4 ms·

Everyone can benefit from a union IMO. The Googlers that most need one are probably contractors (ie, not actually Googlers).

agentdrtran 5y ago
Unions aren't just for compensation - it's about having a say in your work.
- mikkergp 5y ago
  This is the bigger part that bugs me, I don't my job description enforced by committee.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > This is the bigger part that bugs me, I don't my job description enforced by committee. Huh? If you choose to work for a company with any size, your job description is enforced by a committee. It's just a committee of managers. If you don't believe me, try to stop working on your assignments and instead work on the cool new project that really interests you.
  - aradox66 5y ago
    It's not necessarily about your job description. It tends to be about whatever there's the most discontent among coworkers about. Like the mandatory all-nighters with no overtime, or whatever.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > This is the bigger part that bugs me, I don't my job description enforced by committee. unless you're self-employed, I have bad news
- 5560675260 5y ago
  But you, the worker, will not have more say in your work than you do now, probably less. Union will have. It's great if your views will align with union's views, but that's far from guaranteed.
  - agentdrtran 5y ago
    You don't get exactly what you want no, but you have a vote — which is a lot more than you have now.
secondcoming 5y ago
Except contractors know the deal when they become contractors. They deliberately want to represent themselves and take the risks and tax benefits that come along with that. If a contractor isn't happy with the work or conditions then they should move on to the next job.
- habosa 5y ago
  I think by contractors they meant all non-employees. Temps, vendors, etc. Google has over 100,000 of these and they do not all "know the deal" about how much worse their compensation / conditions will be compared to full time employees.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  “If a contractor isn't happy with the work or conditions then they should move on to the next job.” Maybe that’s the only decent job they could find? I know tech employees live in a bubble where jobs are plentiful and well laid but that’s not the world most people live in. And having lived through the aftermath of the .COM crash things can change for tech people very quickly too.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
If you're top of your field you benefit more by being judged as an individual not a part of a union. Unions are only a major benefit for work where you can't excel and talent and skill are less of a differentiator.
- aylmao 5y ago
  There's problems with this argument. Here are three: 1. It disproportionally affects those who have no other option. There's hero stories of pregnant woman outperforming up until the day they deliver, but this is hard to achieve and there's even a factor of "luck" involved. Some pregnancies are more tranquil, others are riddled with visits to the doctor, morning sickness, aches, pains, allergies, sleep problems, emotional swings, rashes, etc. It's hard to be "top of your field" when there's another human growing inside you. 2. This argument assumes skills are perfectly measured and employee benefits are based solely on skills. Even in the most objective companies there's subjectivity and politics. Not everyone has the skills or time to bargain. Not everyone shares hobbies or values with the boss, and wants to create a close relationship with them. 3. If the base compensation for all employees in a field rises, the compensation for out-performers will likely rise too. One can't assume "only" benefits those who "can't excel" at their job.
facebook101010 5y ago
I don't know much about Google but one of the (many) things that always made me uncomfortable while I was at Facebook was the cynicism with which they ignored contractor's issues. It often came up in the company Q&A, and it was often ignored or glossed over with an answer by Sheryl detailing how contractors "actually had it pretty good". That is, unless there was recent public press coverage how they in fact did not "have it pretty good" in which case the answer was your usual "we're working with our outsourcing partners to make sure every contractor has what they need to do their best work", etc. I am an engineer. I might've been more difficult to hire, but I wasn't doing work that was nearly as important or taxing as content moderation contractors, for example. Revert my work and some obscure internal metric somewhere is a little worse. Revert a content moderation contractor's work, and thousands get exposed to suicide, CSAM, graphic violence, etc. I know the value of an employee at companies like this is determined by how difficult they are to replace and how their work affects company profits; "anyone" can respond to content reports but not "anyone" has the technical knowledge I do. I just think it's wrong that people working on something so vital to Facebook have it so much worse than the rest do. Facebook could and should do a better job rewarding and protecting the people doing the hard, dirty work— it definitely has the means to.

agentdrtran 5y ago

Unions aren't just for compensation - it's about having a say in your work.

mikkergp 5y ago
This is the bigger part that bugs me, I don't my job description enforced by committee.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > This is the bigger part that bugs me, I don't my job description enforced by committee. Huh? If you choose to work for a company with any size, your job description is enforced by a committee. It's just a committee of managers. If you don't believe me, try to stop working on your assignments and instead work on the cool new project that really interests you.
- aradox66 5y ago
  It's not necessarily about your job description. It tends to be about whatever there's the most discontent among coworkers about. Like the mandatory all-nighters with no overtime, or whatever.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > This is the bigger part that bugs me, I don't my job description enforced by committee. unless you're self-employed, I have bad news
5560675260 5y ago
But you, the worker, will not have more say in your work than you do now, probably less. Union will have. It's great if your views will align with union's views, but that's far from guaranteed.
- agentdrtran 5y ago
  You don't get exactly what you want no, but you have a vote — which is a lot more than you have now.

secondcoming 5y ago

Except contractors know the deal when they become contractors. They deliberately want to represent themselves and take the risks and tax benefits that come along with that. If a contractor isn't happy with the work or conditions then they should move on to the next job.

habosa 5y ago
I think by contractors they meant all non-employees. Temps, vendors, etc. Google has over 100,000 of these and they do not all "know the deal" about how much worse their compensation / conditions will be compared to full time employees.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
“If a contractor isn't happy with the work or conditions then they should move on to the next job.” Maybe that’s the only decent job they could find? I know tech employees live in a bubble where jobs are plentiful and well laid but that’s not the world most people live in. And having lived through the aftermath of the .COM crash things can change for tech people very quickly too.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

If you're top of your field you benefit more by being judged as an individual not a part of a union. Unions are only a major benefit for work where you can't excel and talent and skill are less of a differentiator.

aylmao 5y ago
There's problems with this argument. Here are three: 1. It disproportionally affects those who have no other option. There's hero stories of pregnant woman outperforming up until the day they deliver, but this is hard to achieve and there's even a factor of "luck" involved. Some pregnancies are more tranquil, others are riddled with visits to the doctor, morning sickness, aches, pains, allergies, sleep problems, emotional swings, rashes, etc. It's hard to be "top of your field" when there's another human growing inside you. 2. This argument assumes skills are perfectly measured and employee benefits are based solely on skills. Even in the most objective companies there's subjectivity and politics. Not everyone has the skills or time to bargain. Not everyone shares hobbies or values with the boss, and wants to create a close relationship with them. 3. If the base compensation for all employees in a field rises, the compensation for out-performers will likely rise too. One can't assume "only" benefits those who "can't excel" at their job.

facebook101010 5y ago

I don't know much about Google but one of the (many) things that always made me uncomfortable while I was at Facebook was the cynicism with which they ignored contractor's issues. It often came up in the company Q&A, and it was often ignored or glossed over with an answer by Sheryl detailing how contractors "actually had it pretty good". That is, unless there was recent public press coverage how they in fact did not "have it pretty good" in which case the answer was your usual "we're working with our outsourcing partners to make sure every contractor has what they need to do their best work", etc. I am an engineer. I might've been more difficult to hire, but I wasn't doing work that was nearly as important or taxing as content moderation contractors, for example. Revert my work and some obscure internal metric somewhere is a little worse. Revert a content moderation contractor's work, and thousands get exposed to suicide, CSAM, graphic violence, etc. I know the value of an employee at companies like this is determined by how difficult they are to replace and how their work affects company profits; "anyone" can respond to content reports but not "anyone" has the technical knowledge I do. I just think it's wrong that people working on something so vital to Facebook have it so much worse than the rest do. Facebook could and should do a better job rewarding and protecting the people doing the hard, dirty work— it definitely has the means to.