[netcan]

Currently, with the way labour organising works... it seems to either go nowhere, or go into a (belligerent) dichotomy. Professional organizers themselves often see it as an entirely dichotomous, zero-sum game, an inevitable conflict between opposite interests.

Overall I'm curious about unions. I haven't had much/any direct experience for >20 years. Most of the Union examples we have today are either public-ish sector or some old status quo union inherited from an old generation.

It's just hard for me to picture an old-school unionised version of Google or (more to the point) Amazon.

What is the end game or success case, for a Google union?

[pas]

Labor should try to change regulation/policy to better help people live while trying to find a new job and/or simply unemployed. Forcing companies to employ someone they don't want is not a winning strategy on the long term. (Though worrying about poor poor companies is a bit premature considering how abysmal worker protections are in the US.)

[netcan]

Ultimately unions are representing an interest group, somewhat separate from the company and itself.

...it arguably make sense to go for job security. Security is valuable... to their members. If it's also popular with members, why not put it on the table? Even if it does hurt long term profits/success, profits are the primary interest of the other party to the negotiation... the firm/employer/shareholder interest. If the firm value (to take the other extreme) employment with n demand then they can negotiate for that, and compromise elsewhere.

The real reason (imo) that infirable employees, unsustainable pensions and other "union problems" happen is specifically because short term takes precedent in a negotiation. Looking 15 years ahead is the privelage of someone who isn't making hard compromises today.

Pension and job security promises are cheap now, expensive later.

[koheripbal]

Programmers need job security? That does not seem to correlate with reality.

[gaogao]

That's just not effective. You don't really have the same leverage when unemployed or looking for a new job.

[netcan]

Just to put some practical meat on it... salaries.

Iirc, unions typically insist on a strict payscale/structure combining legible factors like seniority, position, etc. Would they want this.

[Frondo]

A google union, or any tech union, can arrange whatever compensation scale it wants. Every union is a democratic organization, structured however its members want it to be structured.

There is no reason a tech union would have a strict seniority-based pay scale.

A tech union could do things like insist on better work/life balance, a seat at the board representing worker interests, you name it. A google-specific union could insist on bringing the 20% "work on your own thing" scheme back, for example.

[goatinaboat]

Iirc, unions typically insist on a strict payscale/structure combining legible factors like seniority, position, etc. Would they want this.

People keep saying this but it doesn’t have to be true e.g. Hollywood unions cover everyone from extras to stars.

[netcan]

Agreed, that's why I ask. Industrial and administrative unions do usually seek legibility in payscales. What would the h unions demand?

I'm trying to see past the nonspecific of "unions" to a specific union movement and what it could want (other than the union itself).

[danaris]

No anti-compete agreements.

Access to highly-skilled negotiators for your next review/salary negotiation.

No "crunch time", or at least limit it and require reasonable levels of overtime for it.

Protection for various kinds of paid leave.

Protection from being fired for political reasons—and, more generally, access to highly-competent employment lawyers in the case of legal conflicts between you and the company.

That's just off the top of my head.

[Ensorceled]

Google, I’m also not sure, from the outside things seem pretty good for employees. We can see the union end game and how it would work for the minimum wage Amazon warehouse workers who had to fight about not being paid for the 30 minute security screening so these are entirely different.