Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses Technology

Google Workers To Form Global Union Alliance (reuters.com) 55

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Google employees from across the globe are forming a union alliance, weeks after more than 200 workers at the search engine giant and other units of parent company Alphabet formed a labor union for U.S. and Canadian offices. From a report: Alpha Global was formed in coordination with UNI Global Union, a union federation that represents about 20 million workers globally, and includes unions from countries such as the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and the UK, UNI Global Union said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Workers To Form Global Union Alliance More

Google Workers To Form Global Union Alliance

Comments Filter:
  • I know the sentiment towards Google has shifted over the years, but if anyone still thinks they'd be a cool company to work for I have an inkling that there will be about 200 job openings in the near future.

  • I'm delighted! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @12:40PM (#60989748) Journal

    Not for the workers, mind you.

    I can't think of another company whose posturing moralizing makes them more deserving to have strongly unionized employees.

    You Go Googlians!

    Unionize the hell out of that place! Demand your rights! Demand more money! Demand better working conditions (France would be a model?)! And if they don't cave, strike, and do whatever you feel is justified to the "bosses" and any dirty "scabs" they dare hire. They can't break you if you stand strong!

    • Re:I'm delighted! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @12:54PM (#60989828)
      If they legitimately want to form a union to engage in some kind of collective bargaining I don't see why that's anyone else's business or why we should get to decide if that's in their best interest or not.

      I don't believe that all unions automatically provide more benefits than they cost, but that's an issue specific to a particular union and not an inherent problem with the concept itself. It's obvious that it changes the lower dynamics and why companies would be opposed to that in a general sense, but the management of Google probably doesn't care what the workers think or do as long as they keep making money and no one rocks the boat too much. Not everyone who wants to form or join a union is some kind of deranged new age communist.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mad7777 ( 946676 )
        The problem isn't unionism, per se, but rather forced unionism.

        Of course, every individual is free to associate with any group they choose. The problem is "closed shops", which impose union rules, and union dues, on every employee as a condition of employment, whether they want to participate in this association or not. This sort of policy robs both the employee and the employer of the freedom to make their own decisions.

        As for union politics, the stark hypocrisy of all the talk about uniting workers of
        • Exactly... nuance is often lost in these discussions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people who think they can gain an advantage in collectively bargaining and they should be absolutely free to do so. But employers should also be completely free to disassociate with those employees and choose not to hire someone in the future based upon their past insistence upon collectively bargaining. It stands to reason that the more challenging it is to replace an employee, the more potential for reward there

        • Re:I'm delighted! (Score:4, Informative)

          by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @03:16PM (#60990530)

          Of course, every individual is free to associate with any group they choose. The problem is "closed shops", which impose union rules, and union dues, on every employee as a condition of employment, whether they want to participate in this association or not. This sort of policy robs both the employee and the employer of the freedom to make their own decisions.

          And doing the opposite creates a free rider problem, where non-union employees get the benefits of union efforts.

          It's not like the working hours and holidays negotiated by the union are only available to the union employees.

          They pretend to be "progressive", all while advocating for keeping the same jobs at the same pay, forever,

          Unions negotiate pay increases regularly. They also negotiate a process for employees to receive promotions.

          Unions will also let you fire people if they're incompetent. You just have to actually show they're incompetent.

          Workers are expected to make managerial decisions about when the company needs to downsize

          No, unions negotiate an employee selection algorithm that will be used in the event of downsizing. They don't actually say "We're going to downsize now". (Unless the union has negotiated to put a representative in the company's management structure, in which case that person is management and makes managerial decisions).

          Yes, forced unionization is nothing but a bundle of contradictions.

          Only if your only experience with unions is places like alt-right Facebook pages and corporate PR. It turns out the caricature is not the same as reality.

          • Re:I'm delighted! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mad7777 ( 946676 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @04:07PM (#60990772)
            > And doing the opposite creates a free rider problem, where non-union employees get the benefits of union efforts.
            > It's not like the working hours and holidays negotiated by the union are only available to the union employees.

            I'm not understanding this argument. Why would the non-union worker be bound to the working hours and holidays negotiated by the union? I mean, if union workers are forbidden from coming to work on a Sunday, whereas the independent-minded worker chooses to do so (and be paid, obviously), why in the world would he not be allowed? Similarly, the independent worker would obviously need to negotiate his own salary, regardless of whatever the union does.

            > Unions negotiate pay increases regularly. They also negotiate a process for employees to receive promotions.

            I think I wasn't clear when I said unions "advocate for keeping the same jobs at the same pay, forever." What I meant, of course, is simply that, if unions had their way, we would still have an ice box worker's guild or whatever, since those honest hard-working factory employees need to keep their same jobs... forever. These days, the problem (for some workers, that is -- benefit to society) of jobs being automated out of existence is more acute than it has ever been. If Mr. Biden has his way, society will have pour concrete into the job market, ensuring that we will have humans doing menial labor for the next thousand years. Hooray.

            > Unions will also let you fire people if they're incompetent. You just have to actually show they're incompetent.

            And why, pray tell, would any sensible employer choose to fire an employee who is competent? That would just be silly, and bad for business. More importantly, a competent employee has no fear of being fired, as he can quickly find another job, working for a more reasonable employer. It really doesn't seem like any other authority would be needed to facilitate this decision.

            > No, unions negotiate an employee selection algorithm that will be used in the event of downsizing. They don't actually say "We're going to downsize now". (Unless the union has negotiated to put a representative in the company's management structure, in which case that person is management and makes managerial decisions).
            Huh, so one person would be charged with representing the union (i.e., the interests of the workers), while simultaneously calling himself "management", thereby supposedly representing the interests of the shareholders? Seems like a flagrant conflict of interest to me.
            Again, I'm not sure why any negotiated algorithm or any other external authority should be needed in order to make these decisions. Management should be perfectly capable of deciding which employees earn more than they cost, if they are doing their jobs properly.

            > Only if your only experience with unions is places like alt-right Facebook pages and corporate PR. It turns out the caricature is not the same as reality.
            Nope. I don't do Facebook, and I'm most certainly not "alt-right". Guess again: Registered Libertarian here, which means I hold equal contempt for both parties.
            As for my experience with unions, I've been living here in Europe for the past 20 years, so I can tell you exactly what they do to a country. If you want to turn the US in to France, then that would be the way. If you like special interests marching in the streets demanding special favors from the government on a regular basis, constant strikes in various sectors, flagrant discrimination against independent contractors for having the audacity of not belonging to some special worker's club, economic stagnation, and a ridiculously bloated and effectively unfireable public & private workforce, then that would be the way to go.
            Just for the record, France is a beautiful and culturally rich country with many things to brag about.... but unions ain't one of them.

            /rant

            • I'm not understanding this argument. Why would the non-union worker be bound to the working hours and holidays negotiated by the union?

              Because it is extremely unlikely that it is worthwhile to keep the business open when the union workers are not there. (Assuming a significant portion of the business belongs to the union).

              If you'd prefer another example, the union negotiating higher wages will also likely increase the wages of the non-union workers. Because they'll compare what they are getting paid and the non-union ones will quit or join the union if they're paid significantly less.

              What I meant, of course, is simply that, if unions had their way, we would still have an ice box worker's guild or whatever, since those honest hard-working factory employees need to keep their same jobs... forever.

              And this would be the alt-right and corporate PR spin

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by mad7777 ( 946676 )
                I can see this is degenerating quickly, so I'll just set you straight about one thing, as you seem to want to know my whole life story.

                > So, when you're creating your backstory, you need to remember to keep all the details straight. It's kinda hard to register as a Libertarian when you've been living in Europe for 20 years, since that makes you fail the residency requirements for registration.

                No need for me to "create a backstory", as I already have a life. I left the USA back in 2001 at the age of 2

                • "I see you're hellbent on transforming the US into a socialist utopia, just like France"

                  HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

                  You made my day, mate, you made my day.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by mad7777 ( 946676 )
                    My pleasure. You're right, now that I think about it. "Socialist utopia" is a rather hilarious oxymoron.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by tomkost ( 944194 )
              Mad7777, I enjoyed your first reply and this follow up response as well. Agree 100%. Likely because I'm also Libertarian. One part left out of this discussion is government employee labor unions. I don't have a problem with other unions, but there should not be unions for government employees IMHO. Now the tax payers are the ones being held hostage, not merely the "employer" Prime example I read today. Teachers in Fairfax got priority for Covid vaccines. But the union says they still can't go back to

          • And doing the opposite creates a free rider problem

            Problem for who?

            Saying that its a problem doesnt make it one. Shouldnt you be happy that conditions improve for more just the union members? Yes, you fucking should.

            You are repeating what someone else thought up as a rationalization for why the union need to be both all-powerful and all-consuming. Its propaganda, unless you are saying that you would be very displeased if anyone other than union members benefitted.

            Meanwhile in the real world, plenty of places have not only non-unionized workers, but a

            • Problem for who?

              Saying that its a problem doesnt make it one. Shouldnt you be happy that conditions improve for more just the union members?

              Negotiating with management isn't free.

              If you can gain the benefits without paying for the costs, you're going to do so.

              Google probably already is such a place. Is there staff in cafeterias? You can bet your ass they are already union.

              And the things those workers got via their union are not available to the non-unionized software engineers.

          • " if your only experience with unions is places like alt-right Facebook pages and corporate PR"

            Here's one of my experiences:
            My wife's mom was the 'copier lady' at an elementary school. She was part time.
            She was compelled to join the union - she didn't get a choice. Their dues were garnished from her paycheck. Yet when she asked if she then received some proportion of the benefits due to union workers - no, part time employees did not get union benefits.
            Oh, and they also didn't get to attend union meeting

            • Yet when she asked if she then received some proportion of the benefits due to union workers - no, part time employees did not get union benefits.

              Part time employees did not get union pension and health insurance. They got other "union benefits" like wage negotiation, protections against abuse by management, negotiated working conditions, and so on.

              She did not get NOTHING. She got stuff, just not the stuff you paid any attention to.

              If you'd prefer, we could take the typical anti-union response to bad working conditions: If she didn't like it, why didn't she just quit? If it's OK to say that to people who are trying to unionize, it must be OK to sa

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          And yet, they greatly improved quality of life and standard of living in the United States.

          It could be argued that government should have done those things rather than unions, but it clearly didn't and hasn't been stepping in now.

    • I can't think of another company whose posturing moralizing makes them more deserving to have strongly unionized employees.

      How about The Young Turks [huffingtonpost.ca]? They're a far-left media out let that has been championing unions for years. But when their own employee wanted to form a union the founder begged them not to because "Cenk Uygur argued that a union doesn’t belong at a small news network struggling to make profits."

      Or how about when Bernie got caught [vox.com] paying some of his own people less than the $15 min wage he was campaigning for.

      • It makes sense because they are only opponents of "the rich" and we all know that the definition of rich is anyone who makes more money than I. There are few ideologues that value intellectual honesty and being logically consistent.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Stinks of a con run by the corporations to target workers. A global union, what could possibly go wrong, ohh I don't know, the corporations buy up control with bribes in tax havens to control the union executive.

      The more readily they roll over the far more likely it is a lie. There is no point in a union extending beyond a countries borders, NONE WHAT SO EVER, unless corruption is the intent from the get go. The corporate controlled workers union.

      Each and every country presents different conditions and diff

  • "Alpha Global was formed in coordination with UNI Global Union, a union federation that represents about 20 million workers globally"

  • Unnionizing to what end? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @01:38PM (#60990028)
    Unions were needed in the early twentieth century because too many companies were exploiting workers and not providing safe workplaces. Unionizing gave the workers a united front with similar power to fight. The Department of Labor and OSHA have largely made this redundant and most of the large unions today have become the very organizations doing the exploiting.

    Unionizing because the company you work for engages in work you disapprove of is about as Un-American as you can get. You aren't being mistreated or exploited at Google AFAICT. Go find a company that adheres to your values and apply there. OH Wait! They won't pay you six figures and give you all those perks. Never mind.

    • Unionizing because the company you work for engages in work you disapprove of is about as Un-American as you can get.

      There is nothing un-American about using the combined will of the workers to force the powers-that-be to change course. It's a time honored tradition that ensure the workers who make up a company are represented. If you don't like that then you are more worried about corporations being able to maintain authoritarian control.

      However, if you want to talk about un-American then you should be thinking of the woman who broken into the Capitol, stole a laptop from the majority leader of the House, and then trie

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      Starting with James Damore, Google has been firing people left and right for reasons unrelated to their job performance, to the point where the National Labor Relations Board always has some investigation ongoing. That's reason enough to consider unionizing.

      I'm not sure the new union [alphabetworkersunion.org] would've helped in that particular case though, as they seem to be from the woke side of the political spectrum. They're also asking for 1% of total compensation [alphabetworkersunion.org], which is quite a bit when salaries are well into the 6 digits an

    • Unions were beneficial in the early twentieth century because information was expensive. Your average person had little access to information in general, and what information was available was usually highly localized. Structures like states and unions provided a benefit in attempting to provide a guaranteed minimum benefit, such as pay and hours worked for employees, minimum education and certification of medical professionals, building code adherence, etc. But these entities have deep roots and regardl
  • I bet they're really glad their left-leaning socialists HR staff hires more left-leaning socialists at their company.

  • If working at Google isn't your dream job, then start your own company and do better.
    Stop moaning about working at a place that feeds you 3 square meals, you probably make 2x what you'd get paid elsewhere,
    And unless you make a complete SJW out of yourself on company time, they'll probably let you slide.

    But please don't vote for this union and take the USA's most competitive industry, computer software at large scale, down like unions have done to most other industries!!

  • It’s funny to read through all these posts hacking on unions, calling the socialists or “lefties” as your health insurance goes higher and higher each year, you’re “expected” to put in 60+ hours per week, you have no option for any pension, you say “thank you sir, may I have another” for your 3% annual – meanwhile C’levels make 500x what you do, they send your jobs overseas to sweatshops in the name of “profit” where your replacements d

  • They forgot to add a number to the headline. This is the same 200 employees which formed a minority union which takes union dues, but has absolutely no bargaining or other powers. It's sole purpose is to collect dues and make some PR announcements. Even the source article linked in the summary clearly states "Under U.S. labor law, Alphabet can ignore the union’s demands until a majority of employees support it.". No news here, move along.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close