[claudeganon]

I hope that Googlers can work toward creating a labor organization that helps them resolve these issues, because in light of all this and after Google HR’s involvement in the wage-fixing scandal, it seems obvious that things are pretty rotten in terms of their internal governance.

[Nasrudith]

That raises some interesting questions about dynamics and alternatives. HR is infamous for their primary role being liability prevention or more crudely stated ass-covering.

Do you know of any alternative systems in place to resolve issues?

Even if Google wanted to form some sort of employee handled board or arbitration to decide how to handle accusations they would still be liable. And that is ignoring messy office politics involved in that sort of empowerment, bad actors, or just flaws of many parajudicial systems.

That companies would still be liable isn't neccessarily a bad thing as otherwise it could be delegated into a bigotted council and violate all sorts of discrimination laws at will. Any innovative system would need to address those issues as well.

[hardlianotion]

Possibly: recognise a union.

[wolco]

Honestly at the highest paid tech company in the world a union isn't the answer.

They need to hire people that fit their culture better or change their culture to match their people.

[claudeganon]

Many of the highest paid industries (professional athletes, entertainment) are unionized, so I fail to see what’s special about Google/tech. All this talk about “culture” is just intended to prevent workers from joining together and having an actual say in the companies for which they make so much money.

[Nasrudith]

There is some culture elements in there even if the cynical reasons are the same - those other higher paying occupations are require working with people instead of their products. The dynamics change. Actors need to work with directors and any other actors in scenes. A union's arbitration there appeals as protection for the workers from each other. Workers would agree that they don't want to have to work with a guy who regulary assaults them for instance. A very reasonable case.

This structure like most tools also has a dark use. Not as a "is bad" but "not automatically good". It could be used to perpetuate discrimination as the members don't want those <slurs> working in <their occupation>. As common for bigotry it is not a good move for long term health.

Anyway the sociality seems to be an underemphasised factor to unions. This isn't to say that the non people-to-people jobs should never unionize just that it is especially artifical like say the practice of putting rubber duck covering a fence post point - it is harder to set up and maintain as norm when the first question everyone asks is "Why bother with the duck?"

As far as I am aware there are no serious scientest unions - doctors boards are the closest thing but there are many significant differences.

[claudeganon]

Most scientists in academic institutions in the US belong to faculty unions that negotiate on their behalf. If you want to split hairs about whether this constitutes a “scientist union,” feel free, but the larger point that scientists are largely non-union does not seem to bear scrutiny. In addition, Australia has a scientist trade union: http://www.professionalsaustralia.org.au/scientists/

[And1]

Yeah I agree. Given that a company can ignore HR if they choose to, I'm not sure how else workers can expect to be protected from this kind of thing.