Hacker News Reader

It is so strange that Google lobbied so hard against something like this and then tried to ensure it didn't get traced back to them. Almost like it saw there being a big downside to a union being formed. I really wonder why that is?

Honestly, I really can't see this anti-union rhetoric as anything but being terribly naive.

For further evidence of bad behavior that you can't avoid by changing jobs (because under this scheme you wouldn't be hired!). https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po...

> Almost like it saw there being a big downside to a union being formed. I really wonder why that is

It's also possible for a union to be bad for the company AND employees at the same time, right? Just because actor A dislikes something does not imply it must be good for actor B.

Right now all Google IC promo/refresh/PIP decisions are made in closed rooms with only middle managers present. When Google gets a union, the union will force Google to add transparency to the perf process. This will take a lot of power away from empire-building middle managers.

You're severely underestimating the power of collective bargaining. A good union will advocate for you even if you don't do anything. It removes a lot of the secrecy, ambiguity, and work when it comes to getting the maximum value out of your employment. Too worn out or anxious to keep pushing for a raise? the union's got it. Issues that you would never mention to your boss as an individual for fear of retaliation? the union's got it.

> even if you don't do anything

From my experience, this sounds awful. I have a person on my team currently that does nothing and brings down team morale and it’s pretty clear that everyone would want them gone. We might even work better because we wouldn’t work under the assumption that we have N people when we really have something like N - 1.

Perhaps unions are better when you don’t depend on your coworkers’ contributions as directly as you do in tech. e.g. teachers.

Parent meant “do anything to curry favor from your boss.” Not that everyone gets promotions no matter how bad they suck.

But even that’s not true in my experience - under the union there were still performance reviews where you had to advocate for yourself a little bit. It just all had to go through official channels.

When I say "even if you don't do anything" I mean in terms of things like getting a raise or complaining about too-long hours. There have been many times in my career where I've been too burnt out to push for what I thought I deserved. A union's job is to push for what you're worth (or protect your well-being) even through times where you don't have the energy, or even if you're unsure what you're worth.

You know what, having a 2nd job of "how to ensure you're not missing out on promotions/salary increases because company tries to underpay you" is a shitty job I would rather not have to do.

Is your workplace unionized?

> Unions are designed to balance out monopolistic / low pay / highly geographical companies like large auto manufacturers or airlines.

Directors Guild of America says hello!

Exactly. A guild for software engineers could be a good thing, with rules around ethics, code quality, security - all the things companies love to underinvest in.

My understanding is that the point of unions in tech is for people to band together to stand up for those that might be under-represented. It's like the ultimate diversity/inclusion initiative.

And to better hold higher-ups accountable for their mistakes or harmful decisions, something that an individual will never be able to do.

People supporting a software engineering union are looking for equality in the group, even though every member of the group is already objectively doing pretty well. I personally worked with many women who were just as smart and productive as me, but got paid less.

Why is that? There are many reasons; self-selection for promotion was noted as one reason at the time. Managers need to encourage employees to go through the promotion process, but managers don't do this consistently. The data shows that the result of this is that there is a gender gap in pay, and that doesn't feel very good. Some system other than individual managers encouraging people to go up for promotion is needed; a union looking out for that is one solution.

I don't know how it would work, I'm not really up to speed on how to organize a union or anything, but issues like that is where the core of the support comes from. (The article also mentions binding arbitration clauses being another sticky bit.)

There are things beyond compensation that individuals cannot easily negotiate by themselves. For example, a reasonable ask could be to never get contacted by boss or work colleagues (about work) outside of work hours (unless oncall, etc.). In the absence of group coordination that a union provides this work arrangement is simply out of reach for most.

A union won't help you get your own tailored work situation, where you enjoy never ever being contacted after hours.

They'll work for a situation where everyone gets that, and everyone is treated the same. That's the whole point.

Goodbye work flexibility for your entire company.

No, it’ll help everyone get their work situation where they enjoy never being contacted after hours.

Or if your position requires after hours work, it’ll ensure you are fairly compensated.

Goodbye ability for upper management to demand unpaid overtime or fire people for violating unspoken “agreements.”

(Obviously being union doesn’t force everyone into the same position description.)

Well yeah that’s the idea. Things like “never being contacted after hours” only work if everyone agrees to it. If there are a few people on the team who “defect” by getting work flexibility and start pinging people at night, the whole culture quickly reverts to “it’s ok to ping people at night”.

You’ll be free to choose non-union jobs, it’s just there will now be an option for a “business hours only” workplace where there’s none now.

Bingo. There is a reason why pay at big tech is so high. I've never heard an ex-Google employee complain about the pay, but I've heard plenty complain about work-life balance.

i remember a post on reddit's sysadmin subreddit a while back of a disillusioned help desk tech asking about unions. the majority response was basically this -- even in help desk, your value is high enough that you can pretty easily find equivalent or better work fast by putting yourself out there. tech corps need the workers more than the workers need tech

On the other hand, I can think of all kinds of issues where highly paid developers might find use for a union.

1. On-call and off-hours expectations

2. Return to Office rules

3. Whether and how pay is based on where you live

You can also imagine it pursuing things that are much more contentious and annoying.

The question to me isn't about whether unions are good or bad, but making sure you its members know and agree on the organization's purpose and purview.

Most people would rather have better work/life balance than things like ping pong tables and on-site yoga classes. A union can help accomplish those goals.

Remember when the DOJ was investigating Google and Apple for collusion?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s...

> Exploit you with industry leading pay and perks?

It seems like you're implying that this is absurd or impossible, but...it's not, right? Surely whether my employer is exploiting my labor has very little to do with my compensation relative to similar jobs.

See if I'm an executive at a company that offers industry-leading pay and perqs, what am I so worried about then? Why would I work so hard to hinder employees' organizing, especially if what you say above is so self-evident? I find it far-fetched for example (and I know you're not saying this and hopefully would not say it) that Google was looking out for the employees' best interests by surveilling/misinforming them and subverting their efforts at forming this misguided undesirable gosh-darn pesky employee union that they for some insane reason mistakenly think they want! Perhaps those employees were grown adults and reached the conclusion through rational means, that they did in fact want a union. But even if they reached the conclusion by flipping a coin or asking their German shepherd, they should have the freedom of choice rather than being undermined through sinister methods. Put it to a vote! The people who don't want a union can vote no!

> See if I'm an executive at a company that offers industry-leading pay and perqs, what am I so worried about then?

Probably staying competitive vs. companies that don't have unions.

> I find it far-fetched for example (and I know you're not saying this and hopefully would not say it) that Google was looking out for the employees' best interests by surveilling/misinforming them and subverting their efforts

Correct, I wasn't saying that.

> Put it to a vote! The people who don't want a union can vote no!

OK, but at some point it becomes disruptive if you're continually holding votes on your entire company's employment structure. These are massive changes that would require to employee contracts, accounting, employee handbooks, handling grandfathered or expiring benefits, etc. It's hard to embark on innovation if you're under threat of having to overhaul your internal structure and a possible giant shock to your estimated expenses.