8 ms·

Seems to me that the organizers are using a union to push their own personal agendas (which they otherwise don't have the power to push) which seems like the pe

Seems to me that the organizers are using a union to push their own personal agendas (which they otherwise don't have the power to push) which seems like the perfect way to form a corrupt union that harms workers.

capableweb 6y ago
What in the mission statement seems to be "personal agendas" to you? Here they are listed: - All Alphabet workers deserve a voice - Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes - Everyone deserves a welcoming environment - All aspects of our work should be transparent - Our decisions are made democratically - We prioritize society and the environment - We stand in solidarity with workers and advocates everywhere Full statement: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statement/ https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statemen... All in all, seems to be good values to want to have in a workplace, especially such a global and pervasive one as Google. If all of these things were pushed for and implemented in Google, you think that would harm the workers?
- yanderekko 6y ago
  If I were a Google employee with an active social media account that promoted conservative politics, this would be pretty alarming to me. It's similar to the CoC debates - the visionary goals foreshadow the darker enforcement strategies.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Now I'm not super into US politics, partly because it's so polarized today, but which one of these values are against conservative ideals? Seems to be pretty basic human decency, like everyone deserves a voice, welcoming environment, decisions are made democratically and more. Are those really against conservative ideas? Edit: My comment seems to have spawned replies to unrelated subjects so I'll repeat the question hopefully a bit more clear: What of the values proposed so far in the "Google Union", goes against modern conservative values in the US today?
    - yanderekko 6y ago
      In practice, as we've seen numerous times with CoC squabbles, being known to harbor certain political attitudes that are well within the American Overton window will create allegations that you're make people feel unsafe. For example, if one posts "All Lives Matter" on social media they could easily fall afoul of a "welcoming environment" provision.
      - gundmc 6y ago
        What is CoC in this context? Code of conduct?
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        Yes, you are correct.
    - inerte 6y ago
      Democracy in the US is seen by some people as the rule of the majority, therefore infringes personal rights and freedom. Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        > Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives. So if I understand what you're saying as a reply to my question, you mean that having "We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs" as a explicit value for the Google workplace, means that you'll end up without food for your child? Not sure when/how dolphins became Google's business, but I might have missed something recently as I don't follow their every move.
        inerte 6y ago
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    I've seen harassment campaigns (which ended in a lawsuit against the chief harasser) over association with someone who associates with a certain group. So even if you're a liberal you can get in trouble for associating with the wrong people or speaking at the wrong conference or promoting the wrong project.
    - yanderekko 6y ago
      Yeah, the argument that this will primarily target conservatives is probably incorrect; the baseline population of conservatives at Google is probably dwarfed by the population of mainstream progressives who would fail in some way, shape, or form to abide by proper woke etiquette and thus create an unsafe environment. If you're remotely alarmed by what happened to James Damore, then you should be alarmed by a union that organizes itself around these sorts of values.
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        There's a certain kind of personality who needs to be a hero fighting against the enemy. It exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both liberals and conservatives hate it when they see it on the opposite side but support it on their own side. When this sort of person lacks a clear enemy they will make one up. Some 10% of the group will always and must always be the enemy. Hope you don't end up unlucky enough to fall into that group. The language of these organizers triggers too many warnings in my head around being that kind of personality. No matter which side of the political spectrum they are on I try to not support these personalities.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  I suspect many of those values are not shared by a large proportion of the US population and likely by a non trivial percentage of Google workers. They are liberal values and not universal values. You, and me, seem to share those values which is fine but please don't claim they are universally shared. As such they are the personal values of the organizers which they are trying to make company values applicable to all workers.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > I suspect many of those values are not shared by a large proportion of the US population That's not really relevant, the union will focus on Google and it's workplace, not the US as a whole. Maybe in the future they'll have impact in US politics, but that's not how unions start out. > likely by a non trivial percentage of Google workers I guess that's why they announced this, to see how many agree with it. We already know by fact that Google try to prevent internal discussions about unions, hence the people wanting to unionize, have to communicate in other ways (press releases to reach more people). > As such they are the personal values of the organizers They might also be the personal value of the organizers, but the explicit goal of setting up a organization (or more specifically a union) is to setup an organization that reflects those views. Once the organization is setup, it's the organizations values, not their personal values.
- splaytreemap 6y ago
  Pretty much every politician ever has used manipulative language to try to make themselves sound better than they are. It's why abortion activists call themselves pro-life/pro-choice. To take their words at face value is incredibly naive. For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. And the line about a "welcoming environment" is an outright lie as shown by these same employees' bullying and harassment of numerous wrong-thinking employees (James Damore and Miles Taylor come to mind as a few examples).
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    > For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism These days it's for race+gender-orientated demands.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > To take their words at face value is incredibly naive I agree, but that's what we have to go on, as this effort just started. The opposite is naive as well, where you assume everyone always have hidden agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. > For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. Well, yes and no. Yes, you can describe their economic justice value as socialistic, I don't think they are trying to hide that. Here's the full value: > Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim. Yes, sounds like socialism. Exactly what they are aiming to implement in the Google/Alphabet workplace. The people who sign up with the union, are people who agree they want to focus on fixing that particular problem. That's a strong point of unions in general, to align about common values. Not sure how you get it to be a "Google should be used as a propaganda vehicle". The employees there want to improve their own workplace by implementing their ideas. Now they are calling for others (who agree) to join them. I don't have any skin in the game, so I'm fine either way. But I find the process of even trying this to be refreshing, no matter what their values and ultimately their impact will be.
- sz4kerto 6y ago
  The 'personal agenda' refers to the fact that it is unclear whether these values represent the opinion of an overwhelming majority at Google. Some of these statements are _actually_ controversial. (Without saying whether I personally agree with them or not -- I am saying that they are far from being universally accepted.) Examples: > All aspects of our work should be transparent, including the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values. Not sure how the company should approach this exactly. I'll bring up some extreme (and maybe stupid) examples. Let's say Google wants to monetize the Google search page even more, while employees working in the UX team disagree with this direction. Should Google be able to let them go (in case there's no other UX role in the company) or not? > Our decisions are made democratically, not just by electing our leaders who set the agenda, but by actively and continuously listening to what workers believe is important. This approach of corporate decision making practically doesn't exist anywhere, and there's not much proof that it'd work, so I consider this controversial. > Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim. Google had a massive impact on the world by creating the search engine and broadening access to information to people around the world. Should it have other social missions as well? What should those be? What happens if the company's core mission (organizing the world's information) becomes at odds with other social mission(s)? Normally the leaders of the company are responsible for making decisions here. > Everyone deserves a welcoming environment I think this is something most people would agree with, if there weren't many examples of people abusing these policies. > We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs. We can make money without doing evil. Sure, no reason to not agree with this sentence. Question is: how is this actionable? Who is going to decide what's evil, what's worth it? By default the executives do, that's their job.
  - hudsonjr 6y ago
    > Democratic Decision Making I'd question whether it's wanting "democratic" decision making or if the group wants a great role in decision making, perhaps beyond that which it's numbers justify. I say this as I work at a place where topics for all-hands could be submitted and voted on. This seemed to work well until a topic was submitted and the downvote to upvote ratio was "disappointing" to the person/group that submitted. After this meeting, only upvotes were allowed on submissions.
- pwned1 6y ago
  > Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes Social justice is not justice
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Ok, let's hear your definitions of what social justice is, and what justice is? In a traditional sense, social justice is referring to the balance between the individual and society at large. Distribution of wealth, public services/schools, taxation, regulations of markets and more are part of what social justice is, at least in this part of the world. That does sound like justice to me. It's not criminal justice, which you might be referring to, but more justice in the sense of "just behavior or treatment".
    - dnissley 6y ago
      Best definition I've heard: "Social justice" is an awkward term for an immensely important project, perhaps the most important project, which is to make the world a more equitable, fair, and compassionate place. But the project for social justice has been captured by an elite strata of post-collegiate, digitally-enabled children of privilege, who do not pursue that project as an end, but rather use it as a means with which to compete, socially and professionally, with each other. In that use, they value not speech or actions that actually result in a better world, but rather those that result in greater social reward, which in the digital world is obvious and explicit. That means that they prefer engagement that creates a) outrage and b) jokes, rather than engagement that leads to positive change. In this disregard for actual political success, they reveal their own privilege, as it’s only the privileged who could ever have so little regard for actual, material progress. As long as they are allowed to co-opt the movement for social justice for their own personal aggrandizement, the world will not improve, not for women, people of color, gay and transgender people, or the poor.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      Right, and forcing balanced outcomes when there's very unbalanced inputs is not justice in the eyes of many people. Consider the fact that Asian students in the US spend on average 110 minutes a day studying as compared to Whites' ~55 and Black student's ~35 [1]. Forcing a balanced outcome with disparate inputs is not what many consider just behavior. I have not only witnessed, but carried out, similar policy in tech. E.g. companies setting diversity targets that are substantially higher (often over 2x higher) than the said groups' representation in the field. I have also worked at companies that let women and URM candidates take two attempts at passing the pre-onsite technical phone interview while white and Asian men get one chance. Maybe this isn't the kind of "social justice" Google union activists are arriving for. But if that's the case the union activists should lay out specific goals, like establishing name-blind resume reviews, eliminating gender and racial quotas, or something else. Otherwise, my instinct is to lump their views into the same trend as the social justice activists I have encountered during my time working in tech which tends to be hostile to meritocracy and desires picking outcomes a priori. To be clear, it's fine to be in favor of affirmation action as an individual and I often support it myself, but I definitely wouldn't want a union enforcing it and I could see why many people would be alienated by a union movement espousing it. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/08/10/analyzing-the-homework-gap-among-high-school-students/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/...
- zaroth 6y ago
  This reads like a PAC not a Union. Here’s a statement from United Steelworkers, for comparison; https://m.usw.org/union/our-founding-principles https://m.usw.org/union/our-founding-principles Here’s the SAG mission statement; https://www.sagaftra.org/about/mission-statement https://www.sagaftra.org/about/mission-statement The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc.; > negotiating the best wages, working conditions, and health and pension benefits; preserving and expanding members’ work opportunities; vigorously enforcing our contracts; and protecting members against unauthorized use of their work. The purpose of a labor union is traditionally not to set corporate direction / input into the creative process, to ensure “right-think” in the workplace, or for social justice campaigns.
  - oauea 6y ago
    > The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc. No, that is the primary goal of the unions you are familiar with.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Definitions mean something. IANAL, but as I understand it, trade unions are a legally protected entity, not an abstract concept which relates to any organization of people who happen to be employed in the same line of work. > trade union: An organization of workers in the same skilled occupation or related skilled occupations who act together to secure for all members favorable wages, hours, and other working conditions. There is apparently a concept in trade unions called the "golden formulae"; > golden formulae a non-technical but convenient expression to describe the conditions required for a trade union to benefit from the limited immunities available to it under legislation. There must first be a trade dispute that relates wholly or mainly to matters such as terms and conditions of employment, sacking or suspension of workers, allocation of work, discipline, membership of a union, facilities for union officials or negotiating regime. The acts in question must be in contemplation of furtherance of the dispute. So, for example, the legal benefits of a union may not confer to any possible activity a group of employees may conduct, but rather must pertain to specific aspects of their employment and relations to their employer. US Federal labor law defines a trade union as; > any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a collective of employees to organize around political rallying points, just that these actions are not generally recognized as the purpose of a trade union, and perhaps would not be legally protected in the same way. For example, there are carve-outs to requiring employees to pay union dues which are not used for specific purposes; > In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled (5–3) in Communications Workers v. Beck that private-sector workers who are not full union members cannot be forced to pay for the “social, charitable, and political” activities of unions. They can only be forced to pay the portion of dues used for “collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” Per the ruling, the federal law that requires compulsory unionism in certain situations does not provide the unions with a means for forcing employees, over their objection, to support political causes which they oppose. To the extent that this "union" is more of a PAC than a collective bargaining agreement over labor contracts, the specific protections (like required payment of dues) melt away. [1] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trade+union https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trade+union [2] - https://www.justfacts.com/unions.asp https://www.justfacts.com/unions.asp
thebean11 6y ago
What agendas would a union push, other than the personal agendas of its members?
- jskell725 6y ago
  As an outside observer, I'd expect a "union" to push an agenda of fair compensation for it's workers and an end to abusive practices from management. This "personal agenda", as you correctly term it, feels more like a political party than a workers' union.
  - thebean11 6y ago
    > abusive practices from management I think these Google workers see their demands falling into this category..not saying I agree with every bullet, but it really doesn't seem that different to me.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  The agenda of the workers (benefits, pay, working conditions, etc.) rather than the agenda of the organizers/leaders. If the workers want social issues as their agenda then that's fine but there should be a broad voting process for that rather than a dictatorial preemptive agenda. This just seems like a few dozen people trying to tell 100k what they should care about. edit: I don't think I've ever seen environmentalism come up as a desirable goal from proponents when people discussed tech unions. Pay, benefits, working conditions, abusive management and so on but environmentalism????

capableweb 6y ago

What in the mission statement seems to be "personal agendas" to you? Here they are listed: - All Alphabet workers deserve a voice - Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes - Everyone deserves a welcoming environment - All aspects of our work should be transparent - Our decisions are made democratically - We prioritize society and the environment - We stand in solidarity with workers and advocates everywhere Full statement: https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statement/ https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statemen... All in all, seems to be good values to want to have in a workplace, especially such a global and pervasive one as Google. If all of these things were pushed for and implemented in Google, you think that would harm the workers?

yanderekko 6y ago
If I were a Google employee with an active social media account that promoted conservative politics, this would be pretty alarming to me. It's similar to the CoC debates - the visionary goals foreshadow the darker enforcement strategies.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Now I'm not super into US politics, partly because it's so polarized today, but which one of these values are against conservative ideals? Seems to be pretty basic human decency, like everyone deserves a voice, welcoming environment, decisions are made democratically and more. Are those really against conservative ideas? Edit: My comment seems to have spawned replies to unrelated subjects so I'll repeat the question hopefully a bit more clear: What of the values proposed so far in the "Google Union", goes against modern conservative values in the US today?
  - yanderekko 6y ago
    In practice, as we've seen numerous times with CoC squabbles, being known to harbor certain political attitudes that are well within the American Overton window will create allegations that you're make people feel unsafe. For example, if one posts "All Lives Matter" on social media they could easily fall afoul of a "welcoming environment" provision.
    - gundmc 6y ago
      What is CoC in this context? Code of conduct?
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        Yes, you are correct.
  - inerte 6y ago
    Democracy in the US is seen by some people as the rule of the majority, therefore infringes personal rights and freedom. Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      > Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives. So if I understand what you're saying as a reply to my question, you mean that having "We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs" as a explicit value for the Google workplace, means that you'll end up without food for your child? Not sure when/how dolphins became Google's business, but I might have missed something recently as I don't follow their every move.
      - inerte 6y ago
- marcinzm 6y ago
  I've seen harassment campaigns (which ended in a lawsuit against the chief harasser) over association with someone who associates with a certain group. So even if you're a liberal you can get in trouble for associating with the wrong people or speaking at the wrong conference or promoting the wrong project.
  - yanderekko 6y ago
    Yeah, the argument that this will primarily target conservatives is probably incorrect; the baseline population of conservatives at Google is probably dwarfed by the population of mainstream progressives who would fail in some way, shape, or form to abide by proper woke etiquette and thus create an unsafe environment. If you're remotely alarmed by what happened to James Damore, then you should be alarmed by a union that organizes itself around these sorts of values.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      There's a certain kind of personality who needs to be a hero fighting against the enemy. It exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both liberals and conservatives hate it when they see it on the opposite side but support it on their own side. When this sort of person lacks a clear enemy they will make one up. Some 10% of the group will always and must always be the enemy. Hope you don't end up unlucky enough to fall into that group. The language of these organizers triggers too many warnings in my head around being that kind of personality. No matter which side of the political spectrum they are on I try to not support these personalities.
marcinzm 6y ago
I suspect many of those values are not shared by a large proportion of the US population and likely by a non trivial percentage of Google workers. They are liberal values and not universal values. You, and me, seem to share those values which is fine but please don't claim they are universally shared. As such they are the personal values of the organizers which they are trying to make company values applicable to all workers.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > I suspect many of those values are not shared by a large proportion of the US population That's not really relevant, the union will focus on Google and it's workplace, not the US as a whole. Maybe in the future they'll have impact in US politics, but that's not how unions start out. > likely by a non trivial percentage of Google workers I guess that's why they announced this, to see how many agree with it. We already know by fact that Google try to prevent internal discussions about unions, hence the people wanting to unionize, have to communicate in other ways (press releases to reach more people). > As such they are the personal values of the organizers They might also be the personal value of the organizers, but the explicit goal of setting up a organization (or more specifically a union) is to setup an organization that reflects those views. Once the organization is setup, it's the organizations values, not their personal values.
splaytreemap 6y ago
Pretty much every politician ever has used manipulative language to try to make themselves sound better than they are. It's why abortion activists call themselves pro-life/pro-choice. To take their words at face value is incredibly naive. For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. And the line about a "welcoming environment" is an outright lie as shown by these same employees' bullying and harassment of numerous wrong-thinking employees (James Damore and Miles Taylor come to mind as a few examples).
- mancerayder 6y ago
  > For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism These days it's for race+gender-orientated demands.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > To take their words at face value is incredibly naive I agree, but that's what we have to go on, as this effort just started. The opposite is naive as well, where you assume everyone always have hidden agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. > For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. Well, yes and no. Yes, you can describe their economic justice value as socialistic, I don't think they are trying to hide that. Here's the full value: > Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim. Yes, sounds like socialism. Exactly what they are aiming to implement in the Google/Alphabet workplace. The people who sign up with the union, are people who agree they want to focus on fixing that particular problem. That's a strong point of unions in general, to align about common values. Not sure how you get it to be a "Google should be used as a propaganda vehicle". The employees there want to improve their own workplace by implementing their ideas. Now they are calling for others (who agree) to join them. I don't have any skin in the game, so I'm fine either way. But I find the process of even trying this to be refreshing, no matter what their values and ultimately their impact will be.
sz4kerto 6y ago
The 'personal agenda' refers to the fact that it is unclear whether these values represent the opinion of an overwhelming majority at Google. Some of these statements are _actually_ controversial. (Without saying whether I personally agree with them or not -- I am saying that they are far from being universally accepted.) Examples: > All aspects of our work should be transparent, including the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values. Not sure how the company should approach this exactly. I'll bring up some extreme (and maybe stupid) examples. Let's say Google wants to monetize the Google search page even more, while employees working in the UX team disagree with this direction. Should Google be able to let them go (in case there's no other UX role in the company) or not? > Our decisions are made democratically, not just by electing our leaders who set the agenda, but by actively and continuously listening to what workers believe is important. This approach of corporate decision making practically doesn't exist anywhere, and there's not much proof that it'd work, so I consider this controversial. > Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim. Google had a massive impact on the world by creating the search engine and broadening access to information to people around the world. Should it have other social missions as well? What should those be? What happens if the company's core mission (organizing the world's information) becomes at odds with other social mission(s)? Normally the leaders of the company are responsible for making decisions here. > Everyone deserves a welcoming environment I think this is something most people would agree with, if there weren't many examples of people abusing these policies. > We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs. We can make money without doing evil. Sure, no reason to not agree with this sentence. Question is: how is this actionable? Who is going to decide what's evil, what's worth it? By default the executives do, that's their job.
- hudsonjr 6y ago
  > Democratic Decision Making I'd question whether it's wanting "democratic" decision making or if the group wants a great role in decision making, perhaps beyond that which it's numbers justify. I say this as I work at a place where topics for all-hands could be submitted and voted on. This seemed to work well until a topic was submitted and the downvote to upvote ratio was "disappointing" to the person/group that submitted. After this meeting, only upvotes were allowed on submissions.
pwned1 6y ago
> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes Social justice is not justice
- capableweb 6y ago
  Ok, let's hear your definitions of what social justice is, and what justice is? In a traditional sense, social justice is referring to the balance between the individual and society at large. Distribution of wealth, public services/schools, taxation, regulations of markets and more are part of what social justice is, at least in this part of the world. That does sound like justice to me. It's not criminal justice, which you might be referring to, but more justice in the sense of "just behavior or treatment".
  - dnissley 6y ago
    Best definition I've heard: "Social justice" is an awkward term for an immensely important project, perhaps the most important project, which is to make the world a more equitable, fair, and compassionate place. But the project for social justice has been captured by an elite strata of post-collegiate, digitally-enabled children of privilege, who do not pursue that project as an end, but rather use it as a means with which to compete, socially and professionally, with each other. In that use, they value not speech or actions that actually result in a better world, but rather those that result in greater social reward, which in the digital world is obvious and explicit. That means that they prefer engagement that creates a) outrage and b) jokes, rather than engagement that leads to positive change. In this disregard for actual political success, they reveal their own privilege, as it’s only the privileged who could ever have so little regard for actual, material progress. As long as they are allowed to co-opt the movement for social justice for their own personal aggrandizement, the world will not improve, not for women, people of color, gay and transgender people, or the poor.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Right, and forcing balanced outcomes when there's very unbalanced inputs is not justice in the eyes of many people. Consider the fact that Asian students in the US spend on average 110 minutes a day studying as compared to Whites' ~55 and Black student's ~35 [1]. Forcing a balanced outcome with disparate inputs is not what many consider just behavior. I have not only witnessed, but carried out, similar policy in tech. E.g. companies setting diversity targets that are substantially higher (often over 2x higher) than the said groups' representation in the field. I have also worked at companies that let women and URM candidates take two attempts at passing the pre-onsite technical phone interview while white and Asian men get one chance. Maybe this isn't the kind of "social justice" Google union activists are arriving for. But if that's the case the union activists should lay out specific goals, like establishing name-blind resume reviews, eliminating gender and racial quotas, or something else. Otherwise, my instinct is to lump their views into the same trend as the social justice activists I have encountered during my time working in tech which tends to be hostile to meritocracy and desires picking outcomes a priori. To be clear, it's fine to be in favor of affirmation action as an individual and I often support it myself, but I definitely wouldn't want a union enforcing it and I could see why many people would be alienated by a union movement espousing it. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/08/10/analyzing-the-homework-gap-among-high-school-students/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/...
zaroth 6y ago
This reads like a PAC not a Union. Here’s a statement from United Steelworkers, for comparison; https://m.usw.org/union/our-founding-principles https://m.usw.org/union/our-founding-principles Here’s the SAG mission statement; https://www.sagaftra.org/about/mission-statement https://www.sagaftra.org/about/mission-statement The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc.; > negotiating the best wages, working conditions, and health and pension benefits; preserving and expanding members’ work opportunities; vigorously enforcing our contracts; and protecting members against unauthorized use of their work. The purpose of a labor union is traditionally not to set corporate direction / input into the creative process, to ensure “right-think” in the workplace, or for social justice campaigns.
- oauea 6y ago
  > The primary goal of a union is to ensure safe and secure working conditions, the best compensation and benefits, etc. No, that is the primary goal of the unions you are familiar with.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Definitions mean something. IANAL, but as I understand it, trade unions are a legally protected entity, not an abstract concept which relates to any organization of people who happen to be employed in the same line of work. > trade union: An organization of workers in the same skilled occupation or related skilled occupations who act together to secure for all members favorable wages, hours, and other working conditions. There is apparently a concept in trade unions called the "golden formulae"; > golden formulae a non-technical but convenient expression to describe the conditions required for a trade union to benefit from the limited immunities available to it under legislation. There must first be a trade dispute that relates wholly or mainly to matters such as terms and conditions of employment, sacking or suspension of workers, allocation of work, discipline, membership of a union, facilities for union officials or negotiating regime. The acts in question must be in contemplation of furtherance of the dispute. So, for example, the legal benefits of a union may not confer to any possible activity a group of employees may conduct, but rather must pertain to specific aspects of their employment and relations to their employer. US Federal labor law defines a trade union as; > any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a collective of employees to organize around political rallying points, just that these actions are not generally recognized as the purpose of a trade union, and perhaps would not be legally protected in the same way. For example, there are carve-outs to requiring employees to pay union dues which are not used for specific purposes; > In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled (5–3) in Communications Workers v. Beck that private-sector workers who are not full union members cannot be forced to pay for the “social, charitable, and political” activities of unions. They can only be forced to pay the portion of dues used for “collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” Per the ruling, the federal law that requires compulsory unionism in certain situations does not provide the unions with a means for forcing employees, over their objection, to support political causes which they oppose. To the extent that this "union" is more of a PAC than a collective bargaining agreement over labor contracts, the specific protections (like required payment of dues) melt away. [1] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trade+union https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trade+union [2] - https://www.justfacts.com/unions.asp https://www.justfacts.com/unions.asp

thebean11 6y ago

What agendas would a union push, other than the personal agendas of its members?

jskell725 6y ago
As an outside observer, I'd expect a "union" to push an agenda of fair compensation for it's workers and an end to abusive practices from management. This "personal agenda", as you correctly term it, feels more like a political party than a workers' union.
- thebean11 6y ago
  > abusive practices from management I think these Google workers see their demands falling into this category..not saying I agree with every bullet, but it really doesn't seem that different to me.
marcinzm 6y ago
The agenda of the workers (benefits, pay, working conditions, etc.) rather than the agenda of the organizers/leaders. If the workers want social issues as their agenda then that's fine but there should be a broad voting process for that rather than a dictatorial preemptive agenda. This just seems like a few dozen people trying to tell 100k what they should care about. edit: I don't think I've ever seen environmentalism come up as a desirable goal from proponents when people discussed tech unions. Pay, benefits, working conditions, abusive management and so on but environmentalism????