Hell, in many places they haven't even been paying what they legally are required to: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/10/google-un...
Microsoft used to treat independent contractors similarly to full time employees, except for a few benefits such as participation in their stock benefits. When the IRS ruled that the independent contractors were really employees due to them being treated similarly as full time employees, independent contractors sued Microsoft to get stock benefits as well.
See https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
If I want to work on those projects and don't agree with the union, and 50% of the Union vote the other way, my only choice is also to quit.
I don't agree with the union's direction of forbidding company to work on a perfectly legal project.
If you want the project to be illegal, maybe call your senate instead?
You don't even recognize others' point of view where they think it is perfectly fine.
You straight up imply other people (who voted for politicians) are unethical.
My country has strong unions (industry wide), yet any employee or group of employees who would engage in that sort of activism, unrelated to bettering work conditions or compensation negotiation, for instance trying to dictate their boss who they should or shouldn't do business with purely for political reasons or affiliations, would be deemed insubordinate and would be fired, lawfully.
1) Collectively getting the better stake of the pie influences other organizations compensation methods/amounts
2) the market is telling employees what to do, meaning that it doesn’t matter that an individual can do far more work for less pay somewhere else - just don’t do those things.
As it stands, all the DoJ was capable of was issuing guidance that acknowledged that crimes were committed that should have led to jail time, and politely asks corporate executives to not commit those crimes again, on pain of another chiding letter.
basically, because the government also wants competition in the market, they can't be the reason why there is no competition after they curb stomp one of the major few competitors in many fields.
there is some degree of truth in this, but it has also been co-opted to prevent any meaningful consequence for people and their organizations, once they are big enough
Companies structurally and intentionally pay the average employee less than that employee generates in value. (If they paid more on average, they'd obviously either decide to never start or would go bankrupt. If they paid people working equal to their contributions on average, they'd show no profit and would have no reserves to cover for employees who are out on paid leaves that society or the employees want companies to cover the costs of.)
The underpayment relative to value delivered is a necessary condition (at least in my opinion, by simple math above). If you want to capture all the net value you create, you should work for yourself. For many (including me), I'd rather trade away some of the upside in exchange for a much lower stress existence.
The best trick management plays against workers is to convince them that their opponents in the game of capitalism are other workers, not management. Are software engineers over-payed? It's entirely possible, but that isn't justification for their company illegally screwing them any more than Amazon is justified in screwing its warehouse employees.
And as a movement, the message for labor organization would be powerful if Google employees successfully unionized: that even well-compensated employees deserve the benefits of collective bargaining against a corporation that is structurally incentivized to screw them when it can get away with it.
The Google union aims to stop Google to work on certain projects.
Many don't agree with unions. What should those people do? Make another union?
If people don't want to work on DoD contract, they can transfer to other teams. There are like 1000 teams in Google. Internal transfer is not hard.
Ew.
You want to not traumatize kids? Have proper boarder control and don't tell people if they manage to sprint across the boarder they will get a bunch of free stuff.
Why would I hope for intelligent or even articulate thought from you on this?
Do you have anything less batty and more interesting than "ICE should paternity test families that cross the border" to offer here?