
Thousands of Google’s cafeteria workers have unionized - 80mph
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/31/21043467/google-union-cafeteria-workers-unionized-alphabet-silicon-valley-mountainview
======
vjktyu
Good for them. As for the tech workers, they need something like a guild with
membership fees and staff lawyers that would sue the state for allowing
binding arbitration and non compete agreements (i.e. do what California did).

~~~
reaperducer
_they need something like a guild with membership fees and staff lawyers that
would sue the state for allowing binding arbitration and non compete
agreements_

Serious question: How is this kind of a guild different from a union in your
view?

~~~
jedimastert
Apparently guilds are for independent contractors and unions are for
employees. A developer guild would be for freelance devs and the like

~~~
reaperducer
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. All I could piece together in my mind were
the medieval guilds of Belgium. But I guess this isn't that far removed.

~~~
Retric
Screen actors _guild_ is the most famous current example. While less well
known they have made a significant difference in actor safety.

~~~
cafard
The Newspaper Guild (TNG, now part of the Communications Workers of America)
represents a lot of journalists. But indeed most of us have heard the names of
far more members of SAG-AFTRA than of TNG.

------
mark_l_watson
Good for them. I mostly ate at their Mexican cafe and Authentic Asian Cafe (I
forget the exact name), but sampled many others. The cafeteria workers would
remember me, be friendly and helpful, and certainly deserve to make a good
living.

I used to be ambivalent about labor unions but in modern times when
corporations act as all powerful gods, hell yes, unionize.

------
gbronner
Expect google to start "optimizing" the cafeteria soon enough.

~~~
jedimastert
Employees will go apeshit. Food is such a huge deal for the culture.

~~~
novok
If you work in a tech company, you'll quickly realize that the food is
something everyone focuses on to a disproportionate degree. This guy knows
what he is talking about.

~~~
gbronner
I asked a millennial why she cared so much about the free coffee, and she told
me that it symbolizes the employer's 'caring' about the staff..

Personally, I'd rather earn an extra $25k and buy a few cups of coffee with it
than get "free coffee".

~~~
Junk_Collector
Simple perks like free coffee are a canary for the corporate coal mine.

When you look at the cost of coffee or soda, providing it free may cost the
company in the ballpark of $500 a year per employee (though often less) which
is minuscule in the total annual cost of an employee. Taken in a vacuum
however, the number looks big. We spent how much on Coffee last quarter! When
companies get to the mostly investor owned squeezing for growth stage, it's
almost always among the first thing that gets cut. This is then usually
followed by other more important quality of life cuts like training,
equipment, and bonuses. Many companies hit this stage and start increasing
margins by letting inflation eat their employee's high salaries over time for
instance.

~~~
neekburm
It reminds me of this:

[https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-
ear...](https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-
earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/)

------
freeopinion
Imagine a gigantic apartment building in San Francisco. Let's say some
400-unit monster. Then picture a campus with four of those buildings.

Then realize that such a campus could not house all the Google employees in
the area. Then realize that such a campus could not house just the Google
cafeteria workers in the area.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
What is the point of this comment other than to say Google has a lot of
employees?

~~~
jjeaff
I figured they just had the same reaction to the headline as me. "Wow I can't
believe they have that many cafeteria workers".

------
whatitdobooboo
Does anyone have any good/neutral book recommendations on unionization?

~~~
haecceity
Communist manifesto?

~~~
tehjoker
People will think you're joking but this is essentially what that world
historic text is about and it makes its argumentation clearly:
[https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/MarxEngelsTheCommunistM...](https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/MarxEngelsTheCommunistManifesto1848.pdf)

Start on page 14.

~~~
whatitdobooboo
lolll I did think that they were joking

~~~
tehjoker
Unions are a hot-fix to problems with capitalism, but they are also something
greater: the seed of a more democratic society that should be nourished and
grown.

------
reaperducer
I have mixed feelings about unions, but I'm OK with this move.

Cafeteria workers need unions. The maids who muck out hotel room toilets need
unions. Coal miners who work in horrific conditions for little pay need
unions.

You know who doesn't need unions? Millionaire TV anchors. Millionaire movie
studio execs and actors. Anyone who makes six figures, which includes a hell
of a lot of union members. In those cases the unions need the members, not the
other way 'round, and it leads to greed and corruption because all both sides
can see is dollar signs.

So, again. I think it's good that the caf workers got some protection. I'm
still on the fence about computer programmers, though.

~~~
chomp
All workers can be abused regardless of their salary.

Examples for programmers that come to mind:

\- Companies that require workers to enter arbitration and give up their right
to sue.

\- Companies that force workers to give up IP generated in their free time
(not using company resources)

\- Companies that require programmers to work 12 hour days, "crunch times",
minimal paid leave (game dev industry, VFX industry comes to mind.)

Unions collectively negotiate with employers to reduce or eliminate these
abuses. Some unions have poor leadership, which is to be expected. Some
companies have poor leadership. Not everyone is good at negotiating, which can
create power imbalances on either end of the table. But on the whole, unions
are a Good Thing, even for IT folk.

~~~
notJim
A lot of people on HN are interested in a 30-hour work week. A strong union
movement could get that done, as they have been working on in Germany:
[https://www.businessinsider.com/german-workers-can-now-
work-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/german-workers-can-now-
work-a-28-hour-week-2018-2)

~~~
vjktyu
We need a stronger law: any employee should be able to choose how many hours
or days per week to work AND work for any other company at the same time (NDA
applies, but non compete bs doesn't). Execs do this all the time: they can be
on boards in multiple companies, run other companies, while possessing
material information about them all.

The way I see it's working is the total comp negotiation goes as usual, but
the employer isn't allowed to ask how much time the employee indends to work
and whether one works for other companies. The salary and other comp is paid
bi weekly as usual, but is pro rated to the number of hours or days worked.
All the machinery is already in place: big corps have very detailed per
minutes compensation for vacations, various on call duties and so on.

This will be strictly better for the IRS, because more competition means more
taxes, but much worse for the dividend seeking investors.

Obviously, this will be a decade long legal battle with tens of millions in
expenses, and it can't be done without a full time team of motivated and very
expensive lawyers. However if 100k engineers spend 1k/year as membership fees,
this organization will have a 100m/year budget and can keep courts busy
forever.

------
ryanseys
Disclaimer: FTE at Verily (Google Life Sciences)

Sounds like this isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last.
Both Compass (the firm that employs these cafeteria workers) and Google both
have experience working with unions and are committed to working through this.
Happy that these employees are getting the representation they deserve. I hope
this means that these people will get better benefits that Google FTEs enjoy
and stronger protections.

As a FTE at Verily (an Alphabet subsidiary), the management's priorities are
very clearly not focused on challenging the status quo in these areas -- they
are focused on running the "core business". I can only guess the sentiment is
similar within Google.

I look forward to seeing this issue continue to get light and hope that
business priorities evolve to incorporate the more humanistic aspects of
running a business instead of simply focusing on the bottom line all the time.

~~~
sfink
> Google [has] experience working with unions and [is] committed to working
> through this.

My impression is that Google's experience is mostly in seemingly illegal
union-busting (well, preventing) efforts. Then again, my impression is wholly
based on reading HN articles on the topic, generally related only to
engineers.

But I suppose they'll do what they're legally forced to do, more or less.

~~~
pmoriarty
Or Google could just leave.

I hope they do.

Good riddance.

~~~
utopian3
> Or they could just leave.

Who? Google or the employees

------
tehjoker
This was a really great Twitter thread about how capitalism isn't really about
meritocracy but about bargaining power and by implication how necessary unions
are for workers to be treated humanely and paid more than the bare minimum for
survival:

[https://twitter.com/ArashKolahi/status/1210332075787608065](https://twitter.com/ArashKolahi/status/1210332075787608065)

~~~
mr_toad
> how capitalism isn't really about meritocracy

Who said it was? Classic example of a straw-man argument.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

~~~
minimuffins
Anyone in their right mind knows that meritocracy is a basic tenet of
capitalist ideology, especially the Silicon Valley variety.

------
seemslegit
I wonder if they can now help people who lost access to their gmail accounts
because they wouldn't give google their phone number

~~~
seemslegit
I'll take it as 'probably not'

~~~
komali2
Sucks but I'm guessing people don't think your comment was relevant to the
topic.

~~~
seemslegit
Oh well, maybe when the cleaning staff unionizes

------
greatscott404
The only reason labor unions are legal is that certain unions have outsized
political clout, in a perfect world labor unions would be illegal under
antitrust laws as forcing companies to pay workers more than what a free
market dictates inevitably increases prices.

~~~
shantly
Cool cool. We can have our government stop recognizing the existence of
corporations at the same time we outlaw unions. Deal?

~~~
greatscott404
Why? Corporations are largely great assets to a country, labor unions on the
other hand are parasitic cartels.

~~~
shantly
Well the high labor-rate negotiating power, relative to individuals, of
corporations—legal entities created by our government(s)—is why we need
unions, so I figure if we ditch one we can/should ditch the other, too.

~~~
greatscott404
I'm opposed to throwing the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

~~~
shantly
Sure, then we can keep corporations around as long as we balance their
government-enabled incredible labor rate negotiating position with something
comparably effective for workers.

~~~
greatscott404
We have that it's called "supply and demand".

~~~
komali2
Glad you acknowledge that labor conditions (including salary) are a market.

As we know, there is a price floor and a price ceiling in a market,
represented by the buyer and seller.

What we also know is that the price does not fall perfectly in the middle of
that floor and ceiling - it benefits the person with more bargaining power.

A corporation has more bargaining power because it is a massive financial
entity comprised of sometimes tens of thousands of people. Non unionized
workers show up during a salary negotiation against that? One person with a
family to feed and enough savings to survive maybe another 2 months without a
job? Gee I wonder how imbalanced the bargaining power is there.

We allowed corporations to incorporate because of the advantages of doing so.
We should allow the other half of the labor market-transaction to do the same,
not only because it's fair, but because the union side reprents _humans_ ,
while the corporate side reprents _companies,_ which are not humans. It's
kinda insane to want to give these non human conglomerates more power but hey
vote with your values.

------
dominotw
ppl also talk a lot about union for tech workers. Its not feasible in tech
because a sizable majority of tech workers are on various visa's that
precludes them from joining a strike, making the union essentially
ineffective. This needs to be addressed first.

Chicago has teachers union but filipino teachers on J1 cannot participate in a
strike, it works for CTU because there are only a tiny fraction on J1 visa.

~~~
baddox
A _majority_ of tech workers are on visas? I find that hard to believe.

~~~
jacquesm
GP has a habit of exaggerating claims that have some basis in fact when looked
at through your eyelashes but that fall apart on closer inspection:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899843)

I don't think this will be any different.

~~~
dominotw
one example = habit?

As I said before you wrote this comment, i meant to use sizable here not
sizable majority.

------
remote_phone
I’m glad they were able to unionize but why should they deserve to have
similar or same benefits as Google workers? Sorry to be blunt but they are
cafeteria workers working for Bon Appetit. If I were Google I would just close
all the cafeterias in order to avoid further precedent setting actions. The
meals are going to get taxed by IRS anyway so might as well bite the bullet
now and get rid of free food entirely.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Google would be pretty unique among high tech companies and large companies in
general if it didn't have cafeterias at all. I doubt they would close the
cafeterias. If Compass is unable to negotiate a cost effective labor contract,
the more likely outcome would be google switching to another provider. But
that in itself doesn't seem very likely considering the optics, and the
relatively small cost of this labor.

But, for the sake of argument, can you imagine what the lunch rush hour would
look like in downtown mountain view and Sunnyvale if Google didn't have
cafeterias at all? It was already pretty bananas when I left the Bay Area
three years ago. Google's headcount on the peninsula was much lower then. And
they did have cafeterias. Now it would be totally insane.

~~~
hindsightbias
Or it would be a renaissance for urban restaurateurs and workers, who could
afford the city again. Some of these tech areas are surrounded by dead zones.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
In an alternate reality where there was a bunch of unused land and commercial
real estate for lease in MTV and Sunnyvale, and/or where their city councils
were open to building more, I agree. However, that's not the world we live in,
so the situation you describe would be an unlikely result.

~~~
hindsightbias
Apple had room to build a new Venice. Shops, housing, work... but they built a
spacepad.

------
motohagiography
The consequence of this means rights for union organizers to be on the job
sites and access to other workers. There is a thin edge of the wedge strategy
at play here. It's not just the cafeteria workers.

The opposition I have to unions at companies like Google is that the companies
themselves are too politically powerful to have staff who in effect must to
behave criminally to be terminated. When you look at the impact of unions in
law enforcement and national security, they are almost universally recognized
as the main enabler for the social problems bad individuals in these fields
cause.

The amount of social harm a malicious Google (twitter, facebook, reddit,
pornhub, etc) employee can cause is astronomical and the main thing keeping
the worst %10 in check is the likelihood of losing their job. Literally
thousands of people who can divert or sabotage the lives of others without
accountability.

They already have enough privacy and political problems, but I would predict
unionization spreading to their tech workforce would trigger divestment and a
general market reduction of risk exposure to their businesses.

These companies are different, and a political artifact of the industrial
revolution will have disproportionate unintended consequences.

~~~
wrsh07
I'm much more concerned about executive accountability than I am about
individual employee accountability at a company with as much political power
as, say, Google.

Unions are a way of balancing executive power. (I don't think they're a
panacea though! All I hope for in this case is that it is able to improve the
lives and working conditions of Google's cafeteria workers)

~~~
motohagiography
There are at least 10x the number of employees to executives who have access
to your email contents and browsing history. Using the worst %3 of individuals
as a baseline, the executives are the people you have the very least to worry
about.

~~~
jjeaff
Access to individual personal data is only one small point of power. Billions
of dollars for lobbying and the ability to set policy and make sweeping
changes is a much larger power.

~~~
motohagiography
Elections at all levels are won and lost on candidate email dumps and internet
activity. Blackmail always works better than lobbying, and this is what
protecting the worst actors will enable.

