Google union in turmoil following global alliance announcement(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Google union in turmoil following global alliance announcement
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/30/22256577/alphabet-workers-union-turmoil-global-alliance-announcement-google-cwa
73 comments
Exaggerated like a few hundred employees joining a union when the company employs over 100,000 people.
In the USA in a tech company its ground breaking
Perhaps a professional national guild of communications workers should be held to a higher standard than “your standard communications mixups”.
I imagine the real issue is whether affiliating with a larger union is something that should be up for vote with the members, or at least an open debate.
The entire "Google Union" story has been exaggerated.
Everyone got so caught up in the unionization narrative that they didn't even read the details of the union in the first place. Specifically, this union isn't the kind of union with collective bargaining rights, which is what most people assume when they see the word "union".
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/04/google-...
> The Alphabet Workers Union will push for change without traditional collective bargaining rights.
This pseudo-union is more like a Discord group of 100-200 Google employees who will try to influence change together, without actually forming a traditional union.
Everyone got so caught up in the unionization narrative that they didn't even read the details of the union in the first place. Specifically, this union isn't the kind of union with collective bargaining rights, which is what most people assume when they see the word "union".
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/04/google-...
> The Alphabet Workers Union will push for change without traditional collective bargaining rights.
This pseudo-union is more like a Discord group of 100-200 Google employees who will try to influence change together, without actually forming a traditional union.
It is a bit more than that. Members give 1% of their TC to the union (which is exceptionally high, by the usual standards of union dues and the actual member services the union provides).
The model of unionism you reference isn't universal or even the most common cross culturally. Even within the US, pre-New Deal minority unionism was the dominant form of worker organization.
The model of unionism you reference isn't universal or even the most common cross culturally. Even within the US, pre-New Deal minority unionism was the dominant form of worker organization.
The amount of dues given is entirely optional. 1% is a recommended amount and not enforced.
“We want to honor the concerns that have been raised, but our primary focus as a union isn’t affiliation or disaffiliation.”
That sounds very much like condescendingly downplaying the seriousness of affiliation as something they should not be worrying about, when in fact it is something that the members are concerned about.
That sounds very much like condescendingly downplaying the seriousness of affiliation as something they should not be worrying about, when in fact it is something that the members are concerned about.
After her previous “Exclusive” quoted people who didn’t say what they’re quoted as saying, I’d imagine there is pressure to frame it as a bigger union fuckup to deflect blame. Either it’s an everyday thing, in which the earlier article was poor journalism, or it’s a bigger deal the journalist couldn’t have expected and then this is a Story! I’m surprised the earlier article hasn’t been corrected yet.
>Amr Gaber, a Google engineer who helped organize the 2018 walkout, told The New York Times that the union has been more concerned with claiming turf than listening to the needs of organizers.
I wonder how many people are using this news to say "See, I told you so"
I further wonder how many people are replying to them with some form of "That's a anti-union sterotype, you just don't understand unions."
I wonder how many people are using this news to say "See, I told you so"
I further wonder how many people are replying to them with some form of "That's a anti-union sterotype, you just don't understand unions."
> Spiers spoke about her experience with CWA and said she wanted to acknowledge that the alliance announcement was not an isolated incident. Now, she’s participating in a campaign to disaffiliate from the larger organization.
It's important to choose allies carefully. If you opportunistically work with an individual who's more invested in making scenes and silly sloganeering than using good judgment to accomplish meaningful change, you shouldn't be surprised when it turns out she's not much of a team player. Can't feel too bad for the CWA here.
It's important to choose allies carefully. If you opportunistically work with an individual who's more invested in making scenes and silly sloganeering than using good judgment to accomplish meaningful change, you shouldn't be surprised when it turns out she's not much of a team player. Can't feel too bad for the CWA here.
> The news was an unwelcome surprise to union members who expect the Alphabet Workers Union to run democratically.
Sounds like the AWU members need to unionize and form an AWU Members Union to make their voices heard within AWU.
Sarcasm aside, this really is a bad look for a group that needs some non-controversial wins to gain support, rather than focusing on just “gaining turf” as quoted in the article. I get the impression CWA is trying to use this to get a foothold in big tech at all costs, AWU members be damned. Maybe they can call it growth hacking.
Sounds like the AWU members need to unionize and form an AWU Members Union to make their voices heard within AWU.
Sarcasm aside, this really is a bad look for a group that needs some non-controversial wins to gain support, rather than focusing on just “gaining turf” as quoted in the article. I get the impression CWA is trying to use this to get a foothold in big tech at all costs, AWU members be damned. Maybe they can call it growth hacking.
I know you were tongue in cheek, but that's not unprecedented:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamsters_for_a_Democratic_U...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamsters_for_a_Democratic_U...
The fall out between CWA and the employees was predictable, but faster than I would have guessed.
I don’t understand why they teamed up with CWA in the first place. What possible alignment of incentives were they hoping for? What were they thinking?
I don’t understand why they teamed up with CWA in the first place. What possible alignment of incentives were they hoping for? What were they thinking?
Who else would they work with in the USA? - as far as I know the civil service unions in the USA don't have members in the private sector.
Spin up their own unaffiliated union?
A few googlers teaming up can presumably afford to pay some labor lawyers to draw up the paperwork and guide them through the process. It'd also leave googlers' more in control of their destiny than quickly becoming a franchise of a larger union.
With the hundreds of members they now have, they could cover a few staff and/or consultants. Maybe even with some sort of loan to the union for spin-up costs that could be repaid from future dues if successful?
A few googlers teaming up can presumably afford to pay some labor lawyers to draw up the paperwork and guide them through the process. It'd also leave googlers' more in control of their destiny than quickly becoming a franchise of a larger union.
With the hundreds of members they now have, they could cover a few staff and/or consultants. Maybe even with some sort of loan to the union for spin-up costs that could be repaid from future dues if successful?
UAW is another common choice, but they have a terrible track record of squashing workers rights in the University of California system. (Read up on the 2020 UC Santa Cruz wildcat strikes, or when they negotiated to reduce health care coverage for female grad students and also forced student salary caps through a decade or so ago.)
Why work with any of them?
Why work with any of them?
The IWW for one.
They don’t know what they are doing or what they want. Some of the main organizers are 1-2 years out of college and this is their first job. It’s really silly.
How does this being their first job out of college mean anything? Do you have to pass a certain threshold before you're allowed to unionize?
Experience would help, especially when dealing with old, politically-connected organizations.
Going on their own would probably also be hard, since union laws in the US are complicated.
None of this stuff is taught in engineering courses in college. I think lack of real world experience is a pretty good explanation. Hopefully they can course correct before it snowballs. Finding a trustworthy old-hat union organizer or ten, and having them act as an advisor might help.
Going on their own would probably also be hard, since union laws in the US are complicated.
None of this stuff is taught in engineering courses in college. I think lack of real world experience is a pretty good explanation. Hopefully they can course correct before it snowballs. Finding a trustworthy old-hat union organizer or ten, and having them act as an advisor might help.
It tells you what kind of life experience they have to inform their decisions, including to unionize with a job like that to begin with. I think it speaks for itself.
The Activists or the Fulltimers? :-)
Ahh bullshit politics and turf wars - the union way.
Because non-union companies are famous for not having any politics or turf wars?
Surprised that unionized communications workers are that bad at communications.
> As a so-called minority union, it isn’t recognized by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and can’t require Alphabet or its subsidiaries like Google to negotiate a contract for its members. Its power comes in part from uniting Alphabet workers and swelling its membership base to mount public pressure campaigns.
So what makes this different from say forming a Facebook group for like minded employees? Or how is it different from internal affinity groups, most of which are heavily political in US tech companies?
So what makes this different from say forming a Facebook group for like minded employees? Or how is it different from internal affinity groups, most of which are heavily political in US tech companies?
> As a so-called minority union, it isn’t recognized by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and can’t require Alphabet or its subsidiaries like Google to negotiate a contract for its members.
Can someone explain this? What would be the requirement to be non-minority union?
Can someone explain this? What would be the requirement to be non-minority union?
That they have a majority of workers in that category on their side. Since they have a few hundred and Google have tens of thousands of software engineers in USA they are pretty far from becoming a majority union.
I don’t see how any of this benefits the staff, users, company, or community.
The parent union is basically the mob/mafia. Once you join you cant unjoin and they will extort the union till they bankrupt it or the company. Ours is terrible too.
The union is less than a month old. It seems like a bad sign if it's already breaking away from its parent organization (CWA).
Um this is the CWA i.e. local to the USA not the Global alliance which is UNI - the former President is Friend.
Realistically AWU has to partner with another union initially standing up a brand new stand alone union with all the costs and difficulties is not practicable.
Realistically AWU has to partner with another union initially standing up a brand new stand alone union with all the costs and difficulties is not practicable.
What kind of costs and difficulties? Filing paperwork isn't terribly expensive, and with an average member wage 5-10x higher than the median wage in the US the union should hit above its weight class.
A larger union is likely to bring its own set of office politics and costs.
A larger union is likely to bring its own set of office politics and costs.
It's not that simple to create an effective professional union you need to hire specific skills there is a limit to what lay officers/activists can do in there free time.
Just remaining within the absolute letter of the law is complex and panties for failure can be heavy - I know I have dealt with this aspect in the UK.
Just remaining within the absolute letter of the law is complex and panties for failure can be heavy - I know I have dealt with this aspect in the UK.
As a tech worker in the US, the prospect of some form of a tech employee associatation seems like the right way to go.
- Employees are regularly screwed on misrepresented equity compensation
- Employees are expected to work uncompensated on-call shifts which vary from "doesn't affect me" to "impossible to function on" such as being paged once per hour for 1 week with the expectation to do it again in a weeks time.
- Employees are subject to highly opaque performance review processes that take into account employee performance, as well as what work they happened to be assigned - Some assignments may be incompatible with the companies expectation for a given role e.g. Software Engineers assigned to put together excel reports
- Employees may be asked to perform ethically or legally dubious activities where they may be held criminally liable ( see dieselgate, and to a lesser extent the 737 max ).
- Employees may be asked to work 80+ hours to hit goals which were underfunded or poorly planned (see CDPR and every other software project which misses a deadline)
This is a small list of reasons an industry employee group such as a guild/union/certification board/association could be a good idea. However very few of these items relate to traditional union activities. The thought of pulling in specific hires with specific union skills seems like either forcing a square peg through a round hole or just paying to support someone who will fill their time with activities related to "unions" to little employee benefit.
- Employees are regularly screwed on misrepresented equity compensation
- Employees are expected to work uncompensated on-call shifts which vary from "doesn't affect me" to "impossible to function on" such as being paged once per hour for 1 week with the expectation to do it again in a weeks time.
- Employees are subject to highly opaque performance review processes that take into account employee performance, as well as what work they happened to be assigned - Some assignments may be incompatible with the companies expectation for a given role e.g. Software Engineers assigned to put together excel reports
- Employees may be asked to perform ethically or legally dubious activities where they may be held criminally liable ( see dieselgate, and to a lesser extent the 737 max ).
- Employees may be asked to work 80+ hours to hit goals which were underfunded or poorly planned (see CDPR and every other software project which misses a deadline)
This is a small list of reasons an industry employee group such as a guild/union/certification board/association could be a good idea. However very few of these items relate to traditional union activities. The thought of pulling in specific hires with specific union skills seems like either forcing a square peg through a round hole or just paying to support someone who will fill their time with activities related to "unions" to little employee benefit.
Actually all of those issues are exactly what Unions representing mangers and professionals do in the UK work on.
I have seen a lot of cases relating to "PRP" and Performance reviews.
I have seen a lot of cases relating to "PRP" and Performance reviews.
> So far, AWU has called on YouTube to permanently ban Donald Trump
So one of the top priorities of the union is to push the company to cancel more freely, to shrink the overton window, to be more politically partisan and to conceal more from their customers for their own good.
Of course they have every right to do so, but it doesn't give me confidence that this union will be a positive force.
So one of the top priorities of the union is to push the company to cancel more freely, to shrink the overton window, to be more politically partisan and to conceal more from their customers for their own good.
Of course they have every right to do so, but it doesn't give me confidence that this union will be a positive force.
It reads like there are wreckers in AWU that just wanted it to be a generator of #resistance press releases, and they're becoming very angry that it might be used for the sake of Google workers around the world.
That being said, CWU looks to have screwed this up royally, and having a vote on international affiliation surrounded by a bunch of pomp would have been a great way to generate press.
That being said, CWU looks to have screwed this up royally, and having a vote on international affiliation surrounded by a bunch of pomp would have been a great way to generate press.
[deleted]
[flagged]
DC1350(4)
oji0hub(2)
Please stick to facts, not fan fiction.
[flagged]
They will filter "lies and hate". But that doesn't mean the "lies and hate" will magically disappear. Only the Government-approved(TM) lies and hate will be allowed to justify wars and authoritarian policies and you will be demonized and depersoned if you even try to question it. This is going to happen.
That union should join the verge. They could band together over banning Trump and other labour issues
Well this is certainly some fun drama to watch.
Having Google TC and deciding to unionize and risk it all is certainly a risky choice. Google at E5/E6 is a “comfortable FIRE in 10 years” place if levels.fyi is correct.
Having Google TC and deciding to unionize and risk it all is certainly a risky choice. Google at E5/E6 is a “comfortable FIRE in 10 years” place if levels.fyi is correct.
Isn't it the opposite? If you're at a FIRE point, there's no downside to trying to do possibly-job-ending things at your workplace. You're ready to leave anyway.
And anyone who's been at Google for a few years, even not at L5, will have no trouble finding a job elsewhere that pays as much (or more - last time I had a Google offer they flatly refused to match fintech salaries). Just make sure your name doesn't get into stories like this and resign a bit early if it seems like you're losing.
And anyone who's been at Google for a few years, even not at L5, will have no trouble finding a job elsewhere that pays as much (or more - last time I had a Google offer they flatly refused to match fintech salaries). Just make sure your name doesn't get into stories like this and resign a bit early if it seems like you're losing.
I remember years ago, when our university TAs decided to unionize, the parent union they decided to join was the UAW.
I thought to myself, "you have no idea what you're getting into, do you?"
I thought to myself, "you have no idea what you're getting into, do you?"
> In a statement, AWU executive council member Auni Ahsan said: “We want to honor the concerns that have been raised, but our primary focus as a union isn’t affiliation or disaffiliation.”
> After the article came out, however, multiple AWU members told The Verge they were blindsided by the news. A Google worker in Europe also said they hadn’t known about the announcement, but noted they typically don’t find out about union news before it becomes public.
> Uni told The Verge that McEnany was “very involved” in the alliance, and during the meeting, McEnany acknowledged he was partly to blame — he’d told Uni to attribute the quote to Koul.
So... just your standard communications mixups? I mean, if the journalist has to quote a Googler who didn't know about the announcement but admits they don't typically get non-public union announcements anyways... it tells me there isn't much here.
This doesn't really seem like "turmoil" to me, but more of a journalist trying to create a sensationalistic narrative.