8 ms·

The upper management at Google are so lucky that the company is filled with timid people who are averse to change and didn't unionize. Now they can safely siph

by kubb 4y ago

The upper management at Google are so lucky that the company is filled with timid people who are averse to change and didn't unionize. Now they can safely siphon the profits for another several years until they inevitably drive the company into the ground when the ad revenue dries up, and they move to similar positions at other places with healthy revenue streams. And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this because they think they caught God by the ankles with their 150k/year salary, that they feel they don't deserve because of their impostor syndrome.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
Both can be true. But I happen to think your right that the employer/worker balance has tipped way too far in favor of the employer in the last half-Century.
0xDEF 4y ago
I am from Denmark where we have strong unions protecting our working class and lower middle class. That is a good thing. However what is the benefit of ultra high income FAANG employees unionizing?
- malermeister 4y ago
  One benefit is stronger labor protection from layoffs like these. Having labor be more powerful can also help when execs push for morally questionable projects. Lastly, FAANG employees are working class.
  - code_runner 4y ago
    if you’re earning sky high base comp + stock + benefits at these places you’re not working class. You are incredibly out of touch.
    - occz 4y ago
      The distinguishing factor for being working class/owner class is whether or not you make the majority of your income from your labour, or from your capital. Incredibly well-paid working class, but working class all the same.
    - malermeister 4y ago
      The definition of working class is making their income from selling their labor as opposed to from capital. Everything else is an implementation detail.
      - mypornaccount 4y ago
        I think it’s pretty ignorant to think a staff software engineer at Google and the cleaning lady are in the same boat
        throwaway173738 4y ago
        It depends on how you define the boat. I think you can argue that in both cases continued servitude is the only way either of them can get food and a place to sleep indoors. There’s a big gulf of experience beyond that. But you can only form a coalition with someone on the basis of common ground. So while you’re both right, it’s not going to help either the cleaner or the engineer get better treatment if they don’t acknowledge similarities where they exist.
        riceart 4y ago
        > I think you can argue that in both cases continued servitude is the only way either of them can get food and a place to sleep indoors. No you can’t argue that because it’s stupid. A typical google software engineer will have made enough that in their early 30s they can quit/retire and live the rest of their life at at least the same standard of living as that cleaning lady (almost none of them find that an acceptable standard but that’s far beyond food and a place to sleep) These are not similar circumstances by any means.
        throwaway173738 4y ago
        So what do you want then, a world where the engineer has the same standard of living as the cleaner or where the cleaner has the same standard of living as the engineer?
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      Not if you have a visa to worry about. Doesn’t matter how much money you have then. You need another job in 30 days or you and your entire family are at risk.
      - cudgy 4y ago
        So, they can take their pile of cash and return to their native country and live like kings?
        SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        No, because they’ve established a life in the new country. They might have spouse or children. Forced moving js traumatic.
        cudgy 4y ago
        Moving generally sucks. Moving is traumatic whether it is forced or not and whether a migrant or not. It can be almost the same trauma when moving to the other side of a large city as moving to another country. Kids still change schools; spouses still change jobs; housing and community changes; distance to friends and family changes interactions; etc At least a migrant has the option of returning to their home country with a network of family and old friends; natives are stuck jobless and with high cost of living or choosing to uproot and migrate to a new country with lower cost of living, becoming migrants themselves. There is no stress-free ride for anyone.
      - mupuff1234 4y ago
        Pretty sure that with enough money to can solve almost any visa issue one way or another (investor visa etc)
    - ResearchCode 4y ago
      A regular family home with 4 bedrooms near the office is $3M or more. If you have to save aggressively for 10 or 20 years to own a home close to work, then you are at best working class.
- serial_dev 4y ago
  Just speculating: if we believe that the workers together are stronger than as individuals, they could force even more concessions. They could negotiate higher salaries, more transparency around compensation, more benefits, longer parental leave, bigger budget for travel or education, longer paid vacation, some guarantees and rules for layoffs, etc. In the end, I don't see why unions (IF done right) could only work for the lower class. I know that the TikTok videos of FAANG companies make it all seem like there is no more place to grow, but that's just smoke and mirrors. I think anti union efforts in FAANG companies also play to the employees ego and make them believe that they can negotiate better on their own than together.
- kubb 4y ago
  Good for you that you're from Denmark. It seems like an amazing country that I would love to visit and spend some time or even live in, but I'm afraid I couldn't fall in love with the language. Unions can ensure that the employees get a fair share of the revenue in proportion to the upper mgmt. They also can remove artificial promotion hurdles, that at Google happens according to destructive internal dynamics. Such dynamics result in deprecating useful and loved products and instead promoting parasitic internal interest groups that can stranglehold growth and innovation in the company. Ultimately, unions give the employees a voice in shaping the company. Now they can walk out, write posts on internal mailing lists, but at the end of the day they're still in a dictatorship, and they have to accept the decisions of the higher ups, and they won't be asked about their opinion.
  - slibhb 4y ago
    > Unions can ensure that the employees get a fair share of the revenue in proportion to the upper mgmt What is a fair share of revenue? Is a google SE earning 300K an exploited worker because Pichai earns many times that? > They also can remove artificial promotion hurdles, that at Google happens according to destructive internal dynamics. What is the correct (non-artificial) way to handle promotions? Union workplaces tend to overvalue seniority which isn't a great situation.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    > Good for you that you're from Denmark. It seems like an amazing country that I would love to visit and spend some time or even live in, but I'm afraid I couldn't fall in love with the language. Live in Copenhagen and you can more than get by without knowing the language, although obviously you start picking up some functional words.
- danaris 4y ago
  Just because a particular group has high salaries in some absolute sense doesn't mean they shouldn't unionize. For one thing, unionization is nearly guaranteed to raise salaries. For another, it will get them better benefits and working conditions. Overall, it reduces inequality, which is one of the major structural problems in our society and economy today.
- occz 4y ago
  >However what is the benefit of ultra high income FAANG employees unionizing? Same as for any other group that unionizes - maximizing the leverage they have in negotiations with the employer, utilizing this leverage as best they see fit. For examples of two very-high income groups that are unionized, see the Writer's Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA. Just because you make a lot, doesn't mean that having a union is not in your interest.
- DSingularity 4y ago
  IMO: so they have a voice in matters. These companies are playing roles more impactful on the future of humanity than that played by modern nation states. And who is driving their directions? At best boards and at worst hyper-ambitious individuals looking to climb corporate ladders by any means necessary.
itsoktocry 4y ago
Can you define "several years"? Google's revenues are at all-time highs, and still growing (albeit slowly). Seems pretty far from anything drying up...
- kubb 4y ago
  Yes, as long as it takes for competitors to build products that are more useful in access to knowledge than Google Search (here GPT + Bing is the most visible threat, but it could be anyone), and that capture your attention better than YouTube (TikTok is the biggest competitor in this space, but again, it could be anyone). Google can't build products, they didn't build anything useful since Search and Docs, so they won't be able to compete. Add a couple of years for consumers to catch on and migrate. So I would give it 5-7 years in which the employees will slowly be demotivated by waves of layoffs, morale will tank, and accelerate the process. In that time, the upper mgmt will scramble to increase their bonuses to get as much as they can out of the sinking ship. In the end the company will face restructuring and be left with maybe 10% of the current size, trending downward.
  - frankfrankfrank 4y ago
    I agree with you. What people seem to forget is that Google simply did one thing even just marginally better back in the 90s and has been riding that heavy train ever since. All the other stuff, even YouTube is also essentially just dumb luck and a function of that initial success, not to mention that Google was going to shut YouTube down before someone made the case for making it an ad platform, which should have been obvious to Google of all organizations even at that time. Frankly, Google is like the guy who invented a thing early in life and has been living off the royalties that just flood in, but has absolutely no touch with reality and is convinced of his own greatness as an illusion of that single act so many decades ago. And his kids are even worse and more rotten and spoiled. They all just don’t know it yet.
    - sysstemlord 4y ago
      That's a little exaggerated though, Android, Google Maps, Photos, Gmail?
chaostheory 4y ago
You don’t have the full picture. You’re missing a lot of data > And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this because they think they caught God by the ankles with their 150k/year salary That’s closer to their intern salaries. Total comp is more like double or more Much of the rank and file’s total compensation is also in stock Add to that if you wanted to, you can do the minimum and just coast. No one is going to unionize and it’s not for the reasons you’ve cited. Maybe you shouldn’t comment on something you know barely anything about?
- kubb 4y ago
  > Maybe you shouldn’t comment on something you know barely anything about? Very weak counterpoint, essentially ad personam, trying to insinuate my ignorance, telling me to shut up. Not impressive.
  - d23 4y ago
    He brought up that you are grossly off the mark on salary. And it’s a pretty broad brush to say everyone at google is “timid” and this is the only reason they don’t unionize.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    Yes, having a counterpoint with a relevant data point that you missed is “weak” you are ignorant, making your argument weak and just plain wrong. Should people no longer point out when comments are really wrong? You’re also over generalizing while being completely incorrect ie making shit up
    - kubb 4y ago
      You didn't provide a "relevant data point". The base salary for an L3 (rank-and-file) SWE in the Bay Area (which is one of the highest paid areas in the US) is 140K on levels.fyi. You've compared this to the total comp which includes stock (that tanked recently), and a bonus (which isn't guaranteed). You're asserting that you're right and I have no idea what I'm talking about baselessly and being agressive and rude. I don't need to engage with that, nobody does.
5ersi 4y ago
[flagged]
- nme01 4y ago
  > You are pathetic. That was unnecessary
  - kubb 4y ago
    The other points weren't great but when it degrades to insults, there's no point in saying anything in response. I'm surprised this stayed up, I thought this kind of language is against HN policy.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
The fact that this is currently the third highest voted comment is just sad. As other sibling commenters have said virtually every sentence here contains ridiculous falsehoods or is just "r/antiwork" levels of nonsense. And it's not that Google doesn't have major problems, a lot of which can be laid at Sundar's feet, or that he's wildly overpaid. It's that these types of reactionary missives just miss the point in every possible way.
- rcme 4y ago
  I disagree. The entire tech sector had one of the strongest labor positions in the country for the last decade. It was short sighted not to unionize. Now, layoffs are widespread, compensation is way down, while all the profits go to shareholders. This applies to Google and many other profitable tech companies.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    You anti-work guys are again showing your ignorance. A large chunk of techie compensation is in stock.
    - rcme 4y ago
      What difference does it make what form the compensation is in? Is your argument that because employees receive stock that they somehow have enough voting power to influence company policy? That’s laughable.
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        > Now, layoffs are widespread, compensation is way down, while all the profits go to shareholders. People who own stock are shareholders
      - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
        Does employee owned stock magically not go up in value because "reasons"?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gymbeaux 4y ago
I don’t understand how Americans have been brainwashed into thinking getting fired is the end of the world and doing anything to “rock the boat” is being mean to the company. Especially SWEs at FAANG. Y’all absolutely minted money the last few years. You get months and months of severance. Do you realize that most of us make “only” $130k as seniors and don’t get any stock bonuses or severance? If I made $300k/year I’d have YEARS of expenses in an emergency fund. Unionizing would be a win-win. Either I become a unionized employee or I take a 1-year sabbatical. You guys blew it.

by kubb 4y ago

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Both can be true. But I happen to think your right that the employer/worker balance has tipped way too far in favor of the employer in the last half-Century.

0xDEF 4y ago

I am from Denmark where we have strong unions protecting our working class and lower middle class. That is a good thing. However what is the benefit of ultra high income FAANG employees unionizing?

malermeister 4y ago
One benefit is stronger labor protection from layoffs like these. Having labor be more powerful can also help when execs push for morally questionable projects. Lastly, FAANG employees are working class.
- code_runner 4y ago
  if you’re earning sky high base comp + stock + benefits at these places you’re not working class. You are incredibly out of touch.
  - occz 4y ago
    The distinguishing factor for being working class/owner class is whether or not you make the majority of your income from your labour, or from your capital. Incredibly well-paid working class, but working class all the same.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    The definition of working class is making their income from selling their labor as opposed to from capital. Everything else is an implementation detail.
    - mypornaccount 4y ago
      I think it’s pretty ignorant to think a staff software engineer at Google and the cleaning lady are in the same boat
      - throwaway173738 4y ago
        It depends on how you define the boat. I think you can argue that in both cases continued servitude is the only way either of them can get food and a place to sleep indoors. There’s a big gulf of experience beyond that. But you can only form a coalition with someone on the basis of common ground. So while you’re both right, it’s not going to help either the cleaner or the engineer get better treatment if they don’t acknowledge similarities where they exist.
        riceart 4y ago
        > I think you can argue that in both cases continued servitude is the only way either of them can get food and a place to sleep indoors. No you can’t argue that because it’s stupid. A typical google software engineer will have made enough that in their early 30s they can quit/retire and live the rest of their life at at least the same standard of living as that cleaning lady (almost none of them find that an acceptable standard but that’s far beyond food and a place to sleep) These are not similar circumstances by any means.
        throwaway173738 4y ago
        So what do you want then, a world where the engineer has the same standard of living as the cleaner or where the cleaner has the same standard of living as the engineer?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Not if you have a visa to worry about. Doesn’t matter how much money you have then. You need another job in 30 days or you and your entire family are at risk.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      So, they can take their pile of cash and return to their native country and live like kings?
      - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        No, because they’ve established a life in the new country. They might have spouse or children. Forced moving js traumatic.
        cudgy 4y ago
        Moving generally sucks. Moving is traumatic whether it is forced or not and whether a migrant or not. It can be almost the same trauma when moving to the other side of a large city as moving to another country. Kids still change schools; spouses still change jobs; housing and community changes; distance to friends and family changes interactions; etc At least a migrant has the option of returning to their home country with a network of family and old friends; natives are stuck jobless and with high cost of living or choosing to uproot and migrate to a new country with lower cost of living, becoming migrants themselves. There is no stress-free ride for anyone.
    - mupuff1234 4y ago
      Pretty sure that with enough money to can solve almost any visa issue one way or another (investor visa etc)
  - ResearchCode 4y ago
    A regular family home with 4 bedrooms near the office is $3M or more. If you have to save aggressively for 10 or 20 years to own a home close to work, then you are at best working class.
serial_dev 4y ago
Just speculating: if we believe that the workers together are stronger than as individuals, they could force even more concessions. They could negotiate higher salaries, more transparency around compensation, more benefits, longer parental leave, bigger budget for travel or education, longer paid vacation, some guarantees and rules for layoffs, etc. In the end, I don't see why unions (IF done right) could only work for the lower class. I know that the TikTok videos of FAANG companies make it all seem like there is no more place to grow, but that's just smoke and mirrors. I think anti union efforts in FAANG companies also play to the employees ego and make them believe that they can negotiate better on their own than together.
kubb 4y ago
Good for you that you're from Denmark. It seems like an amazing country that I would love to visit and spend some time or even live in, but I'm afraid I couldn't fall in love with the language. Unions can ensure that the employees get a fair share of the revenue in proportion to the upper mgmt. They also can remove artificial promotion hurdles, that at Google happens according to destructive internal dynamics. Such dynamics result in deprecating useful and loved products and instead promoting parasitic internal interest groups that can stranglehold growth and innovation in the company. Ultimately, unions give the employees a voice in shaping the company. Now they can walk out, write posts on internal mailing lists, but at the end of the day they're still in a dictatorship, and they have to accept the decisions of the higher ups, and they won't be asked about their opinion.
- slibhb 4y ago
  > Unions can ensure that the employees get a fair share of the revenue in proportion to the upper mgmt What is a fair share of revenue? Is a google SE earning 300K an exploited worker because Pichai earns many times that? > They also can remove artificial promotion hurdles, that at Google happens according to destructive internal dynamics. What is the correct (non-artificial) way to handle promotions? Union workplaces tend to overvalue seniority which isn't a great situation.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  > Good for you that you're from Denmark. It seems like an amazing country that I would love to visit and spend some time or even live in, but I'm afraid I couldn't fall in love with the language. Live in Copenhagen and you can more than get by without knowing the language, although obviously you start picking up some functional words.
danaris 4y ago
Just because a particular group has high salaries in some absolute sense doesn't mean they shouldn't unionize. For one thing, unionization is nearly guaranteed to raise salaries. For another, it will get them better benefits and working conditions. Overall, it reduces inequality, which is one of the major structural problems in our society and economy today.
occz 4y ago
>However what is the benefit of ultra high income FAANG employees unionizing? Same as for any other group that unionizes - maximizing the leverage they have in negotiations with the employer, utilizing this leverage as best they see fit. For examples of two very-high income groups that are unionized, see the Writer's Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA. Just because you make a lot, doesn't mean that having a union is not in your interest.
DSingularity 4y ago
IMO: so they have a voice in matters. These companies are playing roles more impactful on the future of humanity than that played by modern nation states. And who is driving their directions? At best boards and at worst hyper-ambitious individuals looking to climb corporate ladders by any means necessary.

itsoktocry 4y ago

Can you define "several years"? Google's revenues are at all-time highs, and still growing (albeit slowly). Seems pretty far from anything drying up...

kubb 4y ago
Yes, as long as it takes for competitors to build products that are more useful in access to knowledge than Google Search (here GPT + Bing is the most visible threat, but it could be anyone), and that capture your attention better than YouTube (TikTok is the biggest competitor in this space, but again, it could be anyone). Google can't build products, they didn't build anything useful since Search and Docs, so they won't be able to compete. Add a couple of years for consumers to catch on and migrate. So I would give it 5-7 years in which the employees will slowly be demotivated by waves of layoffs, morale will tank, and accelerate the process. In that time, the upper mgmt will scramble to increase their bonuses to get as much as they can out of the sinking ship. In the end the company will face restructuring and be left with maybe 10% of the current size, trending downward.
- frankfrankfrank 4y ago
  I agree with you. What people seem to forget is that Google simply did one thing even just marginally better back in the 90s and has been riding that heavy train ever since. All the other stuff, even YouTube is also essentially just dumb luck and a function of that initial success, not to mention that Google was going to shut YouTube down before someone made the case for making it an ad platform, which should have been obvious to Google of all organizations even at that time. Frankly, Google is like the guy who invented a thing early in life and has been living off the royalties that just flood in, but has absolutely no touch with reality and is convinced of his own greatness as an illusion of that single act so many decades ago. And his kids are even worse and more rotten and spoiled. They all just don’t know it yet.
  - sysstemlord 4y ago
    That's a little exaggerated though, Android, Google Maps, Photos, Gmail?

chaostheory 4y ago

You don’t have the full picture. You’re missing a lot of data > And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this because they think they caught God by the ankles with their 150k/year salary That’s closer to their intern salaries. Total comp is more like double or more Much of the rank and file’s total compensation is also in stock Add to that if you wanted to, you can do the minimum and just coast. No one is going to unionize and it’s not for the reasons you’ve cited. Maybe you shouldn’t comment on something you know barely anything about?

kubb 4y ago
> Maybe you shouldn’t comment on something you know barely anything about? Very weak counterpoint, essentially ad personam, trying to insinuate my ignorance, telling me to shut up. Not impressive.
- d23 4y ago
  He brought up that you are grossly off the mark on salary. And it’s a pretty broad brush to say everyone at google is “timid” and this is the only reason they don’t unionize.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Yes, having a counterpoint with a relevant data point that you missed is “weak” you are ignorant, making your argument weak and just plain wrong. Should people no longer point out when comments are really wrong? You’re also over generalizing while being completely incorrect ie making shit up
  - kubb 4y ago
    You didn't provide a "relevant data point". The base salary for an L3 (rank-and-file) SWE in the Bay Area (which is one of the highest paid areas in the US) is 140K on levels.fyi. You've compared this to the total comp which includes stock (that tanked recently), and a bonus (which isn't guaranteed). You're asserting that you're right and I have no idea what I'm talking about baselessly and being agressive and rude. I don't need to engage with that, nobody does.

5ersi 4y ago

[flagged]

nme01 4y ago
> You are pathetic. That was unnecessary
- kubb 4y ago
  The other points weren't great but when it degrades to insults, there's no point in saying anything in response. I'm surprised this stayed up, I thought this kind of language is against HN policy.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

The fact that this is currently the third highest voted comment is just sad. As other sibling commenters have said virtually every sentence here contains ridiculous falsehoods or is just "r/antiwork" levels of nonsense. And it's not that Google doesn't have major problems, a lot of which can be laid at Sundar's feet, or that he's wildly overpaid. It's that these types of reactionary missives just miss the point in every possible way.

rcme 4y ago
I disagree. The entire tech sector had one of the strongest labor positions in the country for the last decade. It was short sighted not to unionize. Now, layoffs are widespread, compensation is way down, while all the profits go to shareholders. This applies to Google and many other profitable tech companies.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  You anti-work guys are again showing your ignorance. A large chunk of techie compensation is in stock.
  - rcme 4y ago
    What difference does it make what form the compensation is in? Is your argument that because employees receive stock that they somehow have enough voting power to influence company policy? That’s laughable.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      > Now, layoffs are widespread, compensation is way down, while all the profits go to shareholders. People who own stock are shareholders
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      Does employee owned stock magically not go up in value because "reasons"?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gymbeaux 4y ago

I don’t understand how Americans have been brainwashed into thinking getting fired is the end of the world and doing anything to “rock the boat” is being mean to the company. Especially SWEs at FAANG. Y’all absolutely minted money the last few years. You get months and months of severance. Do you realize that most of us make “only” $130k as seniors and don’t get any stock bonuses or severance? If I made $300k/year I’d have YEARS of expenses in an emergency fund. Unionizing would be a win-win. Either I become a unionized employee or I take a 1-year sabbatical. You guys blew it.