I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much."
> It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose it this much."
I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing employees at the expense of high performing employees. It may or may not be the case that this is what happens, but it does not follow from the fact that management opposes it, therefore it is good for employees.
I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.
Right now workers often put in more "give back" than they get paid I often had to work 20 hours to get paid for 8, forcing workers to do 12 hours a day for free is a great deal even if it mentally and physically breaks them who cares they're just temporary. I didn't work for Google but I assume the culture is the same as those places who forced me to work that hard.
Worked at a factory many years ago (early 90s) where we supplied a union shop with parts. UAW was trying to unionize our plant, and management flipped its shit and went on the warpath. Prior to that I was really not pro-union, despite my father having been a UAW member and drilling into my head the times when the union kept the company from dicking people around.
They showed their true colors loud and clear, but people still voted against the union. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they had people convinced that they were each and every one high performing employees who'd be held back by things like standard pay scales and agreements on overtime, etc.
Sadly by that time I wasn't at the shop to vote anymore, because I was fired for speaking up against random drug testing. (Technically, I was fired for a "willful work stoppage" after coming back from lunch fifteen minutes late despite company policy saying you had 3 strikes in, IIRC, 90 days for being late to or back to work. It just happened to coincide with making noise about the brand new random drug policy introduced right around the time the UAW started trying to organize the shop.)
I get that the UAW and other unions have their problems, but I wish people would work more on fixing those problems than giving up on the idea of unions. The older I get, and the more corporate bullshit I see, the more I believe we need more organized labor and not less.
>It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor
If you're in California right now and watch enough TV to see anti-vaping commercials, you'll relate to the idea that hammering a message into a viewer's head as if with an adze is seen as a useful strategy, regardless (or maybe because) of the quality and integrity of the message itself.
This is also of a piece with the generally constant push for employees to identify with the company's interests over their (and their colleagues') own. I think that finding Google's moves here as ridiculous is not something that can be counted on to be common sense. It sure feels like a material if-this-then-that relationship, but a lot of times people (you know...them ;) will only remember the last and/or loudest message they heard about something.
Intimidation doesn't work by changing someone's rational opinion... it's enough for management to have employees afraid of unionization, even if they think it would probably help them. Their mind will come round to rationalizing the action-out-of-fear.
They are always in response to ham handed pro union efforts.
I live in SC and the volume of pro union propaganda that gets put out every time there’s an upcoming vote for Boeing is mind blowing. It’s not something you see often around here so when it suddenly appears it’s very out of place and noticeable.
It’s a vote. People are going to campaign for their interests.
> I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it.
I wouldn't be so sure. Unionization is usually rare in the US, and combatting it therefore won't have much evidence to go on. So you end up with crazy people making shit up and seeing what sticks. Like the guy working for Oregon's negotiation team who created fake aliases 'Aanus McFadden' and 'Roy Vragina' to post anti-union messages on social media: https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/08/06/oregon-health-and-scie...
Several of my family members have been in unions, and all I can say is no thanks. I cannot imagine working in such an adversarial us vs them environment, where its all about assigning blame and working to rule. I cannot imagine being told I'm not allowed to work when I want to, just because the union boss wants to make a point.
I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it.
The people doing it must believe it works. That's not the same as it actually working. People do things that don't work believing that they do all the time.
Well, it's like looking at marketing/advertising and thinking ' nobody could fall for that, and certainly not me', but if it wasn't so effective firms wouldn't keep paying for it.
“Bad for the company” doesn’t mean “good for employees”. If the employees were planning on burning the office down, management would pretty obviously voice dissent but that doesn’t mean the employees are “onto something”.
It's about putting fear into the workers. I recently watched 'American Factory' on Netflix and this is what a union avoidance consultant says to the workers:
Good afternoon. I want to thank you so much for coming. I know you didn't have a choice. The union will go out of their way to try to convince you that it's a good thing for you and that it is in your best interest. The contract that you get, if you get one, might include better wages and benefits. That contract might include the same wages and benefits you have today. And that contract finally might include less wages and less benefits. And the threat of a strike is no longer scary to employers, because today if you go on strike, while you can't get fired, the employer has the right to permanently replace you. I'll let that sink in.
Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.
Many tech companies right now, Amazon and Microsoft included, specifically use contractors in order to deny them benefits their employees are entitled to and provide a level of plausible deniability or reduced liability. It is absolutely accurate to hold the big guys responsible for the ecosystem they're creating.
Good, if unions can make it less appealing for Google to hire less temp, vendors, and contractors, they might hire more full time employees. There's already a chasm forming between TVCs and FTEs. It's only going to grow bigger.
For Indian developers that's above average pay, and HCL has a heavy Indian presence.
Prices for developers outside of the US and Europe are actually quite low, and part of the reason is the low costs in other countries that let companies get away with paying less, and another part is that there's a lot of engineers available.
Even if the average engineer is not as good, there's so many engineers in India that companies have a huge candidate pool from just the above average ones.
The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and quickly find more gainful employment.
It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.
I don't understand how a contractor unionizing gives them any more power over Google. Either which way they are a contractor and have to negotiate a contract. This article seems to imply the workers have an issue with Google, but unionizing just gives them power over HCL. So are they not happy with HCL?
Maybe this is the way it shapes out - the contractors of the new economy are equivalent to the hourly worker in the old economy, the perm people management. The contractors have representation from a union, and the perm people, none.
It probably won’t be that analogous. I suspect that having the parallel, contract labor force is at least somewhat about exerting additional control over those employees that are actually permanent. A kind of implicit threat that your employment status can be downgraded.
"HCL itself would be violating the National Labor Relations Board law if the company fired workers for forming a union, but Gyrgo is concerned the union can’t protect them from the work they do with Google, since they don’t actually work for Google."
In other words:
Google won't be violating the law if the company fired workers for forming a union because they will be doing so using a proxy organization as a scapegoat. This in effect allows them to circumvent the law referenced above.
I wonder to what extent the the thirst for a union could be quenched if the compensation of all members of a company were to be made public and always updated.
If management wants to maintain direct negotiation with their staff, they must eliminate information asymmetry.
Is there a good place to learn about what unionizing tech workers will do/is trying to accomplish? Also, isn’t being a contingent worker an implicit contract that you are willing to give up benefits and (in many cases theoretical) stability for a higher hourly rate? Obviously I don’t/can’t speak for everyone but my spouse has the full time job and insurance and I grind it out to pad the bottom line. If widespread unionization happens I don’t see any way that my take home pay will increase.
I wouldn't worry too much. Good working conditions are a boon to both the employer and the employee. A good union will negotiate that to the benefit of both. The reason is simple. If union negotiations lead to worse profits, then employees risk the whole business toppling, and then everyone loses. However, too much job security can actually make it harder to get a new job, once you need it, as it makes it harder to fire underperforming employees. The net effect of it, are employers who are extremely picky and careful about hiring anyone new, which is pretty muh bad for the whole economy.
To really make a dent, put a stop to H1B. It is an unnecessary program. All people doing work here should be citizens or green card holders. The employer should not have any say about this or sway over the employees about their status. People should be free to choose their employer and change their employer without entanglement of H1B.
Before there were proper labor laws unions served a purpose, now it's more self-serving to the coffers and political power of the union itself. What should be equal is tipped in the unions favor at the detriment of the company. I think that's wrong.
I sort of shocked contractors at Google want a union. Typically contractors make more in total comp than full time employees. I suspect this is not the case there, but in general it’s true.
[+] [-] rdiddly|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darawk|6 years ago|reply
I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing employees at the expense of high performing employees. It may or may not be the case that this is what happens, but it does not follow from the fact that management opposes it, therefore it is good for employees.
[+] [-] claudeganon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shams93|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzb|6 years ago|reply
Worked at a factory many years ago (early 90s) where we supplied a union shop with parts. UAW was trying to unionize our plant, and management flipped its shit and went on the warpath. Prior to that I was really not pro-union, despite my father having been a UAW member and drilling into my head the times when the union kept the company from dicking people around.
They showed their true colors loud and clear, but people still voted against the union. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they had people convinced that they were each and every one high performing employees who'd be held back by things like standard pay scales and agreements on overtime, etc.
Sadly by that time I wasn't at the shop to vote anymore, because I was fired for speaking up against random drug testing. (Technically, I was fired for a "willful work stoppage" after coming back from lunch fifteen minutes late despite company policy saying you had 3 strikes in, IIRC, 90 days for being late to or back to work. It just happened to coincide with making noise about the brand new random drug policy introduced right around the time the UAW started trying to organize the shop.)
I get that the UAW and other unions have their problems, but I wish people would work more on fixing those problems than giving up on the idea of unions. The older I get, and the more corporate bullshit I see, the more I believe we need more organized labor and not less.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|6 years ago|reply
If you're in California right now and watch enough TV to see anti-vaping commercials, you'll relate to the idea that hammering a message into a viewer's head as if with an adze is seen as a useful strategy, regardless (or maybe because) of the quality and integrity of the message itself.
This is also of a piece with the generally constant push for employees to identify with the company's interests over their (and their colleagues') own. I think that finding Google's moves here as ridiculous is not something that can be counted on to be common sense. It sure feels like a material if-this-then-that relationship, but a lot of times people (you know...them ;) will only remember the last and/or loudest message they heard about something.
[+] [-] einpoklum|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brightball|6 years ago|reply
I live in SC and the volume of pro union propaganda that gets put out every time there’s an upcoming vote for Boeing is mind blowing. It’s not something you see often around here so when it suddenly appears it’s very out of place and noticeable.
It’s a vote. People are going to campaign for their interests.
[+] [-] tokai|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jldugger|6 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be so sure. Unionization is usually rare in the US, and combatting it therefore won't have much evidence to go on. So you end up with crazy people making shit up and seeing what sticks. Like the guy working for Oregon's negotiation team who created fake aliases 'Aanus McFadden' and 'Roy Vragina' to post anti-union messages on social media: https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/08/06/oregon-health-and-scie...
[+] [-] tomohawk|6 years ago|reply
Cases like this are just sickening: https://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/seiu-fights-to-force-hom...
Several of my family members have been in unions, and all I can say is no thanks. I cannot imagine working in such an adversarial us vs them environment, where its all about assigning blame and working to rule. I cannot imagine being told I'm not allowed to work when I want to, just because the union boss wants to make a point.
[+] [-] onion2k|6 years ago|reply
The people doing it must believe it works. That's not the same as it actually working. People do things that don't work believing that they do all the time.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markdown|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kortilla|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] option|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|6 years ago|reply
Good afternoon. I want to thank you so much for coming. I know you didn't have a choice. The union will go out of their way to try to convince you that it's a good thing for you and that it is in your best interest. The contract that you get, if you get one, might include better wages and benefits. That contract might include the same wages and benefits you have today. And that contract finally might include less wages and less benefits. And the threat of a strike is no longer scary to employers, because today if you go on strike, while you can't get fired, the employer has the right to permanently replace you. I'll let that sink in.
[+] [-] cobookman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KirinDave|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benologist|6 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/california-b...
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1-6|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|6 years ago|reply
That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.
[+] [-] pcnix|6 years ago|reply
Prices for developers outside of the US and Europe are actually quite low, and part of the reason is the low costs in other countries that let companies get away with paying less, and another part is that there's a lot of engineers available.
Even if the average engineer is not as good, there's so many engineers in India that companies have a huge candidate pool from just the above average ones.
[+] [-] benologist|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Operyl|6 years ago|reply
EDIT: geez, sorry guys, I already admitted I misremembered down below. Sorry :/
[+] [-] dev_dull|6 years ago|reply
It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.
[+] [-] darren0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aloha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claudeganon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] telaelit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShadowKitten|6 years ago|reply
In other words:
Google won't be violating the law if the company fired workers for forming a union because they will be doing so using a proxy organization as a scapegoat. This in effect allows them to circumvent the law referenced above.
Complete horseshit
[+] [-] whytaka|6 years ago|reply
If management wants to maintain direct negotiation with their staff, they must eliminate information asymmetry.
[+] [-] S_A_P|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempsy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kebman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ycombonator|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no_user|6 years ago|reply
Not good for anyone.
[+] [-] tomohawk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Simulacra|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linuxdude314|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1nst0nsm1th|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]