
Employees at Google, Yahoo, and Amazon lose nothing if they unionize - mrfusion
https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/employees-at-google-yahoo-and-amazon-lose-nothing-if-they-unionize-heres-why/
======
asuffield
I'm an engineer at Google. This article's description of stack ranking and
perf is fundamentally and completely wrong. There is no stack ranking for perf
ratings, there is no percentage of people that have to fail, and managers are
not allowed or empowered to give people poor perf ratings in the way described
here.

I have no comment on the stuff about unions.

~~~
deelowe
This is correct. There is no formalized stack ranking (at least for eng
positions) at Google. There's always informal stacking: "does it make sense
this person is rated above this other one?" "If we line up all the promotes
and don't promotes, does this cut off point make sense)." However, I've seen
cases where 75% of the promos made it and cases where it was closer to 30%. It
just depends on the group at the time.

------
steven777400
We have a union for IT workers (including developers) at my workplace. I was
only recently allowed to leave it as a result of becoming a supervisor.

In my opinion, the union was manipulative and not beneficial to employee
outcomes. They were first and foremost politicians who used union funds to
support various unrelated political objectives and didn't really offer any
substantive help or improvement with salary/benefits.

After I left (completely in accordance with procedure and my position), the
union sent me a threatening letter demanding that I continue sending them
dues.

As a very "left leaning" person politically, I'm totally pro-labor, but unions
often only pay lip service to the employees they are supposed to benefit.

~~~
crdoconnor
>We have a union for IT workers (including developers) at my workplace. I was
only recently allowed to leave it as a result of becoming a supervisor.

If you exit the union but still work at the company you're free riding on the
higher benefits and wages negotiated by the union your coworkers paid for.

If you really don't like unions that much you can leave and go work for a
company that isn't unionized. It isn't like there's a shortage of them.

~~~
netcan
This is an incredibly arrogant argument for a union to be making. If a union
gains membership by forcing employees to be union members, its claim to be
legitimately representing employees becomes very weak, IMO.

Closed shop tactics are ways for unions to gain power, often at the expense of
labour. Also, once its place a union doesn't need to do much to win members.
The incentives are all wrong. These things collapsed all over the world for a
reason.

The cheek of believing they "own" these benefits and should be payed by anyone
who wants this job.

~~~
kalkin
I don't think there's any question that a union that lives up to the ideals of
the labor movement - solidarity, equality, power for working people over their
own lives - has to persuade people that membership is worth it, not coerce
them. You're right that there's a connection between the collapse of unions
and their bureaucratization and loss of the ability to persuade workers that
membership is worth not just paying for, but fighting for.

But free riding is a real problem. If people can gain the benefits of union
protection while avoiding the costs and risks of union membership, that
temptation will be enormous. And if you believe workers deserve control over
their own lives, including their workplace lives, some of that control has to
be collective and democratic, not just individual. In a workplace and a
society, decisions that affect everybody collectively and override individuals
will get made. The alternative to democracy making those decisions isn't that
everybody has infinite liberty, it's that the boss makes those decisions.

~~~
netcan
I agree to an extent, however this is where is comes back to arrogance vs
humility. A union believing itself to be the only indispensable guardian of
worker from abuse to the extent that they feel comfortable running a closed
shop (these things are not historically rare) means you end up with two
bosses. You're no less a slave to a system.

In any case, the democracy argument is tricky. Democracy might have voting,
but it is not voting.

Even calling this free riding rubs me the wrong way. It implies they are
claiming ownership over something that I don't think they own.

Planting you flag, demanding compliance, excluding... Whether or not you vote
I don't like it, I don't think it's power to the working person. I might hold
my nose and pay the fees, I might also laugh at my boss's jokes or agree that
unpaid overtime. None of those things are empowering though.

------
digitalzombie
I would love it if they unionize.

The only thing I dislike is protecting the bad apples such as police union or
teacher union style tenured.

I feel like company HR aren't there for you but for the company and unions are
there for you.

I was in a situation were I was harass by my boss and HR was never there for
me. After twice reporting, there was an incident where I decided I'm going to
quit because I couldn't handle the harassment. This was in a gov agency mind
you and I regret not joining a union.

We also had an option to take out of our paycheck a monthly fee for legal
advice and retainers. I got that option just cause I thought it was a nice
security I really don't know why I would need it. It turns out these retainers
cannot help you legally against your boss or company btw.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I feel like company HR aren't there for you but for the company and unions
> are there for you.

HR is paid by management to manage -- that is, assure that the company can get
the most out of for the least cost -- the "human resources" of the company.

Unions are paid by their members to assure that those members can get the most
out of their employers for the least cost.

From the employees point of view, it is quite literally true that HR is not
there for you whereas unions are (or, more accurately, the union you are a
member of, if any, is) there for you.

> We also had an option to take out of our paycheck a monthly fee for legal
> advice and retainers. I got that option just cause I thought it was a nice
> security I really don't know why I would need it. It turns out these
> retainers cannot help you legally against your boss or company btw.

Yeah, employer-arranged group legal services plans _never_ cover any scenario
where you are against your employer; they are something the company arranges
so that employers can be less distracted from serving the company's interest
by outside legal matters.

~~~
rancur
I think if we could externalize the benefits of unions such that they don't
protect the willfully lazy and don't hinder the brilliant, that might be the
best of both worlds.

~~~
philwelch
But, like crdoconnor says, unions are an exercise in democracy--and the
majority of the workforce are not brilliant.

~~~
rancur
never said democracy was good. A benevolent dictator externally motivated by
serving his subjects is a much better government.

for example, Jesus.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A benevolent dictator externally motivated by serving his subjects is a much
> better government.

Not sure that's generally true; a perfectly benevolent, non-omniscient
dictator could be quite bad.

Not that "perfectly benevolent dictator" is a real option as a long-term form
of government.

> for example, Jesus.

Jesus may have been perfectly benevolent, but isn't much of an example of
benevolent dictatorship as a better form of government.

------
Kurtz79
Unions historically were organized by people that were individually very
replaceable, could not find easily another job if fired, had limited education
and means to fight for their rights and improve their condition.

For this reasons ther employers could force upon them punishing work
conditions and contracts, and unions allowed workers to leverage their number
electing representatives that could organize them and would be better suited
to negotiate with the employers.

I fail to see any connection with engineers which can easily move between
jobs, command decent salaries and benefits and are more than able to negotiate
better conditons individually with their employers.

Maybe a more suitable organization would resemble the medieval artisan and
merchant guilds...

~~~
kalkin
> Unions historically were organized by people that were individually very
> replaceable, could not find easily another job if fired, had limited
> education and means to fight for their rights and improve their condition.

Not really. It's not just writers and actors, examples mentioned in the post.
Baseball players (stars made middle-class salaries before the union).
Engineers at Boeing and other aerospace companies.

Machinists, who were the software developers of the early 20th century (high-
skill workers who spent their time automating things away), were not just
unionized but often union pioneers and at the leading edge of militancy.
Radical machinists were at the forefront of some of the most dramatic moments
in labor history, like the strikes that knocked Russia and Germany out of the
First World War.

This idea that unions are for peons is a mythology that software engineers
tell each other in order to separate themselves conceptually from other
workers. I think in part it's motivated by a sincere recognition of relative
privilege, but sometimes I'm afraid it may also be motivated by a certain
concealed snobbery.

~~~
Kurtz79
I'm sorry if I came across as a snob, I honestly value highly the unions
contributions to workers' rights (all workers), historically.

I just do not see any factual reason for a "SW developer union", since it is a
very modern role, and as a group never experienced any need that could be
solved by unionizing.

As you mention for the case of baseball players (or the actors, in another
post), the union was made during a period in which the current work conditions
were not seen by the category as fair.

Do SW engineer think it is actually so, today ?

~~~
crdoconnor
>as a group never experienced any need that could be solved by unionizing.

* Breaking Apple and Google's wage fixing cartel.

* An end to those bullshit contractual terms that state the employer owns everything you dream up in the shower.

* Legal help with companies that promise the world with options and then shaft you later with fine print.

* Lobbying to trash software patents / H1B/indentured servitude visas.

* And end for stack ranking

I could go on...

~~~
johnward
Add non-competes to point #2. I know they don't exist in CA but for the rest
of us they still do.

------
outside1234
In Germany they have this alternative structure called the work council. My
understanding of it (I had 2-3 workers in Germany 5 years ago) was that it was
essentially a union, but only the "good parts". They spoke up around things
like stack ranking (and could vote it down) and generally acted as the
"employee's HR". Everyone in the council also had to be an employee so you
didn't have the overhead (or mob influences) of a traditional "pay in" union
scheme.

Anyone here from Germany that can describe it more and talk about what you
like / dislike about this system?

~~~
Sven7
Also would like to hear from the Germans how their software billionaires think
of unions? With unions I find it hard to imagine being able to gift 30 billion
dollars to future Mark Zuckerbergs or Bill Gates.

------
appleflaxen
When I was in a unionized position, it was frustrating because I couldn't
choose to not join (technically I guess I could, but the union and the
employer had already agreed that non-union employees still paid 90+% of union
dues to the union. why this is legal I have no idea). Anyway, the union (which
I became part of because, hey, 10% difference) really didn't help me. They
were an entity with lots of institutional power, but they all had their own
agenda. It's not like they __really __had my best interests at heart. It just
became one more level of power to answer to. It was really frustrating, and I
was happy when I was able to leave.

~~~
kalkin
> why this is legal I have no idea

It's legal, and in fact normal, under the US labor law regime, because because
the union is legally obligated to represent all employees equally, members and
non-members, in both collective bargaining and individual grievances. Without
something like this the temptation to free-ride those benefits would be pretty
enormous.

~~~
bradleyjg
They aren't obligated to represent all employees equally in collective
bargaining. It'd be impossible for them to do so, because there are intra-
employee conflicts of interest. Rather than being a fiduciary institution, at
least when it comes to negotiation, it's a democratic one that only needs to
represent the interests of 50% + 1 members of the union. Often this manifests
in trading off the interests of newer members in order to secure benefits for
senior members -- sometimes even going so far as to bargain on behalf of
retirees who aren't even members. But other configurations of favored and non-
favored groups exist (another fairly common one is part time or seasonal
employees paying dues but not being effectively representated during contract
negotiations).

Grievance representation is a different matter, there the union is much closer
to the fiduciary ideal.

~~~
kalkin
Sure, it's not equality in all respects, but they aren't allowed to
discriminate purely on the basis of union membership. If they negotiate a pay
level for a job classification, that's for everyone. You don't join a union
workplace and then negotiate your salary separately while everyone else is on
a scale.

------
meesles
Can someone explain a bit more the actual current problem? I like to think
that in our field of work, we prove ourselves by our abilities and nothing
else. I feel like unions are first a way for the less competent to kind of
hang in there and not have to try harder. I can see how it's a bit cut-throat
currently, but if I'm protected then what do I have to gain by improving my
skills? When I think of the industries that are heavily unionized, I picture
demoralized workers with union leaders replacing their actual bosses and
forcing the group to go along with things they would never find reasonable
individually.

Personally, not a fan of the article. Also this line: _and nothing will be
done about it so long as most software engineers remain apolitical cowards who
refuse to fight for themselves._. Thanks...?

~~~
josho
I used to feel the same as you, but after years of salary negotiations I began
to realize how disadvantaged employees are in the negotiations. In part due to
information asymmetry, but also negotiation expertise--or lack thereof.

Given the demand for top talent we are largely underpaid, at least look at the
multipliers that top engineers can generate.

So, imagine what you could achieve with collective negotiations. You want a
death march to achieve a deadline, great then pay in overtime or stock at 1.5x
my salary. You've given me new responsibilities, great I love the new
challenge but now contractually we are obliged to open salary discussions to
bring my salary inline with those new responsibilities (usually this happens 6
months later). Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

~~~
omouse
Yep, us programmers are usually introverted but more than that we just have
never been given lessons on negotiations. Business people have classes on
psychology and on how to deal with workers and clients and they have far more
social training and skill to use in their negotiations. Us programmers, jesus
christ, we can't even negotiate to be able to use a paltry $500 training
budget.

~~~
johnward
I just want the company to buy me a new mouse but I end up buying it myself.

~~~
omouse
Same. It took 2 months to get a Macbook Pro; it took a month to get a monitor
(and the CTO himself walked over to buy it); and I ended up bringing my own
keyboard and mouse and mouse pad and headphones. I'll end up bringing in my
own monitor to dual monitor and buy my own thunderbolt->dvi cable. It's far
easier than trying to negotiate expensing and having to justify it.

~~~
johnward
I just got my 2009 MBP replaced last month. What a struggle. I finally had to
find the right person and explain how it was an embarrassment in front of
customers to have a laptop that can't handle our software. I buy my own
keyboards, mice, dongles, etc but I'm taking those with me if I leave. We have
a program that allows you to purchase things. I ordered a mouse one time and
was told the order total amount was too little. So I added a few other things
I might need and was denied.

------
6t6t6
This kind of hate that Americans have for unions is something I will never
understand.

Unions have clear purpose: help the workers negotiate with the company with
equal opportunities and prevent abuse from the employer. Companies have power,
money and lawyers and, usually, a worker has none of those; so, if one day the
worker has a conflict with the company, the Union will be there to assist the
worker.

I've been working in a couple of companies that had a Union (in Europe, not
USA) and it has been always a good experience. The guys in the Union knew
quite well how law works in the country and helped the employer to always keep
a relationship between the employer and the employee according to the law.
Unpaid overtime? Mmmm... it's not going to happen. Firing someone just because
the manager doesn't like him? Nahhh.... Abusive boss? Mmm... Lets talk with
him about the consequences of a Lawsuit for Bullying.

Of course, if an employee did something really wrong, there was not much the
Union could do for him.

But the main thing is that the employee is always in inferiority when dealing
with the employer, and the Unions are there to solve that.

------
yarper
Aside from labour issues and collective bargaining over employees getting
"shafted", unions are the first to pick up unsafe working practices. As
software and tech in general ingrains itself into society the risk of deadly
mistakes becomes ever greater - people already die due to bugs, and we can't
remove the possibility entirely but we should be damn sure when the finger is
pointed at our profession that we've got it covered. The free market typically
doesn't cause this kind of enlightenment.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Aside from labour issues and collective bargaining over employees getting
"shafted", unions are the first to pick up unsafe working practices.

No, the opposite is true.

[http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5813/fatalities_higher...](http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5813/fatalities_higher_at_non-
union_mineslike_masseys_upper_big_branch)

~~~
yarper
This is not evidence that unions make labour more dangerous.

The last paragraph even in your link is this;

"Tougher enforcement of laws, with higher penalties, and stronger safety
standards are essential. But unionized miners have the power to enforce those
standards before there's an accident, and they can prevent the speed-ups,
overwork, and shortcuts that are common in non-union mines, like Upper Big
Branch, and that contribute to the dangers of the job.

If Congress and Obama want to do something to save miners' lives, they should
first of all protect and strengthen their right to organize."

~~~
crdoconnor
>This is not evidence that unions make labour more dangerous.

No, it's evidence that unions help make laborers safer.

------
dennisgorelik
Step 1: Unionize software companies.

Step 2: Turn Silicon Valley into Detroit.

------
bpodgursky
Everyone loses union dues.

High performers lose high compensation relative to the mean engineer.

There are plenty more arguable things you can say engineers lose (stock option
value with lost company competitiveness, etc) but I'm not going to bother with
those. The top two are not arguable, which is enough to invalidate a
simplistic clickbait title.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Everyone loses union dues.

All they get in return is a salary that is above industry average.

>High performers lose high compensation

Sure, because unions in Hollywood totally ruined it for A listers.

~~~
brightball
> All they get in return is a salary that is above industry average.

I've always wondered if that's actually true. Typically, unions form around
well established businesses that are already dominating their market where the
employees can clearly see the amount of money being made hand over fist.

This works great for employees whenever things are going great but cripples
the company from adapting when things are going poorly. Hostess was a decent
example of that.

In other words, Unions basically seem to form to take advantage of a good
situation so when they're able to extract higher salaries from the company
it's because they are already at very successful companies.

That would seem to imbalance the sample data because you'd need to compare
them to all of the other non-unionized equivalently successful companies for a
real comparison rather than the entire industry including small players.

~~~
fredophile
Hostess is a really bad example for why unions are bad. Hostess suffered from
several non-union related problems such as repeatedly selling off profitable
assets, failure to update their product line to keep up with trends, and
repeated raises for management while the company continued to decline [0]. I
can't find a relevant article to site right now but iirc the unions had
already made significant concessions previously (I think it was during
Hostess' previous bankruptcy). Hostess failed for many reasons and
mismanagement was at least as big a problem as labour costs.

[0] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-
kille...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-
hostess-brands-and-twinkies/)

~~~
brightball
I stand corrected

------
gadders
Are we supposed to flag this because MichaelOChurch the user id got banned?
Not bothered either way, but wondered what the policy was.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Just because he was a bad poster doesn't mean he's an un-person.

~~~
PopeOfNope
It appears there's a large number of people here who disagree with you.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
I wonder which they disagreed with, was it the 'was a bad poster' or the 'is
still a person' part.

------
mtimjones
Unions at one time were necessary, but are now nothing more than a funds-
sucking entity that promotes a single political party.

------
oldmanjay
unions are great when people want a paycheck but don't want the need to
perform to be a part of the equation. I can see why that's tempting for a
certain mindset, but it's a clear loser in every way except tickling those
populist "worker" nerves so many seem to have.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Yeah, SAG has really stopped actors from performing. George Clooney just sits
on his ass all day running out the clock until he can collect his paycheck. /s

~~~
maxerickson
They do!

[http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-SAG-Card](http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-SAG-Card)

I mean, they don't stop SAG members from performing, but they do keep non
members out of SAG shoots.

