6 ms·

Go figure the top comments on this thread echo how companies talk about unions. “Oh unions can be good but those Americans don’t know their downsides…” Or “U

Go figure the top comments on this thread echo how companies talk about unions. “Oh unions can be good but those Americans don’t know their downsides…” Or “Unions are great but it’s awful people can be forced to join them!” I’m just saying Google’s money was well spent.

rtkwe 5y ago
Not just Google there's been decades of trash talking by businesses and politicians for their own purposes really works. The whole Cold War period really messed up the US discourse of any kind of collectivism.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rapind 5y ago
Yeah when I clicked into the comments I was hoping for a discussion on the ethics of hiring a firm to trash talk unions (for or against). Instead it’s like the Google 50c party arguing the merits of unions. I’m uncomfortable with companies constantly trying to influence their employees opinions. It’s marketing turned inwards. I’m not so naïve to be surprised, but I would never work at a business who employed tactics like this.
- Starlevel001 5y ago
  I'm really not sure why you were hoping for that on a forum attached to a venture capitalist firm site.
- d4mi3n 5y ago
  > It’s marketing turned inwards. I believe the word for this is propaganda: prŏp″ə-găn′də noun 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
  - z3c0 5y ago
    TBF marketing turned outwards is technically propaganda as well.
    - d4mi3n 5y ago
      You are technically correct—the best kind of correct. I think the big distinction here is that external marketing is trying to change public opinion in pursuit of profit to the detriment of competitors (presumably). Internal marketing as discussed in the OP is trying to change employee opinion in pursuit of profit to the detriment of the employee.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aunche 5y ago
So what exactly did Google spend their money on? What exactly did these "union-busting" consultants do? Like the other article posted yesterday, this one is remarkably lacking of details. If the pro-union side is pulling out their pitchforks despite a lack of substantive allegations, then why wouldn't the anti-union side do the same?
- aylmao 5y ago
  > So what exactly did Google spend their money on? What exactly did these "union-busting" consultants do? I think the sentiment here is that hiring "union-busting" consultants clearly implies strong anti-union sentiment by management and an equally strong desire to quell rising union sentiment within the company. Companies, especially big tech companies, like to seem friendly to employees and make them feel like they're in charge, and the company is "run by them". They like to keep a facade of being "benevolent" dictators ultimately motivated by being the best they can for users. In reality, they're corporations, and they'll do what's best for their bottom-line, wether that aligns with their employees' and users' interests interests or not. In this case, that involved retaliating against employees involved with the Google Walkout, which on top of challenging this benevolent image, is illegal. Of course, Google won't admit it was retaliation. They want to seem unbothered by the fact there's union sentiment within its ranks, and will tolerate the Alphabet Workers Union's existence. Hiring a union-busting consultancy clearly conveys this is not the case. There's a lot of reason to criticize union-busting in general too; it usually employs misinformation and scare tactics; this has happened at Amazon, for example [1]. Regardless of wether this has been the case at Google, it's clear they're not as indifferent to the organization of their workers as they claim they are. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8&feature=emb_title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8&feature=emb_titl...
ambrozk 5y ago
This conversation makes me crazy. I was at Google when its employee union, a.k.a. "AWU", was trying to get off the ground. I formed my opinion of it completely independent of company propaganda. AWU is a political advocacy organization, not a traditional union. AWU's mission statement is explicitly and emphatically not to further my or other full-time employee's interests. Rather, it is organized primarily as a vehicle for achieving a broader political end ("social justice", as that term is construed by AWU's organizers), potentially at employees' expense. Almost none of AWU's projects have focused on Googlers' work conditions or pay. Instead, they focus nearly exclusively on modifying Google's products and policing its contracts, often in ways I find extremely objectionable. For example, they have lobbied heavily for Google to increase censorship of YouTube and Search, and to demonetize "problematic" content creators. They advocate increasing institutional support for DEI efforts, and it was their efforts which led to the creation of Alphabet's Chief Diversity Officer position. They agitated on behalf of ex-employee Timnit Gebru against Google's ML work, which is obviously a threat to the hundreds of Google workers whose jobs depend on the models that Gebru's research criticized. Why should I support such a "union"? I want to add that I agree with some of AWU political stands. For example, they opposed Project Dragonfly, a censored version of Google Search intended for the Chinese market. They opposed Google contracts with the DoD and CPB. I think these are all worthy causes and I hope that employees continue to agitate against them! But I am under no illusions that AWU would represent my interests as an employee. Primarily, they are a political action committee set up by and for an extremely vocal minority of Google's employees.
- aylmao 5y ago
  > Almost none of AWU's projects have focused on Googlers' work conditions or pay. I'd assume this is why they've been allowed to exist. In fact, unfortunately, this sounds like it could be working well for Google. If this organization is calling itself a "union" without doing actual union work or representing employees, it can help create an apathetic environment towards unions at the company. It also sounds like this organization is doing product work, and with the right maneuvering this sort of momentum can be used to allow controversial changes you'd be willing to try, but would rather not take the blame for.

rtkwe 5y ago

Not just Google there's been decades of trash talking by businesses and politicians for their own purposes really works. The whole Cold War period really messed up the US discourse of any kind of collectivism.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rapind 5y ago

Yeah when I clicked into the comments I was hoping for a discussion on the ethics of hiring a firm to trash talk unions (for or against). Instead it’s like the Google 50c party arguing the merits of unions. I’m uncomfortable with companies constantly trying to influence their employees opinions. It’s marketing turned inwards. I’m not so naïve to be surprised, but I would never work at a business who employed tactics like this.

Starlevel001 5y ago
I'm really not sure why you were hoping for that on a forum attached to a venture capitalist firm site.
d4mi3n 5y ago
> It’s marketing turned inwards. I believe the word for this is propaganda: prŏp″ə-găn′də noun 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
- z3c0 5y ago
  TBF marketing turned outwards is technically propaganda as well.
  - d4mi3n 5y ago
    You are technically correct—the best kind of correct. I think the big distinction here is that external marketing is trying to change public opinion in pursuit of profit to the detriment of competitors (presumably). Internal marketing as discussed in the OP is trying to change employee opinion in pursuit of profit to the detriment of the employee.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Aunche 5y ago

So what exactly did Google spend their money on? What exactly did these "union-busting" consultants do? Like the other article posted yesterday, this one is remarkably lacking of details. If the pro-union side is pulling out their pitchforks despite a lack of substantive allegations, then why wouldn't the anti-union side do the same?

aylmao 5y ago
> So what exactly did Google spend their money on? What exactly did these "union-busting" consultants do? I think the sentiment here is that hiring "union-busting" consultants clearly implies strong anti-union sentiment by management and an equally strong desire to quell rising union sentiment within the company. Companies, especially big tech companies, like to seem friendly to employees and make them feel like they're in charge, and the company is "run by them". They like to keep a facade of being "benevolent" dictators ultimately motivated by being the best they can for users. In reality, they're corporations, and they'll do what's best for their bottom-line, wether that aligns with their employees' and users' interests interests or not. In this case, that involved retaliating against employees involved with the Google Walkout, which on top of challenging this benevolent image, is illegal. Of course, Google won't admit it was retaliation. They want to seem unbothered by the fact there's union sentiment within its ranks, and will tolerate the Alphabet Workers Union's existence. Hiring a union-busting consultancy clearly conveys this is not the case. There's a lot of reason to criticize union-busting in general too; it usually employs misinformation and scare tactics; this has happened at Amazon, for example [1]. Regardless of wether this has been the case at Google, it's clear they're not as indifferent to the organization of their workers as they claim they are. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8&feature=emb_title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8&feature=emb_titl...

ambrozk 5y ago

This conversation makes me crazy. I was at Google when its employee union, a.k.a. "AWU", was trying to get off the ground. I formed my opinion of it completely independent of company propaganda. AWU is a political advocacy organization, not a traditional union. AWU's mission statement is explicitly and emphatically not to further my or other full-time employee's interests. Rather, it is organized primarily as a vehicle for achieving a broader political end ("social justice", as that term is construed by AWU's organizers), potentially at employees' expense. Almost none of AWU's projects have focused on Googlers' work conditions or pay. Instead, they focus nearly exclusively on modifying Google's products and policing its contracts, often in ways I find extremely objectionable. For example, they have lobbied heavily for Google to increase censorship of YouTube and Search, and to demonetize "problematic" content creators. They advocate increasing institutional support for DEI efforts, and it was their efforts which led to the creation of Alphabet's Chief Diversity Officer position. They agitated on behalf of ex-employee Timnit Gebru against Google's ML work, which is obviously a threat to the hundreds of Google workers whose jobs depend on the models that Gebru's research criticized. Why should I support such a "union"? I want to add that I agree with some of AWU political stands. For example, they opposed Project Dragonfly, a censored version of Google Search intended for the Chinese market. They opposed Google contracts with the DoD and CPB. I think these are all worthy causes and I hope that employees continue to agitate against them! But I am under no illusions that AWU would represent my interests as an employee. Primarily, they are a political action committee set up by and for an extremely vocal minority of Google's employees.

aylmao 5y ago
> Almost none of AWU's projects have focused on Googlers' work conditions or pay. I'd assume this is why they've been allowed to exist. In fact, unfortunately, this sounds like it could be working well for Google. If this organization is calling itself a "union" without doing actual union work or representing employees, it can help create an apathetic environment towards unions at the company. It also sounds like this organization is doing product work, and with the right maneuvering this sort of momentum can be used to allow controversial changes you'd be willing to try, but would rather not take the blame for.