7 ms·

> Sounds more like a political pressure group than a union. No collective bargaining, no workplace issues, only political problems quite removed from the averag

> Sounds more like a political pressure group than a union. No collective bargaining, no workplace issues, only political problems quite removed from the average worker at Google. Do they call themselves a union to get legal protection, or is there another reason why they don't just drop the term? Yes, it's effectively a PAC, not a union. Just like at Kickstarter where they were more concerned about people deemed 'conservative' not using the platform to promote comicbooks than anything related to work conditions. A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients, it's plain insubordination especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own compensations or work conditions. Obviously anybody can claim that employer B working with X or Y make their employees of class Z emotionally 'distressed' or 'unsafe'... The irony/hypocrisy here is people claiming 'unions are political' when that thing at google is really just about being partisan, yet these people don't have the courage to call a PAC...a PAC, and hide behind the word 'union'.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'd argue it's more fashion than a lack of courage. Amazon's equivalent group is called Amazon Workers for Climate Justice - they regularly pressure Amazon on topics that have nothing to do with climate justice, but climate change was a trendy topic when they first organized. Sponsorship and support from the CWA is another factor, although I don't know if it's public how much the AWU is actually getting from that relationship.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients I don't agree with that assessment. If Google employees have a strong opposition to working with, say, federal agencies to share data they've gathered on users, then I think it makes perfect sense for them bring that concern to the table. Honestly, I don't see why a union shouldn't have the ability to bargain anything it wants to try and bargain. I'm open to someone changing my mind on that.
- ta76893548 6y ago
  I think the appropriate way for the employees to have a say in the direction of the company is probably to give them voting shares. Otherwise the employees may end up disagreeing with a decision that the shareholders voted on and that seems like a recipe for a bad situation. I could be wrong, but I believe the officers and directors of a C corporation (unlike a B corp) owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders so to some extend they must prioritize growth over social purposes Edit: to clarify, letting the employees of a public corporation decide the direction/priorities would be like if the employees of a non-profit had a union which could force the non-profit to change from planting trees to something unrelated like washing dogs. The people who donated money would probably be upset that they were deceived about what the donation would be used to accomplish.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    And that’s why the Earth will collapse on humanity, growth over everything else.. Money is not the only value here, so I don’t see why it has precedence over what other’s find valuable?
    - ta76893548 6y ago
      This is not my area of expertise so I could be 100% wrong, but the idea is basically you have to do what you've advertised to your shareholder that you're doing so growth is valued in a C corp over everything else because that's what the shareholders want and expect. If you want your company to value something over money you could establish a non-profit or a B corp and that's equally acceptable, but you can't just decide one day that growth isn't the primary goal of a C corp because then you've misled your shareholders. The same way if you established a non-profit or B corp with a specific social purpose and then decided to prioritize growth over accomplishing that social purpose, that would be misleading your donors/shareholders
      - kaba0 6y ago
        But doing things the way in line with what is “acceptable” for your employees could be seen as a cost that should be substracted from the profits as any other cost is. I don’t see why would it be bad? We already don’t do things like working children (unfortunately we still do it in third world countries) and the like, even though it could increase margins.
zaroth 6y ago
I commented exactly the same last time this subject came up last week or so. IANAL, but I did some research then, and my understanding is that the Supreme Court has ruled that to the extent that a union spends money on political activities, the dues they collect are no longer mandatory. The point being that it’s not just a moot point whether they are actually a PAC. It is recognized in law that the purpose of a union is for collective bargaining in the workplace, and some of the special legal protections that a union holds (like mandatory dues and legal immunity) can fall away when the union is actually operating like a PAC. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25634087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25634087
dbingham 6y ago
They are engaging in collective bargaining. And they are bargaining around how the wealth and power they help generate is used in the broader society. A union is a PAC. It's a PAC that allows the workers to exercise some level of collective control over the business they create through their work. It's not just about bargaining for better pay or working conditions - that's a fabrication of the propaganda spread in the US as part of the effort to dismantle our labor movement. If you look at the history of labor organizing, it's always been about power - whether power is held in the hands of those with capital, or whether it's shared with those who do the work.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients, it's plain insubordination especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own compensations or work conditions. A union can negotiate on whatever the workers want to negotiate.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'd argue it's more fashion than a lack of courage. Amazon's equivalent group is called Amazon Workers for Climate Justice - they regularly pressure Amazon on topics that have nothing to do with climate justice, but climate change was a trendy topic when they first organized. Sponsorship and support from the CWA is another factor, although I don't know if it's public how much the AWU is actually getting from that relationship.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients I don't agree with that assessment. If Google employees have a strong opposition to working with, say, federal agencies to share data they've gathered on users, then I think it makes perfect sense for them bring that concern to the table. Honestly, I don't see why a union shouldn't have the ability to bargain anything it wants to try and bargain. I'm open to someone changing my mind on that.

ta76893548 6y ago
I think the appropriate way for the employees to have a say in the direction of the company is probably to give them voting shares. Otherwise the employees may end up disagreeing with a decision that the shareholders voted on and that seems like a recipe for a bad situation. I could be wrong, but I believe the officers and directors of a C corporation (unlike a B corp) owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders so to some extend they must prioritize growth over social purposes Edit: to clarify, letting the employees of a public corporation decide the direction/priorities would be like if the employees of a non-profit had a union which could force the non-profit to change from planting trees to something unrelated like washing dogs. The people who donated money would probably be upset that they were deceived about what the donation would be used to accomplish.
- kaba0 6y ago
  And that’s why the Earth will collapse on humanity, growth over everything else.. Money is not the only value here, so I don’t see why it has precedence over what other’s find valuable?
  - ta76893548 6y ago
    This is not my area of expertise so I could be 100% wrong, but the idea is basically you have to do what you've advertised to your shareholder that you're doing so growth is valued in a C corp over everything else because that's what the shareholders want and expect. If you want your company to value something over money you could establish a non-profit or a B corp and that's equally acceptable, but you can't just decide one day that growth isn't the primary goal of a C corp because then you've misled your shareholders. The same way if you established a non-profit or B corp with a specific social purpose and then decided to prioritize growth over accomplishing that social purpose, that would be misleading your donors/shareholders
    - kaba0 6y ago
      But doing things the way in line with what is “acceptable” for your employees could be seen as a cost that should be substracted from the profits as any other cost is. I don’t see why would it be bad? We already don’t do things like working children (unfortunately we still do it in third world countries) and the like, even though it could increase margins.

zaroth 6y ago

I commented exactly the same last time this subject came up last week or so. IANAL, but I did some research then, and my understanding is that the Supreme Court has ruled that to the extent that a union spends money on political activities, the dues they collect are no longer mandatory. The point being that it’s not just a moot point whether they are actually a PAC. It is recognized in law that the purpose of a union is for collective bargaining in the workplace, and some of the special legal protections that a union holds (like mandatory dues and legal immunity) can fall away when the union is actually operating like a PAC. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25634087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25634087

dbingham 6y ago

They are engaging in collective bargaining. And they are bargaining around how the wealth and power they help generate is used in the broader society. A union is a PAC. It's a PAC that allows the workers to exercise some level of collective control over the business they create through their work. It's not just about bargaining for better pay or working conditions - that's a fabrication of the propaganda spread in the US as part of the effort to dismantle our labor movement. If you look at the history of labor organizing, it's always been about power - whether power is held in the hands of those with capital, or whether it's shared with those who do the work.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients, it's plain insubordination especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with their own compensations or work conditions. A union can negotiate on whatever the workers want to negotiate.