We’re Google Workers, and We Are Forming a Union(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
We’re Google Workers, and We Are Forming a Union
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/opinion/google-union.html
99 comments
dupe : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25630011
From the article i don't quite see if this is a worker's union or a group of people with certain ideological claims they want to enforce. The comment about the AI researcher that was allegedly fired for being "critical" hints at the latter.
While a union that represents workers interests is a good thing, I think it would be dangerous to give even a part of google to people with ideological fervor. If, for instance, this group actually wants to and succeeds in turning google into a tool of the cancel culture, things will get ugly soon.
Now that leaves me wondering if it is wise to leave this comment here...
edit:
Just an example from the mission statement:
> We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.
What this means is, not all google workers will be treated equally by this union. "Victims", i.e., persons will be ordered by their "oppression status" and gain preferential treatment. Now it will probably be fun to watch the details in this valuation process (e.g., "is a woman more victim than a black (disabled) male?"), but this inherent categorization of human beings into more and less worth is ugly as hell.
While a union that represents workers interests is a good thing, I think it would be dangerous to give even a part of google to people with ideological fervor. If, for instance, this group actually wants to and succeeds in turning google into a tool of the cancel culture, things will get ugly soon.
Now that leaves me wondering if it is wise to leave this comment here...
edit:
Just an example from the mission statement:
> We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.
What this means is, not all google workers will be treated equally by this union. "Victims", i.e., persons will be ordered by their "oppression status" and gain preferential treatment. Now it will probably be fun to watch the details in this valuation process (e.g., "is a woman more victim than a black (disabled) male?"), but this inherent categorization of human beings into more and less worth is ugly as hell.
How come you think this union is imbued with "ideological fervor" but not the myriads of investors, executes, and other people who already controls Google?
Perhaps Google already is a tool of the cancel culture (cue the X-files intro music)?
Perhaps Google already is a tool of the cancel culture (cue the X-files intro music)?
From the official union website's list of values
> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.
For my eyes, that is absolutely dripping with progressive ideology. If I am going a union I want it to be non-political. This seems more like a progressive advocating group than a software workers guild. Count me out.
> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.
For my eyes, that is absolutely dripping with progressive ideology. If I am going a union I want it to be non-political. This seems more like a progressive advocating group than a software workers guild. Count me out.
"Just outcomes" is a huge signal for prioritizing equity over equality. Other than the obvious political ramifications, it probably means high performers and low performers alike will both get the same outcome from a union, leading to mediocrity overall.
Simple. These other people never made such claims in an article.
Do people who don't publish their views not filled with ideological fervor?
This isn't an argument...
This isn't an argument...
I believe the claim here is that, people should have rights to their own strong ideological opinions, but not the right to enforce their own upon others.
> Do people who don't publish their views not filled with ideological fervor?
I mean, that's pretty much exactly what fervour means? We'd never say "Joe is a fervent supporter of X!" if Joe never talked about X.
I mean, that's pretty much exactly what fervour means? We'd never say "Joe is a fervent supporter of X!" if Joe never talked about X.
"We" would do, and frequently have done, just that if it supports "our" agenda. Hence the rise of the use of such broad brushes as "silence is complicity", etc.
Is "pragmatically want a return on investment" ideological fervor? Words need to mean something at some point.
The idea that a certain pattern of economic behaviors is "pragmatic", "non-ideological" and even "non-political", while others are, is in itself a good example of ideology.
Came here to say the same thing. This “union” sounds more like a splinter branch of a far left political party, not an organization dedicated to the collective bargaining rights of its members.
I expect it to fail simply because the ideological tone will turn off most people.
I expect it to fail simply because the ideological tone will turn off most people.
I think you're correct, but I doubt it will be as far left as you say. Any union at Google will be dominated by "workers" with economic interests and social and educational backgrounds virtually identical to management. They're the same educated meritocratic progressive technical/managerial class who dominate the Democratic Party. They don't believe anything different from what most of the country believes; they just take pride in being further ahead because they're smarter and work harder.
I don't understand this "ideological" issue. (but maybe it's just due to language as English is not my mother-tongue)
Lots (/most) of what you choose to do (or not) can be see as a result of your own ideological standpoint. (investment, buying, culture, laws, politics, culture, media...)
I prefer when the so-called ideological point is explain in an article rather than discovered after fact. This is more honest.
Unions are traditionally there to bargain collectively for their members. Typically that means higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things.
This union seems less focused on that and more on pushing sociopolitical ideas currently in vogue in left-wing political circles.
This union seems less focused on that and more on pushing sociopolitical ideas currently in vogue in left-wing political circles.
> Typically that means higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things.
Nominally but it just isn't so. The strongest bargain an employee has is a competitor. What makes G salaries high is that there are other companies competing for the same talent.
The fundamental way unions increase wages is by constricting supply: by being part of the hiring process and blocking people, or by putting conditions that make people that would otherwise be eligible to work. In the end unions end up being very ineffective, and their administration cost ends up not worth it, thus the only way to get any leverage is with the law.
If unions had their way, it would be illegal to drive a lyft. Whoops, that happened. If I were a Union rep in a tech company, the first thing I would do is kick out immigrants. Easiest way to increase wages for (remaining) tech workers.
Nominally but it just isn't so. The strongest bargain an employee has is a competitor. What makes G salaries high is that there are other companies competing for the same talent.
The fundamental way unions increase wages is by constricting supply: by being part of the hiring process and blocking people, or by putting conditions that make people that would otherwise be eligible to work. In the end unions end up being very ineffective, and their administration cost ends up not worth it, thus the only way to get any leverage is with the law.
If unions had their way, it would be illegal to drive a lyft. Whoops, that happened. If I were a Union rep in a tech company, the first thing I would do is kick out immigrants. Easiest way to increase wages for (remaining) tech workers.
What's your opinion of trade unions in Norway, which seem to me like they work quite well for everyone?
We don't need to go too far for examples of unions, look at the unions SF has. Health staff, Police, Bart and Teachers.
Unabated disasters.
The best a union can achieve is being irrelevant. It will surprise me how obvious it is in the populace that if companies all agree on something it is a terrible monopoly but if all workers agree on something it is liberating. The mechanics of anti-competition are always the same, even if different markets produce different results.
The best a union can achieve is being irrelevant. It will surprise me how obvious it is in the populace that if companies all agree on something it is a terrible monopoly but if all workers agree on something it is liberating. The mechanics of anti-competition are always the same, even if different markets produce different results.
[deleted]
I agree on the first part. But "higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things" are usually part of left-wing political ideology too.
So for me there is no surprises and nothing new in unions sharing/pushing "sociopolitical ideas currently in vogue in left-wing political circles".
If i understand correctly your point (and to paraphrase), unions are not setting the correct priorities between work condition and more general sociopolitical ideas. For me this is a good new : It mean works conditions are not that bad and that union want not just to take care of personal interest but of company interests as well. But this is a ideological stand point :)
And some may argue that's not the role of unions. But the role of union is to carry the worker voices. If this is the subjects workers want to talk about, i don't see any issue. If it's not, the union will just not meet enough workers to join them.
If i understand correctly your point (and to paraphrase), unions are not setting the correct priorities between work condition and more general sociopolitical ideas. For me this is a good new : It mean works conditions are not that bad and that union want not just to take care of personal interest but of company interests as well. But this is a ideological stand point :)
And some may argue that's not the role of unions. But the role of union is to carry the worker voices. If this is the subjects workers want to talk about, i don't see any issue. If it's not, the union will just not meet enough workers to join them.
I'd argue that higher salaries, better work conditions, and so forth is exactly what this union is being formed to address.
The idea is that collective bargaining can equalize the salaries, work conditions, etc. for all members, not just the pale-skinned ones.
The idea is that collective bargaining can equalize the salaries, work conditions, etc. for all members, not just the pale-skinned ones.
By "pale-skinned" you mean women ? https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/04/google-found-it-paid-men-l...
You seem to be implying Google plays its white employee pays more because of overt discrimination, and that is impetus for a union. Any evidence for this belief?
I'm not implying that, nor do I believe that. I'm only trying to rationalize the union from their viewpoint.
Maybe, but if that were their real goal, they’d lose all the activist language and moral judgments.
Unions have ideologies and goals above increasing pay and holidays. Holding management to account is common.
> ideological fervor
"Don't be evil".
(Of course, that ended up being the opposite of ideological fervor, being both ill-defined and tepid)
It's also quite remarkable that people regard being "cancelled" (complained about on the internet) as more serious than fired, which comes with actual costs.
"Don't be evil".
(Of course, that ended up being the opposite of ideological fervor, being both ill-defined and tepid)
It's also quite remarkable that people regard being "cancelled" (complained about on the internet) as more serious than fired, which comes with actual costs.
Yeah right. "Cancel culture" would never, ever, ask for firing people. Or remove them from schools. Or harass them in real life. Everything stays civilized on twitter and the rest is alt-right propaganda.
> "cancelled" (complained about on the internet)
You are completely misrepresenting what being "cancelled" means to a lot of the people it happens to. It can mean the public causing them to be fired from their job, prevented from finding another job, disconnected from both social and other contacts. Cancelling someone isn't just complaining about them; it's commonly putting for effort to ruin their life.
You are completely misrepresenting what being "cancelled" means to a lot of the people it happens to. It can mean the public causing them to be fired from their job, prevented from finding another job, disconnected from both social and other contacts. Cancelling someone isn't just complaining about them; it's commonly putting for effort to ruin their life.
I think this ultimately will doom this type of organization. Workers don't want to be on a crusade they want rights like better pay, better hours, freedom to choose, rights for parents, etc. It's not a social crusade if that's what they're planning on doing, they will tune out 1/2 or more of the other workers there. I think you're a bit harsh on people standing up for their status like preferred gender, sexual orientation, etc. You seem to be dismissing their concerns entirely. I don't think a worker's union is the right place to try and enforce anything other than an equal rights workplace as idealistically most labor unions say that they're for.
In the UK, being a member of a trade union usually includes a contribution to the Labour party.
Trade union membership and ideological politics are intertwined. This is a good thing and by design.
Trade union membership and ideological politics are intertwined. This is a good thing and by design.
No this is not a good thing.
Binding workers right to political views is dangerous and other countries show that unions can work without any party propaganda.
This is so confusing, "workers rights" is political by definition.
Aligning to a party can be argued, I'd say it's best to break things up into policies more than "teams" but still.
Aligning to a party can be argued, I'd say it's best to break things up into policies more than "teams" but still.
Why is it bad for unions to support political parties, but fine for shareholders?
Fighting for "workers rights" is a political position.
Maybe you're making a distinction between party politics (e.g. endorsing specific candidates) and pushing for general policies, but I think it's incoherent to claim that labor unions are apolitical.
Maybe you're making a distinction between party politics (e.g. endorsing specific candidates) and pushing for general policies, but I think it's incoherent to claim that labor unions are apolitical.
The point is that joining a union shouldn't necessitate supporting a certain political party.
It doesn't. You can join a non-affiliated union or even opt-out of political campaigning and contributions.
It's just not all that common.
It's just not all that common.
That's good then.
Not an UK person, but I can't find BALPA in the list of unions here: https://labour.org.uk/people/unions/
BALPA is more comparable to a potential Google union as it's equally representing a tiny group of elite and extremely well compensated individuals. I don't think that a google employee has much in common with traditional populations of leftist party aligned unions like the factory line worker or coal miner.
BALPA is more comparable to a potential Google union as it's equally representing a tiny group of elite and extremely well compensated individuals. I don't think that a google employee has much in common with traditional populations of leftist party aligned unions like the factory line worker or coal miner.
Unions don't _have_ to affiliate with Labour (or another party) but they often do.
> I don't think that a google employee has much in common with traditional populations of leftist party aligned unions like the factory line worker or coal miner.
Not right now, sure. But the fact that this group felt the need to unionize suggests that something is changing.
> I don't think that a google employee has much in common with traditional populations of leftist party aligned unions like the factory line worker or coal miner.
Not right now, sure. But the fact that this group felt the need to unionize suggests that something is changing.
I think it’s fine if it starts off ideologically. A union is only as good as the total membership count. Get everyone in with whatever pretense, then you have bargaining power.
That's a very risky proposition. From what I can tell from the outside, many "progressives" throw equality and freedom out of the window when it comes to voting.
By the tone of that article, I would not even be surprised if white males don't get to vote in that union or are excluded from influential positions.
By the tone of that article, I would not even be surprised if white males don't get to vote in that union or are excluded from influential positions.
A lot of silly ifs you are throwing out.
Maybe ask them yourself and get involved?
Maybe ask them yourself and get involved?
Think of the long game. Getting a union is the hard part. The ideological fervor will change with seasons, but the core issues will remain the same across decades (the stuff workers want to be able to negotiate). Nothing is free, some price must be paid.
Nothing pisses off a company more than workers organizing, so take whatever help you can get.
Nothing pisses off a company more than workers organizing, so take whatever help you can get.
Why would I want to piss off the company I choose to work for?
Don't piss them off alone, piss with others and they might treat you better.
You might want to think about the balance of the system. Are you actually choosing to work for them instead of the system making it look like they are the best job? Could it be better with some re-balancing?
You might want to think about the balance of the system. Are you actually choosing to work for them instead of the system making it look like they are the best job? Could it be better with some re-balancing?
Because you can get more money, better working conditions, and guaranteed rights, and that will irritate your bosses' bosses' owners and their investors.
Because now you have numbers :p
Check out how the collective bargaining agreement works with the NBA Player’s union and NBA. They get pretty fair terms, led by Chris Paul/LeBron James (who have it the best but they lead the union).
https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94a...
^^ I can promise you the list of things negotiated in that could never be done well enough by the company itself. Oh, and that’s a union for multi millionaires.
Check out how the collective bargaining agreement works with the NBA Player’s union and NBA. They get pretty fair terms, led by Chris Paul/LeBron James (who have it the best but they lead the union).
https://cosmic-s3.imgix.net/3c7a0a50-8e11-11e9-875d-3d44e94a...
^^ I can promise you the list of things negotiated in that could never be done well enough by the company itself. Oh, and that’s a union for multi millionaires.
[deleted]
> I would not even be surprised if white males don't get to vote in that union or are excluded from influential positions.
Good point. Traditionally white men are massively underrepresented and we should be making more of an effort to make sure they're represented at every level of tech. /s
Good point. Traditionally white men are massively underrepresented and we should be making more of an effort to make sure they're represented at every level of tech. /s
Do you not realize that judging based on skin color was the same reason the idea of 'representation' exists? A vote should hold equal weight regardless of who you are or what you look like.
You want to judge people by the content of their character instead of their skin color? That's racist.
/s
/s
Exactly.
Except, that isn't what happens right now. Most people aren't intending to make decisions based on skin colour, yet it happens.
Except, that isn't what happens right now. Most people aren't intending to make decisions based on skin colour, yet it happens.
> While a union that represents workers interests is a good thing, I think it would be dangerous to give even a part of google to people with ideological fervor.
On a practical level, a union that concentrates just on its members interests, is not able to concentrate on its members interests. Just as one person can be crushed by a company, a union at one company can be crushed by an industry. The UAW organized GM, then Chrysler then Ford (one of the weapon carrying workers in the GM strike was Larry Page's grandfather). This kind of thing is necessary for the survival of one union. If FedEx is not unionized (it is not), that weakens the union at UPS.
The AI researcher said there were racist aspects of Google AI, IIRC. Whatever the specifics of that case, unions do not prosper over the long run with a racial divide. There are numerous cases of jobs traditionally done by black men replaced by white scabs, or vice versa. It is why Bernie Sanders wants less immigration, despite the disapproval of upper middle class liberals to his right - too many unassimilated Latin American workers can be played against native workers in a divide and rule sense.
On a practical level, a union that concentrates just on its members interests, is not able to concentrate on its members interests. Just as one person can be crushed by a company, a union at one company can be crushed by an industry. The UAW organized GM, then Chrysler then Ford (one of the weapon carrying workers in the GM strike was Larry Page's grandfather). This kind of thing is necessary for the survival of one union. If FedEx is not unionized (it is not), that weakens the union at UPS.
The AI researcher said there were racist aspects of Google AI, IIRC. Whatever the specifics of that case, unions do not prosper over the long run with a racial divide. There are numerous cases of jobs traditionally done by black men replaced by white scabs, or vice versa. It is why Bernie Sanders wants less immigration, despite the disapproval of upper middle class liberals to his right - too many unassimilated Latin American workers can be played against native workers in a divide and rule sense.
[deleted]
Any effective union will need an ideology to rile people up. That's not what's bad about unions.
The first thing they would do if they have any power is kick out immigrants.
The first thing they would do if they have any power is kick out immigrants.
Unions are ideological groups...
> Now that leaves me wondering if it is wise to leave this comment here...
Oh how high minded of you.
> Now that leaves me wondering if it is wise to leave this comment here...
Oh how high minded of you.
Unions are political groups not not necessarily ideological.
Splitting hairs over the difference between political thought and ideology is ridiculous in my opinion.
I have some sympathy with you, because national politics has seemingly become more and more ideological lately, but politics does not necessarily imply ideology. The word politics in its general form simply refers to the ways people organise to collectively make decisions.
>Organized workers at the company forced executives to drop Project Maven, the company’s artificial-intelligence program with the Pentagon, and Project Dragonfly, its plan to launch a censored search engine in China.
It's expected but annoying that they'd advertise this. We've already seen that googlers' voiced ethics aren't humanitarian, just against the things bad enough to make them personally uncomfortable. And a union is explicitly for the benefit of it's members, not humanity writ large.
They're going to continue happily building the world's largest private surveillance system. The most honest googlers I know are the ones that will admit they're just there for the money and have real issues with google's dealings. I doubt we'll get that level of candor from their union. The union will be for everything that makes money but doesn't get google bad publicity (just like google itself).
It's expected but annoying that they'd advertise this. We've already seen that googlers' voiced ethics aren't humanitarian, just against the things bad enough to make them personally uncomfortable. And a union is explicitly for the benefit of it's members, not humanity writ large.
They're going to continue happily building the world's largest private surveillance system. The most honest googlers I know are the ones that will admit they're just there for the money and have real issues with google's dealings. I doubt we'll get that level of candor from their union. The union will be for everything that makes money but doesn't get google bad publicity (just like google itself).
So many of the hard problems in software engineering come down to organizing people and empowering them to do what is right. This is a huge step forward for workers in the industry.
It takes an expert to write great code, but it takes a hacker to organize entire groups of people. These folks are hackers in every sense. Bravo!
It takes an expert to write great code, but it takes a hacker to organize entire groups of people. These folks are hackers in every sense. Bravo!
> ...it takes a hacker to organize entire groups of people. These folks are hackers in every sense.
I think we may have a very different definition of the word "hacker". Yours is very likely incorrect.
I think we may have a very different definition of the word "hacker". Yours is very likely incorrect.
Social engineering (in the social sciences definition) is the hacking of bureaucracy, full stop.
Social engineering is the hacking of bureaucracy? No. No it is not. Full stop.
Right, and planters the hacking of farming, and sandwiches are the hacking of gastronomy, full stop.
Ever heard of “life hacks”?
If you are Tom Knight, I'll defer to your definition.
Could someone help me understand what an union could do vs the abuses presented as examples in the article?
In my limited experience, from my parents(not US) unions are mostly some sort of barganing power for salaries in various industries but stop at that.
For example, could a union stop the payout of that high-level exec that was eventually shown the door for harrasment with a good bonus?
After that, they are also mostly like various subscriptions that you forget you have, as memberships require pay. In this beautiful part of the world you would even sometimes pressured to pay and join as if you're not a union member can have consequences that are unwanted.
For example, could a union stop the payout of that high-level exec that was eventually shown the door for harrasment with a good bonus?
After that, they are also mostly like various subscriptions that you forget you have, as memberships require pay. In this beautiful part of the world you would even sometimes pressured to pay and join as if you're not a union member can have consequences that are unwanted.
> For example, could a union stop the payout of that high-level exec that was eventually shown the door for harrasment with a good bonus?
No. Unions protect workers, not the business.
> In this beautiful part of the world you would even sometimes pressured to pay and join as if you're not a union member can have consequences that are unwanted.
Are you a citizen of your nation and do you pay taxes? Just as a nation protects its citizens in exchange for taxes, a union protects its members in exchange for dues. Everyone has to participate for the system to reasonably work.
No. Unions protect workers, not the business.
> In this beautiful part of the world you would even sometimes pressured to pay and join as if you're not a union member can have consequences that are unwanted.
Are you a citizen of your nation and do you pay taxes? Just as a nation protects its citizens in exchange for taxes, a union protects its members in exchange for dues. Everyone has to participate for the system to reasonably work.
> No. Unions protect workers, not the business.
To protect the workers, they also have to protect the jobs, which means they have to also protect the company.
Finding the right balance there is tough and one of the greatest challenges.
To protect the workers, they also have to protect the jobs, which means they have to also protect the company.
Finding the right balance there is tough and one of the greatest challenges.
That depends on the union. A miner's union doesn't need to protect all mining companies, just the ones that treat their employees best. Your argument only holds if the union is specific to one company.
A minor's union has to make sure that all their members, thus more or less all miners, keep their work.
It doesn't neccissarily have to keep all mining companies alive, but if it would consolidate into a single mining company with (initially) good conditions it can't be in the union's interest as then all mining employment power is in one place.
They have to find the right balance.
It doesn't neccissarily have to keep all mining companies alive, but if it would consolidate into a single mining company with (initially) good conditions it can't be in the union's interest as then all mining employment power is in one place.
They have to find the right balance.
>In this beautiful part of the world you would even sometimes pressured to pay and join as if you're not a union member can have consequences that are unwanted.
This is to address the free rider problem inherent in unions. How do you ensure workers who get the benefits also share in the costs/work - especially when management are trying to encourage free riders?
Pretty much all free rider problems are dealt with with the group pressuring the free rider in some way.
This is to address the free rider problem inherent in unions. How do you ensure workers who get the benefits also share in the costs/work - especially when management are trying to encourage free riders?
Pretty much all free rider problems are dealt with with the group pressuring the free rider in some way.
Why is it bad to be forced to pay union dues if I'd rather not, but fine for me to be forced to pass on the profits I generate to shareholders when I'd rather not?
> For example, could a union stop the payout of that high-level exec that was eventually shown the door for harrasment with a good bonus?
Yes. As unions represent workers and carry barganing power, they ask (or demand) companies to change their policies around all sort of topics.
For example, tech workers can push for ethical considerations around AI/ML, or to stay out of military contracts especially around weapons, cut the bonuses to questionable execs...
Yes. As unions represent workers and carry barganing power, they ask (or demand) companies to change their policies around all sort of topics.
For example, tech workers can push for ethical considerations around AI/ML, or to stay out of military contracts especially around weapons, cut the bonuses to questionable execs...
This reads more as an ideologically motivated pressure group, than a traditional trade union. I have a feeling that unions are most successful when they focus on non-divisive universal issues affecting the broadest section of workers possible, rather than culture war talking points.
I'm hearing that since the COVID, many Google workers are being deprived of their 3 free meals a day and access to the gym, being forced to WFH.
Clearly unacceptable, time to unionize to get things back to a more righteous state.
/s
Clearly unacceptable, time to unionize to get things back to a more righteous state.
/s
> working at Alphabet is no longer a choice they can make in good conscience.
Sorry to say so, but it has always been a moral failure to work in the surveillance industry.
Sorry to say so, but it has always been a moral failure to work in the surveillance industry.
[deleted]
As history has shown us, mass organization prevents evil /s
Timing is perfect, Google reputation is in taters and US + a gazillion states are suing them.
You mean big tech's reputation is in tartars? Facebook and Amazon are no better and Apple's reputation should absolutely be down in the gutter but people jump aboard their privacy nonsense and turn a blind eye to all the forced labour they use.
I do wish Google all the best however. They have handled their very privileged workers very poorly and may pay for it.
I do wish Google all the best however. They have handled their very privileged workers very poorly and may pay for it.
it's tatters not tartars. Tartars are a Turkish ethnic group.
What's taters precious?
It means potatoes; their reputation is covered in potatoes.
Their reputation has been boiled, mashed, stuck in a stew.