
Anti-union activity is heating up ahead of Google contractor's vote to unionize - claudeganon
https://m.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/anti-union-activity-is-heating-up-ahead-of-google-contractors-vote-to-unionize/Content?oid=15886644
======
rdiddly
I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must
work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden
escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the
union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this
union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're
onto something here if they oppose it this much."

~~~
darawk
> It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in
> management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose
> it this much."

I think it's important to note here that "bad for management" doesn't
necessarily mean "good for employees". It is possible that unions are bad for
both, by gumming up the negotiating process, and insulating low performing
employees at the expense of high performing employees. It may or may not be
the case that this is what happens, but it does not follow from the fact that
management opposes it, therefore it is good for employees.

~~~
stjohnswarts
On average unions work better for the most people. People on the upper end
will not stop contributing or trying, people on the lower end don't matter
much anyway. It's the middle that provides most of the advancement.

~~~
privateSFacct
At least two other data points - I have a friend who worked in a govt agency -
doing cool and important work - she left because of the unfirable lifers -
while the stories are funny you can’t go to work and perform well in that
situation.

In high school teacher X was notorious for giving no work and no s*its. He
missed lots of his classes so always subs. We thought it was cool (usually
easy A). He was there years but my senior year he must have done something way
over the line because he was fired midday. Amazingly the gossip never figured
out what he did (despite kids w parents on school board)

~~~
dlp211
Those are nice anecdotes, the data says otherwise. There will always be
slackers, they exist in every job and industry.

~~~
kortilla
[citation needed]

Eliminating any motivation to perform well is of course going to discourage
people who try harder for rewards. That’s basic economics.

Claiming that the top performers will continue to innovate and lead when they
are compensated the same as the bare minimum clock punchers is extraordinary
and requires evidence.

About the only place where unions are better (at least the salary negotiating
US style ones) are jobs where innovation and efficiency are irrelevant.

~~~
turtlecloud
With UBI that should remove the lazy ones who are stuck in those type of
positions.

~~~
ci5er
Society pays for those who won't work? Nice promo material!

~~~
cortesoft
We pay for them in some way or the other... they either are on public
assistance or end up in jail. We pay either way.

~~~
ci5er
You have a preference?

~~~
cortesoft
I prefer a basic income.

~~~
ci5er
Pay criminals not to work? Somehow I don't think this is good PR...

I don't disagree, but I don't know know if this is how the case needs to be
made...

------
cobookman
Should replace Google with HCL. The actual employer and one lobbying against
unionization

~~~
KirinDave
Well, its Google's responsibility in this to make it clear unlawful anti-union
activities are grounds for terminating contracts. They have a lot of the power
here and if they set a precedent, a lot of other companies can follow.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
That's actually not Google's responsibility. It's the government's. I mean, it
would be a nice thing for Google to do, but Google is not law enforcement.
It's important not to assign the responsibilities of the state to a private
company, as that inevitably leads to disappointment.

I'll also just point out that Google probably lacks a sufficient, just
apparatus to evaluate the claims being made. I mean, USW claims that illegal
anti-union activities are occurring. HCL would probably deny those claims.
Google is not a detective agency, and it shouldn't be. If it observes illegal
activities occurring on its own property, or has substantial knowledge of
them, that would be one thing, but I imagine that if HCL is doing this dirty
stuff they are not going to make it obvious.

Finally, I doubt the unionizing HCL workers would appreciate the remedy that
some people here are proposing. People are saying to terminate the contract
with HCL. What? What good would that do? Do you think the unionizing workers
would appreciate having their positions eliminated? If anything should be
considered anti-union, this proposed remedy is it!

~~~
erikpukinskis
I do think it’s Google’s responsibility to ensure their suppliers are adhering
to basic standards of decency, whatever Google thinks decency is. The
government has nothing to do with that.

I don’t think the government should be adjudicating virtue, nor do I think
companies can say “I outsourced that part of my product, so it’s not my
concern how it gets made!”

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
I agree with your broad claim, but the devil is in the details. Google should
presumably have an element in their contracts that says that contracting
companies should not do anything illegal with respect to their employees.
Perhaps there should even be a minimum wage requirement. However, I do not
think it is Google's responsibility to adjudicate and investigate whether a
particular anti-union activity on the part of a contracting partner crosses
the line of legality.

~~~
icebraining
The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether
it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their
own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from
their suppliers, legality aside.

~~~
underpand
> Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way?

Isn't this exactly what companies want to avoid doing? They need to treat
employees and contractors differently or risk getting sued.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-
findlaw-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-
treat-c/dont-treat-contractors-like-employees-idUSTRE53063S20090401)

~~~
icebraining
I don't think the workers here are contractors; they are employees of a firm
contracted Google, which is a different thing.

------
1-6
Good, if unions can make it less appealing for Google to hire less temp,
vendors, and contractors, they might hire more full time employees. There's
already a chasm forming between TVCs and FTEs. It's only going to grow bigger.

~~~
H8crilA
Just remember that if this happens and spreads out the insane software
engineer salaries will be gone. Whoever makes a Silicon Valley salary is a
benefactor of the current setup (which, I agree, is a little outrageous).

~~~
t-writescode
The people that will be most impacted by any sort of equalizing are the people
who make like 120-250k per year. Not silly rich, but they have a house or two
that they rent out, etc.

This is okay, because everyone is better off, despite the upper-middle-class
being knocked down a peg or two.

Yes, they’ll have to sell their 2nd rental because it’s unsustainable.

~~~
gowld
You think most junior Google programmers own 2 or 3 homes?

------
tyingq
_" HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between
$30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely."_

That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.

~~~
dev_dull
The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the
job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and
quickly find more gainful employment.

It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to
group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better
quality of life.

~~~
youeseh
This is not true. There are a large number of contractors working at Google,
Facebook and other companies in engineering and other skilled roles. Their
contracts are from 3 to 6 months long.

If you're in a bind and need a job, you get placed quickly by one of the firms
supplying contractors to the large companies. Since you're in a bind, you
accept making a lower salary, which ends up being around 60-75% of the base
salary of a full-time employee without any of the other benefits of being
full-time.

~~~
denormalfloat
There are more than 100k TVCs at Google. I don't think you can speak generally
about them, because there is high diversity in their job roles.

------
darren0
I don't understand how a contractor unionizing gives them any more power over
Google. Either which way they are a contractor and have to negotiate a
contract. This article seems to imply the workers have an issue with Google,
but unionizing just gives them power over HCL. So are they not happy with HCL?

------
Aloha
Maybe this is the way it shapes out - the contractors of the new economy are
equivalent to the hourly worker in the old economy, the perm people
management. The contractors have representation from a union, and the perm
people, none.

~~~
claudeganon
It probably won’t be that analogous. I suspect that having the parallel,
contract labor force is at least somewhat about exerting additional control
over those employees that are actually permanent. A kind of implicit threat
that your employment status can be downgraded.

~~~
Aloha
I think the threat of firing is more relevant - no one gets downgraded to a
contractor, you just get pushed out the door

~~~
claudeganon
People get downgraded to contract labor after being fired from FTE jobs all
the time. This broader trend of increasing tenuousness of employment is part
of what is driving the upswell in labor organizing.

------
telaelit
We should all unionize IMHO

~~~
viburnum
Nordic social democracy isn’t magic, it’s just what you get when most workers
are in a union.

------
ShadowKitten
"HCL itself would be violating the National Labor Relations Board law if the
company fired workers for forming a union, but Gyrgo is concerned the union
can’t protect them from the work they do with Google, since they don’t
actually work for Google."

In other words:

Google won't be violating the law if the company fired workers for forming a
union because they will be doing so using a proxy organization as a scapegoat.
This in effect allows them to circumvent the law referenced above.

Complete horseshit

~~~
MiroF
Labor law in the United States is so obviously broken, I'm sort of amazed that
it isn't talked about more.

Even beyond unionization, the fact that I had to waive my right to sue my
employer for gender or racial discrimination in the courts (in favor of a
private arbitrator they hire) as a condition of getting the job is just
bullshit.

------
whytaka
I wonder to what extent the the thirst for a union could be quenched if the
compensation of all members of a company were to be made public and always
updated.

If management wants to maintain direct negotiation with their staff, they must
eliminate information asymmetry.

~~~
iscrewyou
Look at government jobs for this example. Salaries and their limits are public
record. The unions can keep them up to market rates.

Unionizing isn’t a thirst that needs to be quenched. It’s simply asking for
fair compensation. That’s why the contracts are up after a certain time so
everything can be negotiated again.

------
S_A_P
Is there a good place to learn about what unionizing tech workers will do/is
trying to accomplish? Also, isn’t being a contingent worker an implicit
contract that you are willing to give up benefits and (in many cases
theoretical) stability for a higher hourly rate? Obviously I don’t/can’t speak
for everyone but my spouse has the full time job and insurance and I grind it
out to pad the bottom line. If widespread unionization happens I don’t see any
way that my take home pay will increase.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
I think it's a very good question.

Google employees have some of the best salaries, generous benefits, plentiful
vacations, massages, psychological help, free food - you name it.

I see how a union can make things worse for googlers. I cannot see how unions
can make things better.

~~~
ramphastidae
The Google employees advocating for unionization are contractors and do not
enjoy the benefits you mentioned.

~~~
S_A_P
Which again brings to mind the question- if you want those great benefits you
could try to get hired as an employee. Or come on as a contractor and prove
yourself to the company. If you are a contractor you are trading that for
higher per hour wages. In my industry in the Houston area the most I could
ever expect to make as a developer a specific niche is roughly 150k plus or
minus 30k. As a contractor on a good year I can triple that. Unionizing Would
only bring that number down.

~~~
S_A_P
This isn’t a hill I am trying to die on. And I would be happy to hear
dissenting opinions. From my perspective, a contractor!= to an employee and
there are trade offs associated with this difference. If you want benefits and
more(again theoretical most of the time) job security then you go the FTE
route. I’m not going to use examples of bad unions to argue my point and I
even think in some cases they could make sense. I even think employees at
google in a union make sense. But contractor? It is a low drag way to get
people in and out the door without a bunch of red tape. Unionizing would make
this not the case and likely just prevent contractors from being used.

This is a case by case scenario and I think a lot of start ups are using
contractors as employees just to try and make their business viable.

Again I would love to hear a different view on this, I don’t know that I’m an
expert on this but seeing things from the perspective of being an
employee/contractor/business owner is what has informed my point of view here.

------
tempsy
Union tech is a very interesting startup idea. How do union organizers keep
track of members, handle dues, plan, and communicate?

~~~
advisedwang
There are some out there, like nationbuilder.com (not union specific, but used
by some)

------
kebman
I wouldn't worry too much. Good working conditions are a boon to both the
employer and the employee. A good union will negotiate that to the benefit of
both. The reason is simple. If union negotiations lead to worse profits, then
employees risk the whole business toppling, and then everyone loses. However,
too much job security can actually make it harder to get a new job, once you
need it, as it makes it harder to fire underperforming employees. The net
effect of it, are employers who are extremely picky and careful about hiring
anyone new, which is pretty muh bad for the whole economy.

------
ycombonator
HCL is an Indian outsourcing company and they will do everything in their
power (paying off politicians) to quash this.

------
no_user
Really unions for Tech works from IT services companies. God bless tech
industry.

Not good for anyone.

------
tomohawk
To really make a dent, put a stop to H1B. It is an unnecessary program. All
people doing work here should be citizens or green card holders. The employer
should not have any say about this or sway over the employees about their
status. People should be free to choose their employer and change their
employer without entanglement of H1B.

------
Simulacra
Before there were proper labor laws unions served a purpose, now it's more
self-serving to the coffers and political power of the union itself. What
should be equal is tipped in the unions favor at the detriment of the company.
I think that's wrong.

------
baq
Where are the anti-HR movements I ask, only half jokingly?

------
linuxdude314
I sort of shocked contractors at Google want a union. Typically contractors
make more in total comp than full time employees. I suspect this is not the
case there, but in general it’s true.

~~~
Forge36
I've never seen that at a job I worked at. While I know other fields where
this can be the case (typically housing related), Google's difference was
rather extreme

------
microcolonel
So is "pro-union activity". Of course when an important vote is about to
happen, the campaigns on either side of that vote will make their case.

------
adamnemecek
It's funny how progressive everyone is until it impacts their bottom line.

~~~
statusquoantefa
It's funny how everybody covets more power and more money, employers and
employees alike, and always want to wrap it all up in a facade of being the
moral choice.

~~~
stjohnswarts
Unions are as much about fairness as "more money". People genuinely want
better work conditions, better hours, and better benefits just as much as
"more money".

------
matchagaucho
USW is completely the wrong union for representing Tech Workers.

This will not turn out well for the Workers. The USW membership dues will
start at $100+ per month and go to strike funds, Lawyers, Representatives, and
Stewards who have their own self-interests in mind.

This is basically just paying protection money to thugs.

 _EDIT: For those downvoting, perhaps you 'd care to kindly suggest a better
union for this cause?_

~~~
stjohnswarts
Running a union costs money, it's as simple as that. I often blow $100 bucks
on a night out on the town. I would much rather pay that if I can get better
hours, vacation, and negotiating power with the guys who just want to maximize
quarterly profits at all social and moral costs.

~~~
matchagaucho
The question is... will the United Steelworkers make the best use of that
money?

Traditional Unions haven't evolved into the 21st century. They're still using
signup sheets, phone trees, FTP, Fax machines, and Post-It notes to organize.

~~~
Apocryphon
Sounds like they could use some modernization, if only there was an industry
that touts itself as being all about innovation and regularly goes around
disrupting traditional ways of doing things.

