Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses

Google Workers Unionize, Escalating Tension With Management (bloomberg.com) 200

Employees of Google and parent company Alphabet announced the creation of a union on Monday, escalating years of confrontation between workers and management of the internet giant. From a report: The Alphabet Workers Union said it will be open to all employees and contractors, regardless of their role or classification. It will collect dues, pay organizing staff and have an elected board of directors. The unionizing effort, a rare campaign within a major U.S. technology company, is supported by the Communications Workers of America as part of a recent tech-focused initiative known as CODE-CWA. Googlers who join the Alphabet Workers Union will also be members of CWA Local 1400. The group, which represents more than 200 workers in the U.S., plans to take on issues including compensation, employee classification and the kinds of work Google engages in. "We will hire skilled organizers to ensure all workers at Google know they can work with us if they actually want to see their company reflect their values," Dylan Baker, software engineer at Google, said in a statement. A letter from the union organizers published in the New York Times said workplace concerns at the company have been dismissed by executives for too long. Google has clashed with some employees in recent years over contracts with the military, the different treatment of contract workers and a rich exit package for an executive ousted for alleged sexual harassment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Workers Unionize, Escalating Tension With Management

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:10AM (#60894322)

    About time for an Tech union now other big ones need to do the same.
    Also amazon for tech and warehouse / drivers.

    • It is Amazon. They screw their workers right left and centre.

      We can all help by not buying stuff from Bezos. He has more than enough money already.

      Proudly Amazon free since 2018.

      • That's what I was thinking, I'm really surprised this didn't happen among Amazon warehouse workers first.
        • Amazon's turnover rate is crazy. It's hard to even argue for a union when you're already looking for your next job shortly after you've hired on at Amazon.

      • by Hodr ( 219920 )

        I assume you are talking about laborers working in the warehouses, and not the actual tech employees. I only know two employees of Amazon, both software developers, and both love their jobs. I even tried to get one of them to move over to my company when we were paying a $50k head-hunting fee and despite similar on-paper benefits, an estimated 15-20% increase in pay, and no need to relocate, he didn't even take the interview.

  • Where? (Score:4, Informative)

    by kqc7011 ( 525426 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:11AM (#60894326)
    Worldwide, nationwide, California, all divisions, offices, or at a particular place and what types of workers? So many questions not answered in the article.
    • None of the above (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:31AM (#60894396)

      A bunch of employees got together and formed a "union." They didn't organize a vote, or get enough employees to force collective bargaining, they just declared themselves a union. I guess that works, but I'm not sure how effective they will be.

      • by Robert Goatse ( 984232 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:39AM (#60894422)
        In other news, this bunch of employees was terminated due to unsatisfactory yearly performance reviews.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Or for pointing out facts about Google hiring practices, just as James Damore was fired for pointing out Google's gender equity practices as interfering with hiring based on merit.

          • Hiring based on merit appears to only re-enforce bias in the workplace https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... [theatlantic.com]

            Emilio J. Castilla, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, has explored how meritocratic ideals and HR practices like pay-for-performance play out in organizations, and he’s come to some unexpected conclusions.

            In one company study, Castilla examined almost 9,000 employees who worked as support-staff at a large service-sector company. The company was committed to diversity and had implemented a merit-driven compensation system intended to reward high-level performance and to reward all employees equitably.

            But Castilla’s analysis revealed some very non-meritocratic outcomes. Women, ethnic minorities, and non-U.S.-born employees received a smaller increase in compensation compared with white men, despite holding the same jobs, working in the same units, having the same supervisors, the same human capital, and importantly, receiving the same performance score. Despite stating that “performance is the primary bases for all salary increases,” the reality was that women, minorities, and those born outside the U.S. needed “to work harder and obtain higher performance scores in order to receive similar salary increases to white men.”

            • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

              Hiring based on merit appears to only re-enforce bias in the workplace
              https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... [theatlantic.com]

              I think this is what is known in the broadcast industry as a "whipsaw." You make a comment about hiring practices, then quote an article that quotes a research study on compensation. Those aren't the same thing.

              A better analog would be symphonies doing blind auditions. In some symphonies, diversity increased. In some symphonies, diversity decreased. Which is to be expected, as talent and ability does not fall evenly amongst the population everywhere.

            • Hiring based on merit may cause problems (your link doesn't demonstrate that), but ignoring merit will definitely cause problems.

            • The quote seems to say the opposite of your argument. If women and minorities got smaller raises despite receiving the same performance score what that shows is that the company was not actually awarding raises on merit. (Which is strange because in most settings, assessing "performance" is so subjective that it's easy enough to play favorites by awarding different performance scores on whatever basis you feel like.)
            • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              That's not quite what that quote says. They implemented what they thought were meritocratic processes and ended up with non-meritocratic results. In other words, they screwed up.

            • Hiring based on merit appears to only re-enforce bias in the workplace

              Unless you're Asian, Indian, Russian, Irish, Italian, Jewish- you know one of the dozens of minorities that have immigrated to the United States and yes, faced obstacles at first, but then became assimilated and as successful as any "native" born American. Of course, those minorities are not favored by the left and thus don't count.

          • You have to actually post a misogynist screed to Google's internal forum to be fired like this, they can't just BS this problem into existence like a bad performance review;

      • by Distan ( 122159 )

        The "union" isn't made up of employees. It is made up of "workers". This included people who are employed by completely different companies, like the transport company that runs the Google shuttle-bus, the food service company that prepares Google cafeteria food, the janitorial services company that cleans Google office buildings.

        The most telling thing to me is how the formation of this club, which should be seen as "non news", is on the front page of the New York Times.

  • Nice, the union should well-hobble Google, so competitors might get a bit of a chance, assuming Google doesn't keep buying them - hopefully more anti-monopoly attention will help prevent that.

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:41AM (#60894436)

    Nothing about this should be a surprise to companies. In the past they abused their positions of power and as a result we got labor unions. Today companies are abusing their positions of power but they are somehow expecting a different outcome.

    • The comparison is totally wrong. Abuse workers? What was listed.

      1) Contracts with the military. This is called business children. This is not abuse. You might not agree with it, but you're not in control of the company. If you want to change that, become CEO or something. Otherwise, the door is over there.

      2) "want to see the company reflect their (the employees) values" This is called the tail wagging the dog. Sorry, you don't demand your company does something because it's your beliefs. Again, i

      • 1) Contracts with the military. This is called business children. This is not abuse. You might not agree with it, but you're not in control of the company. If you want to change that, become CEO or something. Otherwise, the door is over there.

        Interesting because whenever a company gets punished for management committing a crime, it's the entire business that suffers, not management. You cannot have it both ways. Furthermore, Alphabet is free to reject the union and fire them all. It may be costly but it's their choice. Do not belittle others because they do not want their knowledge used to kill other people because you only make yourself look small.

        2) "want to see the company reflect their (the employees) values" This is called the tail wagging the dog.

        I find that interesting because tech companies often hire people under the guise of supporting

        • 1) Of course you can have it both ways! This isn't Fairville. If management does a crappy job, the business goes under and everyone loses their job. If they commit a crime, it all goes down hill. Not sure where you get committing a crime from contracts to the military. If workers don't want their knowledge to "kill people" then refer to what I said before. There is the door. Go, and find a company that more aligns with you beliefs. Heck start one and compete. And if you say I look small, thank you

      • The comparison is totally wrong. Abuse workers? What was listed.

        1) Contracts with the military. This is called business children. This is not abuse. You might not agree with it, but you're not in control of the company. If you want to change that, become CEO or something. Otherwise, the door is over there.

        2) "want to see the company reflect their (the employees) values" This is called the tail wagging the dog. Sorry, you don't demand your company does something because it's your beliefs. Again, if you think the company should go in another direction, become management and move it there. Otherwise, the door is over there.

        These fine emotionally-charged examples should be of no surprise to anyone.

        Hire and abuse hardworking adults? You end up with actual unions.

        Hire and "abuse" spoiled children? You end up with this stupid shit.

  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @09:46AM (#60894456) Journal

    Google has clashed with some employees in recent years over contracts with the military, the different treatment of contract workers and a rich exit package for an executive ousted for alleged sexual harassment.

    Two of the three items have nothing to do with working conditions.

    If you want a say in that, buy stock so you get a vote at shareholder meetings.

    • The google employees are all young white collar workers who don't know what unions are for. They think the union will allow them to thumb their noses at management and force the company to do things like stop working with the government and publicly talk shit about the company and management.

      They are going to be surprised, especially when the union starts taking $100 or more a month.
    • I'll give you the Military contracts (it's debatable, since working on the drones used to kill kids in Afghanistan could count for the psychological factors, but it's not worth arguing over) but different treatment for contract workers and executives getting golden parachutes when employees would be lucky if they didn't face multiple lawsuits certainly falls under "working conditions".

      As for buying stock, even Google employees don't make enough to buy enough stock to get a useful vote. This isn't a demo
    • by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @11:11AM (#60894828)
      Two of the three items have nothing to do with working conditions.

      If you want a say in that, buy stock so you get a vote at shareholder meetings.


      I haven't worked for Google, so I have no direct knowledge of this, but in my experience large corporations run a non-stop internal propaganda outfit. There will be a "company home page" on an intranet, filled with articles about how wonderful the directors/senior managers are... there will be articles "show-casing" the latest hot young talent, or people who have "overcome adversity" to be "hugely successful", or who, "saw something wrong and spoke up about it, bringing about positive change" and the intent is for everyone on the payroll to buy in to this idea that "the opportunity is here, ready for you to reach up and take it..." It's Corporate Kool-Aid in it's purest form.

      The truth is that most US corporations have a pyramid-like structure, with a few very powerful roles at the top and hundreds or thousands of "drones" at the bottom.

      In other words, there is a better-than-average chance that management at Alphabet have been running the "Management BS" line of "we'd love to hear from you..."... alongside a homepage article about how they are supporting the military. That being the case, it isn't unreasonable for relatively young and inexperienced hires to compute that 2+2=4 and take up the company on their invitations for feedback. Of course, older, wiser heads might have decided that certain topics were best left ignored... so the less experienced might have been puzzled/distraught/upset/annoyed at being rebuffed, *especially* if that reply wasn't handled sensitively.

      It's also worth pointing out that some of the very best technologists also track high on the autism spectrum (I believe but am not sure that James Damore might be someone in that group), which gives them the additional burden of finding it very difficult to calibrate their reactions to some situations (including handling rejection).

      So whilst I see the "cold hard truth" in your comment - and I don't dispute that you have accurately reflected the way that the world works, I think it's worth accepting that, at least in some cases, these big companies might be getting exactly the outcome they have set themselves up for.

      And whatever the progenitor of this change in the workplace, it is undeniable that large companies have become far too powerful when it comes to the making and breaking of careers.
  • The unionization of white-collar workers who make six-figure salaries is pretty much the last warning sign that unions don't serve the purpose they were originally intended for. If you work at a place where deciding which free corporate restaurant to eat lunch at you are not being unfairly oppressed by management. Knowing Google's time-off policy a union is likely to hurt them, the grocery store union I belonged to made it so my managers weren't allowed to approve my time-off, instead, it was a union guy w
    • by eatvegetables ( 914186 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:13AM (#60894542)

      It will be interesting to see who and how many sign up. I will make the observation that not everyone who works at Google is a 6 figure white collar techie. I'm guessing that there are a number of blue collar workers such as custodial personnel.

      That aside, I don't have a problem with private sector employees deciding to form a union especially if they work for a huge, monopolistic behemoth like Google. Unions deal with issues important to white collar workers besides pay. Plus, I somewhat enjoy the irony that a large progressive company like Google is anti-union, at least for its employees.

      • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:43AM (#60894678) Journal

        I saw in relation to this story that a full half of Google employees are contractors, so the 6 figure white collar techies would be some fraction of the other half.

        Expanding what unions are for isn't a bad idea.

    • The unionization of white-collar workers who make six-figure salaries is pretty much the last warning sign that unions don't serve the purpose they were originally intended for. If you work at a place where deciding which free corporate restaurant to eat lunch at you are not being unfairly oppressed by management.

      Meanwhile, doctors laugh at your self defeating attitude.

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        An interesting point. Software engineer could have become a profession like other branches of engineering, or at least a trade, with only licensed practitioners allowed to write commercial software.

        • As it stands, demand for software developers hugely outstrips supply. People who can barely use a keyboard are passing themselves off as computer programmers and getting hired.

          A licensing requirement that includes a solid competency test would reduce the labor supply even further. No business wants that. A licensing requirement that does not include a solit competency test would serve no purpose.

          • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            The demand for physicians outstrips supply as well, primarily due to deliberate restrictions on med school capacity. That's why it's an interesting comparison. One of the major functions of a professional or trade association is to restrict supply in order to allow members to demand high fees, and to maintain the guild mystique.

    • The article didn't seem to emphasize such points as working conditions, fair compensation, work-life balance, protection from agism or senior-ism (laying off experienced workers due to cost and replacing them with junior workers), etc. I understood these are usually the issues that tend to inspire unions.

      The article did mention "values," and clashes over military contracts and not punishing an executive harshly enough. So, based on that (which is far too little), I wonder if this union is really more of

    • The unionization of white-collar workers who make six-figure salaries is pretty much the last warning sign that unions don't serve the purpose they were originally intended for.

      Not all unions are the same. I can see unions as helpful in ensuring people are paid consistently and exploited less. If done really well, it can increase the quality of output at work. Many toxic labor practices are not only bad for the worker, but bad for the product. Exploiting workers cause burnout and terrible collaboration, which can harm the quality of code written.

      You realize most anti-Union stories are exaggerated right-wing propaganda, right? I hear so many unverified anecdotes about how

      • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        You realize most anti-Union stories are exaggerated right-wing propaganda, right? I hear so many unverified anecdotes about how unions are criminally inefficient mobsters.

        How about just plain criminal? [wikipedia.org]

        Here's your "inefficient." [archive.org]

        Note: I'm not anti-union as a rule of thumb. I have a lot of respect for IBEW, for one, and used to have a lot of respect for UMWA (not so much in recent years, as it seems they're in many cases captured by their industry), and I certainly don't ignore the legacy of protections that Unions were instrumental in helping to bring about. I've met many line techs who were CWA members and were both knowledgeable and dedicated.

        However, many unions are inde

        • >However, many unions are indeed nothing but graft, corruption, and inefficiency, existing for no other reason than to skim some percentage of payroll and persist in protecting bad employees.

          And that is how inequality skyrockets and corporations maximize profits while the bottom of society slips further behind.

          In 2019 it was 10.3% in the United States, compared to 20.1% in 1983.

          So tell me pray tell, less than 10% of the US population is in a union, so what does that mean for the other 90% of the populati

  • That exec go a rich exit package because he had a lot of dirt on the other execs, right at the most intense moment of #MeToo. It's Hush Money. I have no proof, but it reeks.
    • That does make way more sense than any other explanation I've heard or thought of.

    • I think it was more likely that he had an actual contract which specified termination benefits. And while there was likely a clause that allowed the company to deny him the payout, it might not have been clear on how it related to this particular situation. Or perhaps the evidence for his bad acts wasn't such that it would stand up in a civil trial. In any case, it is also possible he said he'd sue and paying him off was cheaper than battling it out in court.
  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:16AM (#60894562) Homepage
    This reads to me like the main reason for the 'union' is to influence the 'kinds of work Google engages in'. Well if you want to change that, become a stockholder and make a fuss at every stockholder's meeting. Oh what's that? Your votes won't mean shit? Maybe you should just quit if you don't like it and sell your company shares.

    I am not a fan of the direction of Google either, but if you don't agree with them why continue to work for them?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        There's no more honorable thing than a guy who just gives up at the first sign of trouble.

        Quitting a job, particularly quitting a job because you do not think the job is ethical, isn't "giving up." Employment is a an agreement to sell your time and skill for money. Refusing to accept money to do something you think is unethical is noble, and the world would be a better place if more people did so.

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:23AM (#60894594)

    I live in Europe and everybody I know is in a Union, Google- and Amazon-workers included.

  • by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @10:56AM (#60894736)

    It is the employer side of the balance between supply and demand in a world where orgsnization is possible for both sides.

    Just in case any neo-libertarians croak against unions again, showing that they actually hate the free market because others will use their freedom from them aswell, and actually just want *themselves* to be free from the freedoms of others on that market. (So monopolism.)

    • by shanen ( 462549 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @11:59AM (#60895100) Homepage Journal

      Only comment that seems to mention "balance" in the important sense.

      My take is that there are many players, often called affected parties, and unless each of the parties has influence, the best balance cannot be found. Individual employees can always be crushed by the interests of individual managers, but collectively (via unions) they may have sufficient influence to find a better equilibrium point.

      Amusingly enough, the customers were supposed to be important players, too. The main recent innovation of corporate cancers like Facebook, the google, and even Apple, has been to weaken their influence by manipulating the customers more cleverly with brain hacking and other forms of "advanced" marketing. Zucked is the best book I've read on that topic, and yes, we are.

      Perhaps most amusingly, the shareholders have been the main excuse for the shenanigans, but they are the ones who are going to get burned most badly when the bubble bursts. Or is it even more amusing that the timing of the burst is probably China's call now?

      Anyway the American union movement was quite effectively corrupted by cunning managers. That was one side of busting the unions. The other side was the "right to scab" laws, but a quick websearch will show you why that side is poisoned. (But I still wonder if the poisoning might have been done by useful idiots.)

    • Agreed. But where it starts interfering with the free market is when a union becomes multi-corporation, and starts wielding excessive control over an entire industry, rather than at a single company. That's the same situation as when a company starts to dominate an industry (monopoly), or all the big companies in an industry start to collude with each other to keep workers' wages artificially low.

      For the free market to work, it has to be free from this sort of industry-wide manipulation - both by corpor
    • A company tries to maximize profits, which means they try to raise prices - like by making more interesting or better products, and lower costs, by raising productivity and reducing resource usage. Companies that do this well tend to thrive. This is the invisible hand working; the companies managing their individual resources make better products available more cheaply, benefitting society as a whole.

      Unions don't have these signals - as they grow, they take more and produce less (not just more weekends/vaca

  • This is really intriguing -- and perhaps is karma for the company that used to go by the mantra 'Don't be evil'.
    My opinions of unions was pretty bad in the 80's, especially with Reagan decertifying PATCO, the Air Traffic Controller's union (summer of '81). Seeing how badly teachers and nurses have been treated, I'm glad that they've unionized -- it's a counterbalance to the power that managers have over workers.
    It's not a perfect system, but it's better than the old system where management could fire someon

    • I will say I have seen both the good and bad of unions. My mom is a retired nurse and worked at a small town hospital. Management would negotiate a contract with the nurses and mostly honor it. Then along came a hospital director who started ignoring the contract whenever it suited him. The nurses finally had enough and brought in a union so that they could get better terms in their contract and have the legal firepower to back up that contract. Soon the entire hospital was unionized and that director
  • We will hire skilled organizers to ensure all workers at Google know they can work with us if they actually want to see their company reflect their values

    How does that work exactly? How can one single union possibly reflect "the values" of all the members, each of which are (presumably) individuals with differing values?

    Are the "values" thew property to further listed anywhere?

  • What google will find - as JK Rowling has figured out, Louis CK learned belatedly, etc - is that you can never bend over far enough to please everyone.

    You can't.

    There will always be some whingy bitch that wants just a little bit more power, more recognition, more ridiculous demands fulfilled...and the moment you say "well no, that's stupid" you are THE ENEMY.

  • They voted for Biden in great number in California. Biden has been a big supporter of H1-B visas. Google will haul in thousands more H1-B visa holders and make the new union useless. But, you get what you vote for.
  • Google ditched the Don't Be Evil motto a while ago, and has been acting accordingly for much longer.

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...