Hacker News Reader

Comment by halflings | Hacker News Reader

On this group's homepage [1]: "We are BIPOC workers who fight against totalitarianism."

I am not sure what this has to do with unionizing Google workers. Using obscure acronyms to arbitrarily focus on race and ethnicity (something frowned upon here in Europe at least) + the hyperbole of "fighting totalitarianism" doesn't give me great confidence that this is representing workers, as much as it is pushing the ideology of a vocal minority.

If they truly believe they represent the majority of Google employees, then they are free to widely share this call internally and see how many people actually agree with them and want to join their group. So far, it's ~0.2K out of ~260K employees.

[1] https://alphabetworkersunion.org/

View on HN

Sounds more like a political party than a labor union.

This is a common criticism of teacher unions in the USA [0]. They donate dues money to left-leaning political causes against the wishes of many of their members. In a union shop, dues-paying employees have no choice in the matter. It is compelled political speech.

I expect this will be a big issue in tech unions also.

[0] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2019/10/16/opinion...

> In a closed shop, these members have no choice in the matter.

Union shop, not closed shop. Closed shops have been illegal for over 70 years.

You are correct, I used the wrong term. I have fixed it in my original comment.

In the US, outside of states with right-to-work laws, a union shop can still require workers to pay dues even if they aren't members of the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_States

I'm all for fighting against totalitarianism, but I feel like it's kinda weird to get a job at Google if you actually care about that

To be clear, the "BIPOC workers" and "fight against totalitarianism" are elements of picklists, with other options like "We are technologists who want pay equity". The overall message of the picklist is that the union is an inclusive group which stands together for a variety of reasons.

And, the union doesn't claim to speak for all workers. It only claims to speak for its members, and to fight to protect all workers.

Thanks, I tried to clarify this in my original comment, but it can no longer be edited.

I'm not sure that changes much. To me, "BIPOC" is anything but inclusive. It's an acronym that apparently was used for about a month, by people of a very specific political ideology, and seems to be criticized by the very people this term is supposed to represent. [1]

And what does totalitarianism have to do with anything? I am all for putting a bit more power in employees' hands (esp. for issues where HR will throw an employee under the bus), but can we please keep the divisive political rhetoric out of it? Not shoehorn "BIPOC" and politically-charged language everywhere?

I am a "BIPOC", but I feel this rhetoric will be more effective with (mostly white) progressives/liberals, not the people it purports to represent.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-bipoc.html

s/260/120/

"Google employs more than 130,000 contractors and temp workers, a shadow work force that outnumbers its 123,000 full-time" [1]

130K+123K = 253K (article from May, likely closer to 260K now)

One of the main points this group is making is that they want to equally represent fulltime employees and contractors.

"All Alphabet workers deserve a voice: full-time employees, temporary employees, contractors, and vendors. We care for and support each other by striving for open and continuous dialogue among union members." [2]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/technology/google-rescind... [2] https://alphabetworkersunion.org/principles/mission-statemen...

That's a noble goal, but one of the reasons companies hire contractors is to give themselves flexibility. Often they aren't even the company on the pay check the contractor receives. I fully support contractors and employees being treated fairly in the workplace, but it's not reasonable to expect them to be treated with full equality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com