the employer without third-parties involved. Also, contractors with individual LLCs usually don't sign non-compete agreements, so you don't need a union to be able to benefit from an expertise that is currently in high demand.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      Yes that can occur. Lots of things can and do occur. If we think unions are bad because they do bad things under certain circumstances then that should also apply to corporations, no? Worker exploitation, ignoring externalities and such? So, we could get rid of corporations and unions? Or ... have both, since like any human institution, both are fallible.
      - ghostwriter 6y ago
        > Yes that can occur. Lots of things can and do occur. so, what's your solution to the problem of fallible unions? > Or ... have both, since like any human institution, both are fallible. You are yet to prove that unions solve anything in the setting that you outlined. How about just having corporations and a small government that doesn't prevent new players entering the market by restrictive laws and quotas, in place of those that fall prey to corruption, fraud, and short-sighted destructive practices? There's more than two options to consider.
        6y ago

avianlyric 6y ago

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. You're entitled to as much as you can negotiate. Isn't this a founding principle of capitalism? If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?

q-big 6y ago
> If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more? It is not clear whether these employees are actually in a good position for negotiating. The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs). I consider how many products were scrapped by Google as quite some evidence that Google would be nearly as successful if it fired the unionized employees and continued working with some "core team". This does, of course, not mean that I endorse this reality, but when you negotiate, you better know what leverage you actually have.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  > The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs). It's also illegal.
  - q-big 6y ago
    > It's also illegal. Then you find another pretense for firing many of them. Addendum: There exist so many oblique "performance metrics" you can apply on the employee to find such a pretense.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      It's super obvious if the unionized employees have a much higher firing rate than the non-unionized employees.
- avianlyric 6y ago

UncleMeat 6y ago

> but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. There are regular complaints about benefits and pay multipliers being cut back. Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible? People don't seem to complain when businesses do that.

qeternity 6y ago
They absolutely should. And companies/management have a fiduciary duty to give them as little as possible. This is the competition that gives rise to capitalist efficiencies. The concern from people like myself is that another word for a union is a cartel. When companies form cartels and engage in anti-competitive behavior, we penalize them severely (in theory at least...but that's another issue). Yet when labor colludes, we simply call it a union. Tech is especially interesting because the usual claims of "workers have less power individually" (which is always true in all industries) is really really not a great argument in tech. The labor market in tech is so unbelievably competitive, and the average worker has leverage that is only seen in the upper echelons of other industries.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Sure, but will these salad days continue forever? I feel like most of HN is too young to remember the dot-com crash. Seems far better to unionise and try to institutionalise and lock-in better pay and working conditions then to count on always having a hypercompetitive labor market and obscenely profitable employers.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Management is a cartel. I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.
  - 6y ago

ilaksh 6y ago

This is for the contractors also.

Spooky23 6y ago

You're entitled to nothing. Given that it's 2021 and the entire workplace is in play, it's foolish to assume that the status quo is the status quo. The smart move is to have a contract that addresses various aspects of work.

mrzimmerman 6y ago
That is exactly what unions do. They setup contracts with the employer to ensure protections and compensation using collective bargaining to balance out the power of the employer for the employer. Collectively bargaining for hundreds or thousands of employees is obviously more powerful then a single individual bargaining against the same employer, especially when you factor in the information and resource asymmetry that exists in the latter situation.
- chartpath 6y ago
  As the article says, that is not the kind of union they set up. They set up a "members only union" which is voluntary to join or not. Either you are unhappy with conditions and need protection so you join for the the support network, or you are happy with conditions but join anyway out of solidarity with the lower classes of employees. https://tcf.org/content/report/members-only-unions-can-they-help-revitalize-workplace-democracy/ https://tcf.org/content/report/members-only-unions-can-they-... Or not join at all, which is fine, but punching down and across at your coworkers comes across as not being a team player.

alistairSH 6y ago

* but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google* Oh how quickly we forget. It wasn't all that long ago that Google was involved in a massive wage fixing scandal (along with darn near every other major player in the "big tech").

alisonkisk 6y ago
There was no wage fixing. This was a non recruiting agreement that had an imputed effect of reducing wages.
- ddingus 6y ago
  You mean an act of agency resulted in control over wages?

parasubvert 6y ago

Seems pretty straightforward. Sometimes you fight for reform inside a system instead of leaving it. This is how those inside gain leverage.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. This article (from 2015) "Apple Makes $407,000 Profit Per Employee, Walmart And Retail, $6,300: Who's The Exploiter?": https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-makes-407000-profit-per-employee-walmart-and-retail-6300-whos-the-exploiter/?sh=72397aee4bac https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-ma...

scsilver 6y ago

I full on support their goal to clean up their yard before moving somewhere else. Employees are stakeholders and can use their leverage as they please. You somehow cast a negative moral light on workers for using this leverage when every other stakeholder, managment, stockholders, board members, government agencies, voters all use their leverage to change the ecosystem. Entitlement? You are entitled to what you can get the world to render for you. Not asking is allowing others to over entitle and enritch themselves at your loss.

panarky 6y ago
This shows how deeply ingrained right-wing ideology has become in America. Outside America it is obvious that billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs wield power in their own self-interest, and that workers benefit from collective action in their own self-interest. But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them. No compensation is too high for billionaires, but if some workers make a good salary, that's seen as extravagant, and the workers should be extra grateful and stop asking for better working conditions, too. It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.
- scsilver 6y ago
  Hey thats protestantism for you...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- spicybright 6y ago
  Don't know why this is down voted, because it's spot on. It's what gives us advantages in areas like medical/technical research, powerful mega corporations that can effect global markets, and schooling. All at the cost of the lives of people that crank the cogs forward to maintain it all.

onion2k 6y ago

It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. Employees pushing for change from the inside is probably the only thing that could ever make Google change, so this is absolutely a good thing. If you are an engineer at Google and can't get a job somewhere else, I don't know what to tell you. Something few people seem to understand about massive companies is that they employ some of the most niche specialists imaginable because they're literally the only business that needs those skills. Working you way up and getting more and more specialized can be very lucrative, but also very limiting in the number of employers who want your skillset. Leaving usually comes with a big step down in terms of money and title. You're essentially dropping back down to where you were before you specialized. It's not hard to imagine a lot of senior engineers at Google might feel a bit trapped there.

htrp 6y ago
Amazing point that very few people get....
kortilla 6y ago
Oh, the perils of having a 600k TC job and having to step down to a job only clearing 250k while you climb the ladder again. Oh those poor senior Google SWEs. That’s not being trapped. That’s being greedy. There’s nothing wrong with trying to preserve massive TCs with the WLB of Google but let’s not pretend there is actually any plight here.
- fckthisguy 6y ago
  I find it so hypocritical that so many people espouse the "American Dream" of working your way up and earning more and more, they get so upset that someone might want to protect what they've earned. The truth is, many Google software engineers are unhappy with the political choices that Google are making. Yeah, they could vote with their feet and quit, but would you take a massive pay cut and financially destabilize your family as the first course of action? I wouldn't; I'd try to exact change from within, whilst protecting the benefits I'd earned in the workplace. And all that's just looking at the individuals benefits. Unionising would mean that I, a straight white man, could help support policies that empower my minority co-workers.

WhyNotHugo 6y ago

Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't work at Google for a few extra bucks, because I know the price of these few extra bucks is payed by society as a whole. If you're a talented professional at Google, and want to make a positive impact in the world, join a company that cares about making a positive impact in the world.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago

>Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc. Ah there it is. The libertarian's go to when one compares the US to any country with better institutions such as universal healthcare, unions, etc. We couldn't possibly do that here, no, American 'exceptionalism' only goes so far it seems.

wbl 6y ago

Not having sexual abusers in management stay with no repercussions? Why shouldn't Googlers be entitled to more of what they produce?

ProjectArcturis 6y ago

"Entitled" has nothing to do with it. Workers get paid based on how much they can negotiate. Forming a union improves bargaining power.

mcot2 6y ago

It clearly states in the article they are not looking for better pay for fulltime staff. The things mentioned are the contractors/vendors, huge severence payments for sexual harrasement and unethical government contracts.

Ragnarork 6y ago

> It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead. So you missed the part of the article that explained they will commit a portion of their salary to fund the union? They are working for a company known to hire union-busters, fire employees trying to unionize or point out issues, and you want to argue that this is the safe way to try to follow their ideals and principles? This doesn't make much sense.

jgwil2 6y ago

> Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc. What nonsense. Comparing two countries is not the same as equating them. Of course we can compare and contrast the two, taking into account the differences. To suggest we cannot compare two different things is to deny a crucial tool of abstract, critical thinking.

adamsea 6y ago

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Entitled? Who's talking about entitled? I thought we were talking about negotiation and leverage, since, you know, corporations are all about money and profit. Is there some theoretical upper limit on what employees are entitled to?

orthecreedence 6y ago

Never thought I'd see the day Karl argued against unions...

8note 6y ago

Getting a job somewhere doesn't mean being able to negotiate for the things you want. Eg. Google workers don't like the facial recognition or censoring search results in China. Getting a new job isn't going to change that, nor is closing down orgs going to be part of your job offer negotiation

Arelius 6y ago

> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google I think one important aspect is this union includes their contractor workers, which are treated far worse than Google SWE's, this allows the union to do collective bargaining on their behalf. Which I do think is a pretty worthwhile goal.

taurath 6y ago

> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. Alphabet makes $1.7 million per employee. Its clear that those employees don't necessarily individually have that level of contribution. Nor is it that the business model that sergey and larry made would necessarily be possible with any given number of people who aren't sergey and larry. Its much more about the ratio. The business idea + investor money is the original capital for the business. Sergey/Larry and the investors deserve to be compensated, and are, wildly. No problem there. Basically everyone believes that inventors and creators have all sorts of rights to be compensated for that. The question is how much, since they utilize the labor of others to realize their goals.