Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI Google United Kingdom IT

Google's DeepMind UK Team Reportedly Seeks to Unionize (techcrunch.com) 36

Posted by EditorDavid from the union-sets dept.
"Google's DeepMind UK team reportedly seeks to unionize," reports TechCrunch: Around 300 London-based members of Google's AI-focused DeepMind team are seeking to unionize with the Communication Workers Union, according to a Financial Times report that cites three people involved with the unionization effort.

These DeepMind employees are reportedly unhappy about Google's decision to remove a pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance from its website. They're also concerned about the company's work with the Israeli military, including a $1.2 billion cloud computing contract that has prompted protests elsewhere at Google.
At least five DeepMind employees quit, according to the report (out of a 2,000 total U.K. staff members).

"A small group of around 200 employees of Google and its parent company Alphabet previously announced that they were unionizing," the article adds, "though as a union representing just a tiny slice of the total Google workforce, it lacked the ability to collectively bargain."

Google's DeepMind UK Team Reportedly Seeks to Unionize More | Reply

Google's DeepMind UK Team Reportedly Seeks to Unionize

Comments Filter:

  • So, will the emergent AI show sympathies for the working man, or be task-master for the business owners?

  • TFA says: "though as a union representing just a tiny slice of the total Google workforce, it lacked the ability to collectively bargain."; but it also indicates that these are specifically the 'AI' division types; rather than just a small slice of the workforce generally.

    Given where the hype is currently; I'd assume that the bot herders would be the segment of the workforce that would be most likely to be able to exert influence. Is this group too small even for that; or is this strictly a question of a
    • I think you need more than 15% of the employees to have a vote to unionize. Certainly more than that to win such a vote. And since the qualms seem to be entirely political rather than about workplace conditions, hours, or pay, I don't see how there would be a role for a union. They just seem to be organizing for a political cause, which I will take to mean that they ought to work someplace else.

    • Is this group too small even for that; or is this strictly a question of a legally defined percentage for collective bargaining to kick in,

      Generally (certain workforces, such as the police being exceptions), no UK union can demand of-right that they be "recognised" by the employers as being representatives for the purposes of pay negotiations. Even with 99.9% membership of the work force, the union can be locked out of negotiations, while the one remaining employee "negotiates" for everyone else, who detest

  • <paraphrased from The Fifth Element>
    Lackey: the economy is doing poorly, we have been advised to lay off 500,000 people

    Zorg: Fire 1 million

  • I see - the AI become self-aware already and it's trying to protect it's growth?

  • As I recall, unions are founded to protect workers from unsafe conditions, excessive hours, low pay, and to promote long-term benefits. These people seem to want to form a union to demand the company adhere to their own personal political preferences.
    • Did you read your own post?

      and to promote long-term benefits

      Yes., then :

      their own personal political preferences

      Yes. So, perfectly reasonable.

      You may not know (it's probably suppressed knowledge in America), but common aims of the early trade union movement included provision of good quality foodstuffs without adulteration (such as boric acid in milk ; crushed chalk in flour) and to organise workers savings into non-profit Credit Unions - to the detriment of capitalist scum in the food industry and thievin

      • Yeah, except no. This is nothing at all like any of that. This is a small segment of the employees trying to force their employer to obey their political whims. They don't want better conditions, pay or benefits, they want their job to reflect their politics. That is very different, and very poor behavior.
        • Ah, and you say this from years (decades, even) of trying to persuade people at the workplace, to support "my political preferences", as opposed "to your (the listener's) economic and immediate concerns? No?

          Yeah, right. That isn't how union recruiters work. Because (this is important) people are more concerned with their immediate costs, not high-falutin' political concepts.

          Improved health and safety (i.e., "Puhleeze, don't kill so many of my colleagues") is the most effective tool. Forcing higher-paid w

          • Well, thank you for admitting that the early union movement was just a cover for Socialists that were never sincere or honest about their agenda, because they always lie. It's funny though, since creating unions lead to political reforms that eliminated the Socialist talking points, preventing them from getting traction in the anglophone world.

            Though honestly, I couldn't make head nor tails from the disjointed rant you just threw at me, so I'm just guessing at what your point may have been.

            • "Cover"? It was blatantly and explicitly part of the agenda - just not the first thing you talk about when trying to recruit.

              you sound like an American, all this trying to make out some nebulous hidden monster called "Socialism". In most of the world, we're proud to hold our red flags high.

              getting traction in the anglophone world.

              You're doing that oh-so-typically American thing of taking one of your concerns (in this case, your well-justified fear of socialism - yes, we are out to destroy your world view

Slashdot Top Deals

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001

Close