[karl11]

Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to. It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead.

There are very few perils of leaving Google - a top tier company in an industry that is continuously struggling to hire enough people. If you are an engineer at Google and can't get a job somewhere else, I don't know what to tell you.

Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc.

[onion2k]

It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead.

Employees pushing for change from the inside is probably the only thing that could ever make Google change, so this is absolutely a good thing.

If you are an engineer at Google and can't get a job somewhere else, I don't know what to tell you.

Something few people seem to understand about massive companies is that they employ some of the most niche specialists imaginable because they're literally the only business that needs those skills. Working you way up and getting more and more specialized can be very lucrative, but also very limiting in the number of employers who want your skillset. Leaving usually comes with a big step down in terms of money and title. You're essentially dropping back down to where you were before you specialized. It's not hard to imagine a lot of senior engineers at Google might feel a bit trapped there.

[kortilla]

Oh, the perils of having a 600k TC job and having to step down to a job only clearing 250k while you climb the ladder again. Oh those poor senior Google SWEs.

That’s not being trapped. That’s being greedy. There’s nothing wrong with trying to preserve massive TCs with the WLB of Google but let’s not pretend there is actually any plight here.

[fckthisguy]

I find it so hypocritical that so many people espouse the "American Dream" of working your way up and earning more and more, they get so upset that someone might want to protect what they've earned.

The truth is, many Google software engineers are unhappy with the political choices that Google are making. Yeah, they could vote with their feet and quit, but would you take a massive pay cut and financially destabilize your family as the first course of action? I wouldn't; I'd try to exact change from within, whilst protecting the benefits I'd earned in the workplace.

And all that's just looking at the individuals benefits. Unionising would mean that I, a straight white man, could help support policies that empower my minority co-workers.

[jbullock35]

> The truth is, many Google software engineers are unhappy with the political choices that Google are making.

This defense will be relatively easy for Google's leadership to counter. To the extent that it's used, the leadership will be able to say that the unionization effort isn't about working conditions. Instead, it's about political differences (and political differences that are distinct from what almost anyone thinks of as "working conditions").

I could be wrong, but "Google SWEs are unhappy with the leadership's political choices" doesn't sound like a winning rhetorical strategy.

[scarmig]

When I was at Google, I'd have been very tempted to join this union, if it was actually focused on improving compensation, bringing more objectivity to perf and promo, and workplace issues. But this new one seems primarily focused on... whinging about Timnit. Even that would be a big positive, if they were focused on getting protections for workplace freedom of speech for all workers and a structured dismissal process, but for some reason I'm skeptical that they'd be standing up for Damore.

[sudosysgen]

Unions are inherently political organizations, and so are corporations. A winning rhetorical strategy is saying that you oppose your employer's blatantly self-serving political actions.

[kortilla]

That fantasy depends entirely on the unionization having no blow-backs. A union that has to approve all business decisions going forward could very easily accelerate Google’s loss of relevancy and eliminate or reverse Google’s stock growth (which is the majority of an engineer’s comp).

[Apocryphon]

On the flip side, this nightmare scenario is also currently a fantasy in an industry that has had minimal union activity, in a country where union power has been slipping for decades. This is slippery slope catastrophizing.

[sgift]

Or it could do the opposite by making better decisions. I don't see why your version is more likely than the opposite.

[kortilla]

Well there has never been an example of a democratically run company that makes good decisions so far.

It’s a classic principal agent problem. You want to take the voting power away from those with the financial stake and expect the people without a financial mistake to make good business decisions.

[missedthecue]

No problem with protecting what you earn, I just don't like you doing it through cartels.

[lumost]

Why decry the Software Engineer preserving a toe hold in the upper class income bracket vs. the leadership team making 10-100000x that amount? ( The 100k multiplier is the real maximal difference between what a Senior Engineer at FAANG makes and the owners of FAANG in a good year )

[peter422]

Only founders and executives get to be greedy! Employees need to stay in there place. That's the rules apparently.

[subsubzero]

The problem is a few companies pay very well, at senior+ levels, Google, FB, NFLX, AMZN, etc, If you work there for a few years and want to leave comp will be an extreme drop which given the cost of the bay area is a hard pill to swallow, why not try to unionize and fix a broken company?

[afandian]

Surely at that point one is as much bought into the ethical compromise as the money, and the knowledge of where it comes from?

[esoterica]

You can leave for another FAANG or high paying company. There is a decent sized pool of competitive paying companies out there, it's not just Google and Facebook.

[onion2k]

That’s not being trapped. That’s being greedy.

Tomato. Tomato. (This doesn't work on the internet.)

No doubt it's a trap of their own making but it is a trap nonetheless. The idea of giving up the fancy things that you've worked hard for, maybe having to sell your house, take your kids out of a school you pay for, etc just so you can leave the company you work for and go somewhere 'better' is a hard choice that no doubt feels selfish. The decision has a significant and material impact on other people after all.

Very few of us would prefer to earn a 250k salary that comes with the freedom to move to other companies, even though that's a lot, if there's a 600k job on offer instead. We'd all take the higher paying job and maybe regret it later. I don't think it's very fair to suggest those who are in that position are wrong or stupid to have put themselves there.

[kortilla]

> We'd all take the higher paying job and maybe regret it later.

I had the good pay at Google and I left. I had to give up early retirement goals to do it but there are things more important than just money. You can still live a very comfortable upper middle class life in the Bay Area on 250k.

Additionally, most Google engineering positions are not that specialized and getting a position at another FAANG or hot startup with TC higher than 250k would not be very difficult.

[bumby]

I’ll take the devils advocate position for the sake of the discussion.

I think what’s being stated is that if you can’t manage to be happy within the top 1% income bracket, maybe focusing on more wealth isn’t the way to find fulfillment. It’s not about being wrong or stupid, it’s about misunderstanding what needs to be optimized.

[ant6n]

Tomayto, Tomahto.

[Bakary]

I would fully encourage any FAANG employee to be as greedy and disruptive as possible. Anything that weakens the massively increasing power of these companies is a good thing for the population at large.

[intended]

Or conversely - if intelligent people with experience from around the world in the best scenario possible feel that right now a union is needed - then that is a shot in the arm for all those others people in far worse situations who can't hope to start a union because they would be busted faster than I can write this full stop.

[whenitrains]

If they are in fact worth $1m TC are you ok with them "only" making $600k TC?

[PsylentKnight]

> That’s being greedy.

The only entity that stands to lose from their greed is one of the largest monopolies in the world. Why do you feel they need to be protected from greed?

[mainstreemm]

It's OK, once Google gets a union then you'll lose your 600k TC job and get moved back down to the 250k job because you haven't been at the company long enough and promotions and pay ranges can be based on tenure because that's more equitable.

Your responsibilities will be the same, though.

[htrp]

Amazing point that very few people get....

[CydeWeys]

> It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead.

This phrasing is disingenuous. If you don't like what's going on you can stay and fight rather than giving up and leaving. The people unionizing are of the "stay and fight" variety. Where does this false dichotomy come from that your only options are to stay and shut up or leave and be vocal?

[ATsch]

It probably comes the people that would prefer you shut up and stay.

[scsilver]

I full on support their goal to clean up their yard before moving somewhere else. Employees are stakeholders and can use their leverage as they please. You somehow cast a negative moral light on workers for using this leverage when every other stakeholder, managment, stockholders, board members, government agencies, voters all use their leverage to change the ecosystem.

Entitlement?

You are entitled to what you can get the world to render for you. Not asking is allowing others to over entitle and enritch themselves at your loss.

[panarky]

This shows how deeply ingrained right-wing ideology has become in America.

Outside America it is obvious that billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs wield power in their own self-interest, and that workers benefit from collective action in their own self-interest.

But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them.

No compensation is too high for billionaires, but if some workers make a good salary, that's seen as extravagant, and the workers should be extra grateful and stop asking for better working conditions, too.

It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.

[spicybright]

Don't know why this is down voted, because it's spot on.

It's what gives us advantages in areas like medical/technical research, powerful mega corporations that can effect global markets, and schooling. All at the cost of the lives of people that crank the cogs forward to maintain it all.

[prox]

Edit : See comment below

[AsyncAwait]

Seriously?[1]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-cr...

[prox]

I was actually agreeing with that comment, but I can see how it got misconstrued. There really aren’t any good arguments against a union, if done (regulated) well.

[AlexandrB]

Reminds me of when American Airlines gave their workers a raise[1] resulting in financial analysts saying things like:

> “This is frustrating. Labor is being paid first again,” wrote Citi analyst Kevin Crissey in a widely circulated note. “Shareholders get leftovers.”

Pretty amazing that someone could write this without a hint of irony.

[1] https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/29/15471634/american-ai...

[ghufran_syed]

You mean a note written to help determine the value of a stock focuses on the effect of a decision on that stock rather than something else that you (a non-shareholder possibly?) find important? Do you really find that surprising? Should be no more surprising than the idea that an internal union communication would focus more on benefits to workers instead of benefits to shareholders. Neither of the above is meant to be some kind of ethical treatise, why would we expect them to be so?

[sidlls]

This comment does not deserve these downvotes. Not only is it not aggressively, negatively contentious or malicious, but it’s a thoughtful commentary on the state of worker/owner relations that has direct and specific relevance to tech work in general.

[Izkata]

> negatively contentious

...did you miss the first sentence?

[sidlls]

There's nothing negatively contentious in that sentence. It may be debatable.

[Izkata]

The line has a built-in assumption that "the right" is bad, without realizing that half the country is (and had pretty much always been) on the right.

[LMYahooTFY]

I disagree that this is clearly indicative of anything.

>But inside America the billionaires, oligarchs and CEOs are mythologized as benevolent actors, and workers should be thankful for the gifts graciously bestowed upon them.

I've spent my life living in different parts of America, and this sounds very out of touch.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/03/02/most-america...

I've come across other polling that indicates similar trends.

[kortilla]

> But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.

Forming a union is not competitive, it’s the opposite. When you gather up all of the suppliers of something (in this case employees are supplying labor) and collectively fix a price that is exactly what anti-trust legislation is trying to prevent.

It’s not a cultural taboo to be pro-union on the left because it’s not free market. It is a cultural taboo on the right precisely because they are seen as discouraging competition and rewarding tenure over competence.

[minimuffins]

> Forming a union is not competitive, it’s the opposite.

Yes.

> that is exactly what anti-trust legislation is trying to prevent.

This is so muddled.

Anti-trust and pro-labor policies are not at odds. Corporations and the people who do their work for them are not cut from the same cloth. When the owners of the world's productive capacity collude to fix prices, that's a trust. When laborers who (by definition) do not own the productive capacity, it's not. It's a union. These are two different words for two different concepts about two fundamentally different kinds of entities (capital and labor).

Thinking of the wage relation as a bargain between equals is a cope. You're not as powerful as Google.

There is a reason we don't talk about employers (especially enormous ones Like Alphabet that are becoming so deeply integrated into modern life and politics that it's now difficult to fully conceive of) and individual working people as if they are the same kind of thing.

One is a supranational bohemoth that owns an enormous productive capacity, the other relies on wage labor to live. (That's not a sob story, just a true fact. You can rely on wage labor and still live pretty comfortably. I do.)

[DarmokJalad1701]

> laborers who (by definition) do not own the productive capacity

Is this really true for a job like SWE where all you need to do the job is a laptop and internet?

[minimuffins]

Yes because to actually produce the way Google produces you need more than a bunch of laptops. Think about all the kinds of capital Google owns from IP to massive data centers.

On top of that they have huge sway with governments and a hand in control of cultural production.

It's easier to start a software company than an oil company because it takes way less fixed capital but the same rules as the rest of political economy apply on the whole.

[8note]

The SWE does not own the data center though

[scsilver]

You also need a developer community, standards bodies, universities, regulatory bodies. You are made valueable by the interplay of all those institutions. Guess who makes your laptop and provides access to your internet, its directories, and communication channels, the same companies you have to work for.

[bumby]

I’m not sure you understand how collective bargaining works. A company enters into a contract with a union. Contracts are not anti-market.

Edit: Downvotes are fine, but at least have the courtesy of adding to the discussion by explaining why the above point misses the mark

[kortilla]

But the company usually doesn’t have a choice of a different set of employees if they don’t like what the union is offering.

The whole point of a union is to eliminate competition on the labor side and ensure a given company is cornered into accepting the union’s conditions.

[bumby]

Intra-union competition is a thing as is the ability for the company to not sign a contract. What they often lose out on is the ability to retain the previous union employees and with it lose all their training, institutional knowledge etc.

A company does not have to sign a union contract but those losses are part of the leverage unions use to balance the power structure

[missedthecue]

Unions are cartels by design , which is anti-market in and of itself. The only way unions could exist while being pro-market is if they competed with each other, which they don't. There is only one teamsters. There is only one auto workers union. There is only one longshoreman's union.

Following your logic, if your ISP has a total monopoly, and you sign a contract with them, that is pro-market transaction. Of course, we both know it isn't. Contracts aren't what makes a market. Competition is. And unions have no competition with each other.

[bumby]

Except a company does not have to enter a contract with a union as well as the fact there are more right-to-work states than not. Extending your analogy, if there is no monopolistic suppression of competition, entering a contract with an ISP is not anti-competition. The contract is not the determining factor, the anti-competition is. Lack of competition shouldn’t be conflated with suppression of competition.

Unions don’t have to compete with other unions to still have competition. They have to compete with non-union workers. There are laws prohibiting strike lines from allowing non-union workers through, for example

[fckthisguy]

But a union doesn't have to set a price for work. And the company can often hire outside of the union if they want (many are opt-in for employees).

Moreover, the free market still has checks and measures to ensure workers are treated fairly and equally. Unions are just another implementation of that - the only difference is that they're employee run not government run.

[Barrin92]

>It's bizarre how Americans celebrate ruthlessly competitive markets when workers compete against each other for food, shelter and medical care. But it's a cultural taboo to use those same competitive market forces for the benefit of workers.

yep. Class consciousness exists in the US, but predominantly among billionaires and celebrities.

[mattmcknight]

A union is not a competitive market force. It is a means to force an employer to use a monopoly supplier of labor. It's anti-competitive.

[fckthisguy]

That's not always the case though. There's plenty of industries and workplaces the world over that benefit from unions whilst still maintaining the discretion to hire who they will.

I've worked in a company with both union and non union staff and I believe the union benefited all of us without limiting the company in any meaningfully negative way.

Contrast this with shareholders and C level execs who have immense power and often world it to the detremen of the workers.

That same company was literally bought out and our office was shuttered.

Unionising allowed us to collectively bargain for better severance pay and allowed us to prioritize those of us who had additional family/visa considerations.

[xav0989]

Interestingly, (nearly) all of the Canadian government public servants are unionized. When you get hired, you can decide whether you wish to join the union or not, but the union will still collectively bargain on your behalf no matter what you choose.

The union is (mostly) in place to work on ensuring benefits such as sick leave, parental leave top-ups, overtime limits, etc. They also are there to ensure that management respects the rules when dealing with the workforce.

[missedthecue]

Why would anyone join the union then? Save on the dues, and still reap the benefits.

[sudosysgen]

Can't vote on your fate otherwise. It's worth paying the dues :)

Also, in Canada you are forced to pay union dues even if you choose not to join the Union, at least partially.

[tcgv]

This is only one side of the coin. Unions can go that way, sure, and it should be avoided through regulation.

Unions are a way of balancing the power equation between companies and workers. Neither side should be in disadvantage.

[missedthecue]

Why should the buyers of labor be forced to compete amongst each other but not the sellers of labor? In order to truly even the playing field, Facebook, google, apple, and the rest should unionize together to effectively negotiate with labor.

[tcgv]

Good question. From my point of view it's because megacorps are already too powerful entities with whom individual workers have little leverage for negotiating or influencing business decisions in favor of improved working environment and socially responsible company conduct.

If FAANGS were to unionize together the field would be even more imbalanced. For instance, Apple already makes US$ 1.9 million per employee [1] which is 19x its average worker salary [2]. Nothing wrong about that, it's a profitable company, but it doesn't strike me as if they're in a unfavorable position.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...

[2] https://www.zippia.com/apple-careers-825/salary/

[Thlom]

I think this is something that only happens in the US. I've never heard of a union being a supplier of labor anywhere else.

[mattmcknight]

If a company is forced to use a union to hire workers (cannot hire non-union workers), then the union is the monopoly supplier of labor. It's a matter of perspective, unions certainly don't like to think of themselves that way. In some US states, there are right to work laws which allow for multiple unions or people not affiliated with unions to compete with unions to supply labor to the hiring company.

[8note]

Nothing says you can't have multiple competing unions.

Given that capital is overwhelmingly concentrated into a few hands, the job "market" is also a monopolization. You can get a different job but the owners are always the same

[missedthecue]

Why don't unions compete with each other? They should be forcefully broken up by the DOJ if they are not competing with each other, just as Standard Oil and AT&T were.

[mattmcknight]

This is sort of the heart of my complaint, they are allowed to function as monopolies. The AFL-CIO has rules like "no-raiding" for affiliated unions that are anti-competitive in that sense as well.

[scsilver]

Hey thats protestantism for you...

[briandear]

“Workers” aren’t some monolithic group. Individuals can certainly optimize for their own best interests. We don’t see ourselves as victims in a collective but individuals all pursuing our own goals. My goals aren’t necessarily the same as the person sitting next to me. Why should that guy have a voice in my compensation?

[minimuffins]

> “Workers” aren’t some monolithic group

Yes they are. We're all individuals and have different goals, wear different clothes, read different books, code in different editors, whatever, but objectively we all have something in common by way of being workers in the first place: we rely on wage labor to live.

And crucially: we don't own the means of production (or we'd be owners and not workers).

Why should "that guy" have a voice? Because our fortunes rise and fall together.

Frankly it boggles my mind to no end that tech workers, just because they're contingently pretty comfortable while riding the wave of an advantageous labor market that gives them a lot of (contingent) leverage at the moment, don't understand that they (as single, individual people !) aren't standing as equals against like Alphabet, Inc. an institution that brings in double digit billions per year, increasingly has its hands on levers of policy and culture around the world, etc.

[brippalcharrid]

> We don't own the means of production

You're going to have to break that down for a 21st century software developer on a SV messageboard. Aren't the means of production increasingly our own brains? Can't computing resources be rented cheaply enough for the average person to bootstrap their own business ideas if they're worth pursuing? I'm puzzled to see stuff like this in the present day, I thought it had been discredited within Marx's own lifetime.

[minimuffins]

I wish there was a term for "means of production" that was clearer or more succinct but I don't know one. The term is sometimes a discourse killer because it triggers a kind of (understandable) reflexive distaste for extremism and a certain kind of annoying radical personality or whatever.

But whatever synonym we use for it, MoP is a concept that you can't really dispense with if you want to talk about this stuff productively. You don't have to buy into a Marxist worldview to use it.

I'll take a crack at a definition: The means of production is the conditions required for making the things that the economy makes, whatever that is. For oil production, it's land and mineral rights in oil rich areas, oil derricks, trucks, private roads, refineries, all the plant equipment to make a refinery work, tools, maintenance equipment, barrels..., I'm sure there's 65,000 more things...whatever happens to be required to convert dead dinosaurs into 10W30.

It sounds Marx-y, but it's a simple, straightforward idea.

In tech, MoP is things like intellectual property, data centers, etc. The lines are blurred a bit because when work takes place inside a worker's brain instead of in a mine or on a factory floor where workers push things around with brute physical force, it's not exactly clear who owns what. In my view that ambiguity is something employers have used to mystify the relationship between employer and worker. They try to convince us that we are all just working together to make the world better, and anyway, we're paid well enough so why complain and rock the boat?

But in the end the rules are the same. You can't make it in this system unless you own some means of production (or get access to them by starting a company of your own and becoming a capitalist yourself--which is fine, but by definition not everyone can do it), or you work for someone who has them.

A related point is tech production is not actually as ethereal and abstract as it sounds. Yes, code is just a bunch of immaterial mental abstractions, in some sense, but it's useless without a shockingly large array of computers, buildings, massive data centers which are expensive, difficult and labor intensive to secure and maintain. They suck up a ton of electricity and water and require armed guards, etc. There's a huge amount of hidden physical infrastructure and somebody is going to own it. Whoever does will wield a ton of power in our society, especially as we become increasingly reliant on tech in our everyday lives.

[bergstromm466]

> > We don't own the means of production

> You're going to have to break that down for a 21st century software developer on a SV messageboard.

I love Wendy Liu's explanation on this, it's the best I've found:

"The Silicon Valley model of technological development is structurally flawed. It can’t simply be tweaked in a more socially beneficial direction, because it was never intended to be useful for all of society in the first place. At its core, it was always a class project, meant to advance the interests of capital. The founders and investors and engineers who dutifully keep the engines running may not deliberately be reinforcing class divides, but functionally, they are carrying out technological development in a way that enables capitalism’s desire for endless accumulation.

Consequently, fixing the problems with the tech industry requires revisiting the economic assumptions that underpin it. If technological development is to be truly liberating, it cannot be funded and developed by an imperial machine, driven by the hare-brained schemes of growth-hungry investors, and owned by a miniscule clique not accountable to broader society.

What’s needed instead is a movement to reclaim technology: to prevent its capture by capital, and direct it towards creating social value. Of course, the tech giants are not going to cede this ground easily. This is why the demand of the future will not be to tame or reform Silicon Valley, but to abolish it. For it to serve society, technology will have to be liberated from the constraints of corporate ownership and subjected to democracy.

If this is hard to imagine, it’s probably because we’re so used to the way technology works in today’s economy that most of us are unable to see beyond its horizons. But it’s time we started seeing Silicon Valley for what it really is: not separate from the economy, and not its saviour, but instead capitalism on steroids. All the negatives we associate with Silicon Valley — useless gadgets that no one needs, companies with billion-dollar valuations going up in smoke, exploitation of precarious workers — are a microcosm of a broader economic system. Abolishing Silicon Valley, then, means more than breaking up a few corporations; it’ll require a fundamental transformation of the economic structures that govern society.

Transformation

In the coming years you’ll read a lot of columns agonising over how to ‘fix’ Silicon Valley. Most will be technocratic, evacuating politics from the discussion. This is, after all, the framing that allowed Silicon Valley to grow so powerful in the first place: a binary choice between technological development on capital’s terms, or remaining stuck in the past. But structural problems require structural solutions. Rather than relying on ‘ethical’ founders or investors to change the system, we need collective action to challenge it.

This will mean undoing the labyrinth of intellectual property rights, which are intended to protect corporations and commodify information. It will mean revisiting the funding model that gave rise to the ‘go-big-or-go-home’ culture responsible for so many wasteful start-ups, shifting away from the return-driven venture capital model, and towards a state-backed social entrepreneurship with public responsibilities.

It will also mean building worker power, within the tech industry and beyond it. Within it, the long-term goal must be a union culture encompassing all workers involved in production. That means not just the highly-paid software engineers but contractors packing boxes for Amazon, or driving for Uber, or cleaning offices in Silicon Valley should all have representation in decision-making structures. And beyond the confines of the industry, a wider-organised labour movement needs to offer resistance to technology being used to facilitate increased worker exploitation through surveillance or regulatory arbitrage.

None of this will be easy, of course. Reclaiming the emancipatory potential of technology will require prying it from the clutches of capital. But that is a worthy fight. If the task of politics is to imagine a different world, then the job of technology is to help us get there. Whether technology is developed for the right ends — for the public good, instead of creating a privatised dystopia — will depend on the outcome of political struggles." [1]

[1] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley

[Daishiman]

It is absolutely hilarious how you think that the voice of your colleagues in collective bargaining is somehow less aligned with your own interests over those of your company's executive body.

[scsilver]

And you are free not to join. But you are lacking understanding of market forces if you dont think your colleagues dont have any say in your wage. Them being there is part of an ecosystem that supports your value to the world. Unless you can produce professional software and competitive speeds all built from the ground up by yourself.

If you work in javascript, the javascript environment has given you your value, companies have bought into that talent pool and must court it to compete. Unless you provide value to the world without that ecosystem and without that company, your wage is necessarily impacted by those stakeholders.

You are free to press for your own goals, just dont be so sure those goals are divisible from your coworkers.

[infinite8s]

You realize that actors are all in a union (SAG). I don't think Tom Cruz's pay is affected by how much an SAG extra is being paid. In the case of SAG, they set the minimum floor for pay, but have no say in the upper bound.

[UncleMeat]

> but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019. There are regular complaints about benefits and pay multipliers being cut back. Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible? People don't seem to complain when businesses do that.

[jandrewrogers]

Employee compensation is tied to profit in the form of RSUs. A decline in profit would substantially decrease the value of those RSUs and thus compensation. You can't just decrease profit in a vacuum and hand that revenue to employees, you have to consider the second-order effects.

[sudosysgen]

It's more complicated than that, but it would in the end be close to 300k salary increase. The correct way to think about it is, what if the company was entirely owned by employees? How would income change, then?

[rauhl]

> Google made something like 300,000 in profit per employee in 2019.

Isn’t this roughly the same order of magnitude as many Google developer salaries? If so, how much more expensive can any employee be before he is too expensive to employ?

[tempest_]

That is profit, ie after the employee has been paid.

So the answer is they can afford to pay 300,000 more before the employee is too expensive (based on this comment anyway)

[jethro_tell]

Well 299,999 :)

[jfim]

That's profit per employee, not revenue per employee. Revenue per employee is much larger, at least according to this website [0]:

> Alphabet Inc's revenue per employee grew on trailing twelve months basis to a new company high of $ 2,143,353

[0] https://csimarket.com/stocks/GOOG-Revenue-per-Employee.html

[danaris]

Since that's profit, I would assume (based purely on the phrasing) that it's net of obligations like salaries.

[alisonkisk]

Profit is after expenses, so employee can be $300k/yr more expensive before they are expensive to employ.

[jboy55]

Its pretty much the same number. An L4 at Google makes $250k and an L5 makes 340k on average according to levels.fyi. My experience with countering Google offers would indicate these are a bit low.

Edit: Then you have to factor in the free breakfast/lunch/dinner, buses, electric car parking and the fact all my Google friends seem to rarely work > 40hrs per week.

That being said, all the 'grunt' work at Google is done by contractors, who are paid far less and while they get the free food they do without things like PTO and Sick time.

[minimuffins]

> Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?

Yes. This is the correct way to look at it.

Another point I don't see so many people making here is it's about more than just raw compensation. A lot of people at Google don't like some of the things the company has sprawled out into doing now, e.g. war and surveillance tech.

A union is about creating some collective agency so labor can get what it wants, instead of being led around by the nose all the time by managers and owners who are motivated only by profit (or are at least not obliged to consider any interest, economic or moral, that laborers might have).

A union would give some strategic agency to labor--that is, the people who do all the work--at Google. If a majority does not want to make war robots anymore or whatever, they can assert their agency and get what they want, and stop making war robots or whatever.

[antisoeu]

Just call it what it is, greed. Why is it greedy if company owners want to make money, but "good and social" if workers want to make money?

I don't think the "earnings per employee" metric entitles employees to anything.

[arcticbull]

It's not. Both sides want money. Currently, a small minority of authoritarians (management is authoritarian by nature - and that's okay) get to decide how much of the company profit is shared with employees. Now, employees get to decide alongside them. This reduces the power differential between the groups. Now they can decide what fair is on a more level playing field.

This is simply about improving the power differential between management and labor. If that means more money, so be it. It may well not. It might be more about working conditions or projects.

I guess my question to you is why do you demand democracy in government, but accept authoritarianism at work no questions asked?

[parasubvert]

Fewer people seem to be demanding democracy in government. ;)

I am not OP, but I’d say the reason authority is acceptable in a managed organization (not necessarily for profit - any managed organization whether the military, or NGO, or business, or charity) is because it ultimately has a narrow function: either fulfilling a mission, or increasing the wealth producing capacity of the organization.

Democracy at that granularity is somewhat irrelevant: either you’re doing the things (objectively measured), or you are not. Voting doesn’t lead to better policy decisions, just freer ones.

Of course the best performing companies aren’t managed in an “authoritarian” manner in the usual sense of strongman rule, because one person (or even a small group) doesn’t have all the answers. Labor/management collaboration and recognition of the importance of human capital is essential. This is why management doesn’t have as much power as it used to in modern industry: it is dependent on human capital retention in its labor force, which is very expensive to replace (far more than just skilled labor).

Collective bargaining becomes less about power disparity (when labor can make as much money elsewhere and management needs labor more) and more about pressure on systematic policies that are difficult to change without sustained external pressure: pay disparity, bonuses to sexual harassers, etc.)

At the bigger picture, life is a lot bigger than missions or profit, and democracy is essential. (Unless one’s mission is to own the libs, then I guess democracy isn’t so important)

[throwaway3699]

Not really - it's basically two sets of authoritarians deciding.

For example, if we take this to it's logical conclusion and look a work culture where your co-workers decide how much you get paid, go look at Valve and see how that works out for them: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-v...

There's really no great solution to this problem as everyone wants more money. Either it's workers vs. management or workers vs. each other.

[antisoeu]

As for democracy - because companies are somebody's property. Do you demand democracy in your home? That is, can I decide on a new wall color in your kitchen? I vote for you to paint your kitchen pink, how about that?

Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave.

[arcticbull]

> Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave.

That's an absurd take because your boss suffers no consequences and you do.

It's not about fair, it's about exercising the power you have.

Besides, each part of the country is someone's property, but government gives you a say anyways. I would counter that the equivalent would be saying "why should anyone vote? why bother changing things? if you don't like your country why don't you go find a different one." We don't tend to accept that argument in government, why accept it in private enterprise?

[antisoeu]

If your boss suffers no consequences if you leave, then your job is superfluous and you should leave, or your boss should be allowed to fire you.

Exercising one's power - sure, employees can do that, and I support that. I just don't think they should deserve special protections and rights for doing that.

If I had an employee and they would tell me "I think your management is shit and I want to make the rules now", I would like to be allowed to fire them.

[silverlake]

Governments take a % of my income. Democracy gives me a voice in how that pool of stolen money is spent. Businesses are private property owned by the shareholders. They can run their biz anyway they see fit, within community standards. I.e. no slavery or child labor, reduced pollution, contracts are binding, etc.

Unions are to protect the interests of employees that have no bargaining power. Big tech employees don’t need this. I can, however, see tech employees using their shares and influence to bargain for a board seat. I think Germany does this.

Ultimately it comes down to the relationship white-collar employees have with their employer. I work at a Big Tech co. I see myself as a hired-gun who is full-time because the taxes and benefits are easier to manage. I don’t care one bit about the company’s mission or values or whatever. I write code, they give me money. Either one of us can dissolve this contract anytime.

[kortilla]

> I guess my question to you is why do you demand democracy in government, but accept authoritarianism at work no questions asked?

Because employment is a freely associated business relationship. I don’t demand democracy in my business relationship with in-n-out when I order a burger nor do I demand democracy when a company pays me for some software development.

I do demand democracy from a government that makes laws I cannot opt out of and controls the courts which enforce all disputes in my life.

Even the largest companies in the world can be avoided by someone who doesn’t want to do business with them. The same is not true of the government.

[Apocryphon]

But employment is still an asymmetrical relationship where employees are submitting themselves to the authority of employers. And if you're putting yourself in a situation where you're under another's authority, wouldn't you want to maximize your own autonomy underneath it, via democracy? Even in "freely associated business relationship" you seek the power to negotiate and maintain your own preferences. In-n-Out has a customizable menu. Contractors negotiate their contracts for flexible terms.

> Even the largest companies in the world can be avoided by someone who doesn’t want to do business with them. The same is not true of the government.

There's still the right of exit, as the libertarians call it. One can switch citizenships, or choose to relocate themselves to the few remaining frontiers where governance is minimal. Changing one's residence can be very difficult, but how is changing employment any less so?

[kortilla]

> In-n-Out has a customizable menu. Contractors negotiate their contracts for flexible terms.

I have no say in what’s on their menu. Contractors negotiate but I can’t force them to do anything with a vote like I can in a democracy.

> One can switch citizenships, or choose to relocate themselves to the few remaining frontiers where governance is minimal.

Not without moving and significant impact to life. In all but company towns (which are basically non existent now), it’s trivial to not have any meaningful relationship with a particular business.

[antisoeu]

"authoritarians" - is that what they call entrepreneurs these days?

Personally I think the category "employee" should be forbidden. It is a pure social construct. Why is anybody entitled to be an "employee" and bitch about "authoritarians"?

Everybody is an entrepreneur. If you have nothing, you sell your body and work hours. But that's just a contract like every other contract.

In any case, if those workers don't like the authoritarians, they are free to start their own companies. Then they get to call the shots.

[arcticbull]

> "authoritarians" - is that what they call entrepreneurs these days?

Yup, and I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily.

Of course they're authoritarians, you do what your boss says or you get out. That's authoritarianism. That doesn't mean it's wrong or bad or ill suited to the task, necessarily.

Singapore is authoritarian, and I'd say things are working pretty well there.

[danans]

> Personally I think the category "employee" should be forbidden. It is a pure social construct.

Don't know where you are, but in the US, the category of employee has different tax implications for both the individual and the employer. In addition, depending on the industry and role, employee status is often correlated with significantly better benefits.

[antisoeu]

It's still a social construct - all the laws, even nations, are social constructs. I'm saying there should be no special benefits for employees.

[minimuffins]

> Everybody is an entrepreneur. If you have nothing, you sell your body and work hours. But that's just a contract like every other contract.

This is a fake world. In the real world there is history, capital and labor, and politics which is an expression of the unavoidable, built-in antagonism between the two. We don't all own an equal share of the means of production and just sit around issuing contracts to each other all day.

Do you understand that the econ 101 libertarian world of homo economicus rational agents is fake and we live instead in the real world with its institutions and conflicts?

[antisoeu]

Capital and labor is a fake distinction. Your body/capability to work is capital.

[Simulacra]

I think you misunderstand the power of a union at Google. If management says no, what are they going to do? Strike? I mean ..hundreds of them, will have zero effect. This Union is nothing more than a paper dragon. Democracy works in government but in a company that you don’t own, why do you think you deserve to make any of the decisions? As Obama said “you didn’t build that” and yet you want to feed at the trough.

[arcticbull]

It's not about deserve, it's about exercising the power your actually have. Management doesn't do any of the typing. I stop typing they're gonna have to replace me. I guess my retort would be why shouldn't I exercise the power I have? It's not about fair, it's about boots on the ground.

Replacing your workforce is much harder than you make it out to be. All the institutional knowledge, the entire stack, how things fit together, how the tools are built, run, used. All that leaves with you.

You are likely right that this union, at this juncture doesn't have much say. I'm speaking more about unions in general, and this does feel like the thin edge.

IMO this isn't the highest value proposition place to unionize, that would be video games.

[minimuffins]

> why shouldn't I exercise the power I have?

Absolutely correct.

This is an IS/OUGHT distinction. Who cares what labor "should" do under the employer's ideology. Not too surprising they want us to think of ourselves as equal players making fair contracts with each other, while one side holds the entire world in their hands.

Since we're not out in the streets starving we're supposed to shut up and be thankful, no matter what, because the ruling ideology says they've given us enough (money as a wage, though little other power). All the crying about "contracts," "greed," "entitlement," etc is just pure ideological smokescreen trying to get you not to notice the obvious, fundamental conflict between worker and owner. They want us to look at a long running historic power struggle and see something other than a power struggle so we won't fight for ourselves. Ridiculous.

[vladTheInhaler]

Why do you think you deserve to make any decisions? What makes you special? Absolutely nothing. But in a million tiny ways, you still try to have your say in the world, as much as you can. Even this comment is an attempt to spread your ideas to others, and make the world reflect your thinking just a little bit more. And that's perfectly natural. But don't be surprised when others do the same.

[salawat]

I disagree, particularly as someone who worked fror a firm making over 1000000 per employee.

It's hard to square that kind of return only benefitting shareholders. You'd be hard pressed as an employee to get a 3% raise or whatnot to keep up with inflation, or you'd have the call center people making pennies, or micromanaged down to the second, but over a milkion per employee was earned.

There is a certain point where one has to stop and reevaluate the nature of the value transfer going on. That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat, but at the first opportunity for equity holders, dropped the floor out by sellout. Not that I'd want to go back given the business model but it does lead to somber reflection and a heartfelt contemplation of tge advantaged position held by the middle-man.

[antisoeu]

"That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat"

Presumably you were paid for your services. If you were unhappy with the pay, you should have renegotiated or changed jobs.

[xpe]

I find this to be comment to be unhelpful.

I hope you didn't intend it, but the comment comes across as critical and judgmental. The comment doesn't show that you are curious about the broader context.

Would you consider thinking about this from a different perspective? For example, try thinking and asking about what history and experience underlies this. In my view, someone who writes "That same business ate years of my life keeping it afloat" has a story to tell.

Think about this possibilities: comments are with real people, not abstractions. Every comment brings the opportunity to get to know someone's situation and experience.

[newsclues]

I don’t think profit per employee entitles an employee to more salary, but it can justify or prove that the company can afford to pay more.

I think unions exist specifically to help employees in their struggle to be greedy against a greedy boss or shareholders.

Do you work harder in a partnership where you get 50% or as an employee making 1% of your value?

Has corporate greed harmed its own profits and innovation by failing to adequately pay its employees?

I think greed is good to a point, then it becomes detrimental to self and society.

[antisoeu]

The "they will work harder" argument is bullshit. If that would apply, companies giving their employees more say and shares would be more successful, and drive away the others, all without the need to form unions.

I mean it is possible that shareholders will work harder. But that is not an argument for unions.

Also, some employees are people like cooks or janitors. Will they really work harder, and what would that even mean? What if they just do their jobs? Does a janitor at Google really deserve more money than a janitor somewhere else? What makes them the "chosen ones"? Just lucky to work for a successful company?

[Apocryphon]

> Does a janitor at Google really deserve more money than a janitor somewhere else? What makes them the "chosen ones"? Just lucky to work for a successful company?

Google makes a ton of money off of each employee, and could probably afford it.

https://csimarket.com/stocks/GOOG-Revenue-per-Employee.html

Google, like much of Silicon Valley, regularly puts forth the messaging that it represents the future, not only in terms of technology but in terms of society. ("Making the world a better place." "Don't be evil.") Forward-thinking often lends itself towards democratization, and of personal empowerment. So if Google wants to portray itself as futuristic, and its employees so lucky to be working for such a futuristic organization, then it would follow based on their own company line that janitors at Google might be entitled to more money at more traditional, hierarchical, less worker-empowering companies.

If Google didn't want their employees to set fires, then maybe they shouldn't taught them them the Promethean secret. Perhaps tech companies should cease pretending to be so much nobler than every other traditional form of business. The people running Google created this culture.

[antisoeu]

No matter what revenue they generate, I find it hard to argue that a janitor at Google deserves more than a janitor somewhere else. Presumably they are all doing the same kind of work. Doesn't mean Google shouldn't pay their janitors more, just that they shouldn't have to.

True about Google creating that culture themselves, I don't pity them. I just reject the sentiment in general.

[ddingus]

Nobody mentioned entitlement. That money labor left on the table.

Together they can get more of it.

Simple as that.

[antisoeu]

If it is not entitlement, it is greed. I don't say greed is wrong or should be forbidden, just that they should be honest about it.

[ddingus]

Maybe.

There is a point of view framed in things being equitable too. The motivations are more broad, balance of society, etc...

Then again, the members may simply need more too.

Costs and risks relative to income can change, or are not well balanced. This is a standard of living, needs argument.

What differentiates it from greed is the fact than an answer can come from either side of the equation. Lower costs and risks can work the same as more compensation does.

None of this, nor my earlier comment speaks to whether greed is good or bad. It can be, or not and context matters.

[Apocryphon]

What makes it greed, and not enlightened self-interest or rational economic behavior?

[Domenic_S]

The unspoken assumption behind this line of thinking is "if an entity/person can afford to pay more, the entity/person on the other side of the deal deserves more". This reasoning is applied to arguments about other things as well, such as taxes.

The problems with it become apparent when you realize that the standard isn't applied everywhere and is really impossible to evaluate fairly, so the conclusions are derived from personal ethics and concepts of "fairness" instead.

As an example, "they can afford it" is often used as an argument in favor of higher taxes on "the wealthy" (whatever that means), yet nobody says "you can afford to pay starbucks more for your coffee". You could have certainly afforded to pay more for your car or house or macbook, so why didn't you if "you can afford it" is the bar? Likewise many SV tech workers could "afford" to take pay cuts, but nobody's arguing that - why not, if "you can afford it" is the measure?

[missedthecue]

They're the same thing, but it shouldnt be wrong when John D Rockefeller does it and right when you do it if we're being consistent.

[Frost1x]

Is it really 'greed' when the capital ownership class want more money? That's not the narrative I hear pretty much everywhere, I simply hear it rebranded to: growing the economy, improving life, creating jobs, etc. It all depends on the argument and who wants what.

Ultimately, capitalism drives greedy behaviors in everyone either by choice or by necessity. At some point if you don’t adopt similar behaviors to the greedy, you will be taken advantage of, guaranteed. One of the flaws of this system is that competition is what props it up and gives it stability, so everyone has to play the optimization game as much as the most optimal are optimizing, otherwise they're 'losing' in our economic system, relatively speaking.

So yes, it's the same optimization like behaviors Google and other giant businesses in the capital ownership class are utilizing. Are the motives different (greed, survival, sense of 'fair' compensation)? Maybe, maybe not, but if you don't play the game it doesn't matter because you're being taken advantage of and the state will only decline.

I for one applaud Google employees pushing this and hope they can set a precedent for the entire industry. There is widespread rampant abuse in tech no one talks about or just ingore and it's often waved away because '...but money' and employment mobility. None of these fix the underlying problems and are often merely excuses made to allow abuse to grow and fester.

[antisoeu]

"everyone has to play the optimization game as much as the most optimal are optimizing, otherwise they're 'losing' in our economic system, relatively speaking."

If a person is happy with their salary, are they really being taken advantage of? Just because they could perhaps get a better salary, doesn't mean they are forced to go for it. I suspect such cases are also rarer than one might think. I would expect most people to occasionally check their market value.

"greed" is just a negative way to frame it. Ultimately, striving for optimal outcomes is what stabilizes systems and makes them healthier and more efficient. Competition is the only known way to ensure fair prices. Every other approach can and will be gamed (corruption), but you can not fake prices.

It's also all nice to talk about being social, but I think many employees are less happy in reality when they find they have to compensate for their unproductive colleagues and even get less pay. That gets people riled up quickly in the real world.

[minimuffins]

No, what "entitles" them is that they do the work and generate the profit and therefore have the power to organize themselves into a coherent, self-interested group that can withhold their labor if they don't get what they want.

Who cares what you think they're "entitled" to?

[antisoeu]

As long as they get no special rights to form their unions, fine. In my country, unions get special protections by law, which is not OK.

If workers simply choose to monopolize, of course they can do that. Of course laws against monopolies in general should then also be abolished, though.

You can not be in favor of unions, but opposed to monopolies, as unions are also monopolies.

In that sense, no, I don't care what they feel entitled to - there should just be no obligation to give them what they feel they are entitled to.

[minimuffins]

We're never going to have a productive discussion if you think capital and labor are the same thing.

[UncleMeat]

I wouldn't say that unionization of software engineers is a public good. It won't solve poverty or make the world a better place. It is a conflict between engineers and software executives to make money in the way that they want.

I'd wager that most unionization supporters at Google also support high taxes, a social safety net, and widespread unionization so other laborers can capture more of their own output.

[SerLava]

Could be neither, or it could be that adding to 20 billion dollars is different than adding to 100 thousand dollars.

[mordymoop]

I wonder if the company will respond to this sort of incentive by hiring hundreds of thousands of new employees to absorb the “profit” rather than pay employees far in excess of market rate.

[Frost1x]

Isn't there a massive 'labor shortage'? If that's already the case, that proposal seems even more impossible. You could hire non-tech workers and pivot to other industries where you can employ other people.

I suppose they could try outsourcing again/more and see how that works out.

[thinkloop]

> Why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?

That is not a fair framing. Labor is not the sole cause of profit. Imagine a company that spent billions to automate every process requiring only a single human to push a button every 10 minutes to produce its output. This company would be making "billions per employee", but it wouldn't make sense to pay that employee billions for that job.

[flamble]

All of that capital was produced by labor, except what fraction of the value derives from raw natural resources pre-extraction.

So it is absolutely a fair framing to state "why shouldn't workers seek to capture as much of their labor as possible?". If their labor produces capital which produces profits, why are those profits not fair game to bargain over?

In your example, it wouldn't make sense to pay the one remaining employee all of the profits, but it would have made perfect sense for all the employees who produced the perfectly automated factory to negotiate for a share of the profits.

[chii]

> all the employees who produced the perfectly automated factory to negotiate for a share of the profits.

if they were employees, they would've been paid compensation for making such automation. Unless they are a shareholder (either by investing initial capital, or by negotiated compensation in the form of equity), they are absolutely not entitled to any profit from their output.

[GavinMcG]

That's the water we swim in, but can you actually make an argument for why things should be that way?

We allow infinite returns to "shareholders" long after their risk has been reasonably rewarded. Why should we?

[chii]

> can you actually make an argument for why things should be that way?

yes - because it didn't work any other way. Look at how communism fared? Tell me a way to incentivize people to invest their capital any other way?

[ChrisLomont]

>All of that capital was produced by labor

Not all capital is the result of labor. Economists put around a third of modern capital to be the result of labor, around a third from leveraging capital, and around a third created by technology.

Labor, investment, and technology all drive new capital creation.

[adamsea]

Where does technology come from?

Labor. The labor of knowledge workers, which is what software engineers are called by economists ...

[ChrisLomont]

Yes, labor is a component. So is capital. And, recursively, so is technology. That is why economists don't claim all value is created solely by labor, and why econometrics measures the contribution of various components.

Where does Labor come from? From being taught skills - and that took capital to train someone before their labor could add value. All pieces are interrelated, and modern economies cannot work by ignoring that all pieces are needed.

>The labor of knowledge workers, which is what software engineers are called by economists

And those knowledge workers did their labor with zero capital investment before by an employer (or themselves)? Computers, tools, infrastructure all were provided so the knowledge worker could work, and those pieces required capital before the knowledge worker could produce labor.

I have hard time understanding why so many people cannot accept that capital is a valid and necessary input to creating things, including creating more capital, which can then be invested in yet further productive pursuits.

[jfim]

I'd argue that most of their capital comes from their employees, not their hardware. Any company can buy hardware that's functionally equivalent to Google's. Even with a massive pile of cash and being able to buy the same amount of hardware that Google has, it would be useless without the software that makes it run, and that software is made by their employees.

There are definitely sectors of the industry (such as manufacturing or insurance) where capital and automation drives value generation, but Google is in the business of writing software, which isn't really automatable.

[tanilama]

But software can be written anywhere.

I do think Google has good engineers, but they are really not that indispensable

[Raidion]

In this somewhat reductionist approach, would it be fair that CEO overseeing that process be paid billions of dollars?

I think this is a decent thought experiment for ownership of an AI sufficiently good at a hard and profitable problem. Should that company be able to collect those billions forever even if they no longer have to do any work?

[ddingus]

The only source of capital is labor.

All that money spent on automation paid for labor, who has an interest in the fruits of said labor.

Collective labor is one way to secure an equitable share of that fruit.

Also, someone has to pay for that output. How exactly does that happen when people lack income?

Fact is that company so automated needs sales, maintenance, innovation and all the stuff needed to endure and compete over time.

If they are not paying labor, their product would be devalued quickly, and or they would experience increasing trouble over time.

The ones who know how to deal with that have awesome position and would expect to be compensated handsomely.

[chii]

> their product would be devalued quickly

which means more people can afford said product. Automation is increasing productivity and output efficiency.

[ddingus]

Automation may also improve consistency, or quality.

There are two basic outcomes regarding labor:

One is to reduce labor and ride on productivity / efficiency.

The other is to work differently, better. Head count may or may not change.

In terms of which is better, there are strong arguments either way.

Everything costs something.

The first scenario is easy. Margins go up, labor costs go down. However, cost of change, maintenance, quality, business expansion may carry much higher costs and risks too.

In the second scenario, margins likely increase, but not as dramatically. People are free for other work, training, to innovate, etc...

Lots of ways this can all play out.

[ddingus]

Maybe. A lot depends on personal cost / risk exposure relative to income.

And that devaluation does mean NOT making billions per employee too.

[jellicle]

Why not? They're doing the labor. You're just assuming your conclusion here. Your premise is that "having capital" deserves a reward and "doing work" doesn't, and so your conclusion is that having capital should be rewarded and doing labor should not be. But if you change your premise, the results can change too.

[simias]

>Imagine a company that spent billions to automate every process requiring only a single human to push a button every 10 minutes to produce its output. This company would be making "billions per employee", but it wouldn't make sense to pay that employee billions for that job.

Why not?

Why should it go into the shareholder's pockets instead of the people who actually do the work and create the value? What if the people actually working were to, I dunno, seize the means of production or something?

To be clear while I understand that there are many reasonable objections to socialism it bothers me that your comment presents capitalism as self-evident. Even if you believe that it's the best (or at least least worst) system, you should always question it.

If a company generates billions in profit the question of how this profit is divided among the owners and the workers should forever remain an open question I think.

[jfim]

> Why should it go into the shareholder's pockets instead of the people who actually do the work and create the value?

Proponents of the shareholder value model would argue that the point of a business is to maximize that value, and that it's better to return that value to shareholders instead of giving it to employees.

In the case of the button pressing employee, if they can find someone that would press the same button for minimum wage instead of billions per year, with functionally equivalent output, then from that perspective it would make sense to replace that expensive employee with a cheaper one, as that would maximize shareholder value.

In practice, things aren't as simple, since value maximization can have all kinds of perverse effects (eg. in that model, dumping sewage into a lake is a great idea if the fine is smaller than the resulting shareholder value) and shareholder value is kind of detached nowadays with profitless companies and many companies not electing to pay dividends.

[simias]

Well the original example was obviously flawed because if all that's left for the employee to do is literally just press a button, then it would've been automated as well.

In a company like Google the argument that the workforce is effectively just a commodity that could be replaced easily and at will is obviously not applicable. Most of Google engineers are not button pushers.

[parasubvert]

“Value creation” is not in the labor of pushing a button. It’s in the human capital, management that led to the creation of the system.

This example is nonsensical as a bunch of behind the scenes contractors and management presumably set up the system. Except that as soon as the contractors leaves, you’ve lost your primary factor of production: the knowledge of how the whole thing works. the days where management doubles as knowledge workers are long gone.

As for profit sharing, that is a longer conversation, but most of the largest companies today do profit sharing in the form of stock grants, pension and share purchase programs.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Imagine something that doesn't exist and then claim it's "fair framing" to argue as if it does?

One of the most depressing things about the US is the corporate authoritarianism that many employees seem to suffer from.

Of course shareholders should have priority over workers because... that's just the "natural" order of things?

If a company fails, shareholders risk some small percentage of capital they can mostly afford to lose, while workers risk poverty and homelessness?

It makes no sense at all to me. Not just from the point of view of comp, but from the point of view of democracy. Because you can't have a functioning democracy when you have huge power differentials between different castes.

Unions - including board representation for unions - are one way to shrink those power differentials. They're not the only way and they're not infallible, but when they do work they're guaranteed to better than nothing.

They not only redistribute income, but they also give individuals collective pushback against corporate bullying and abuse.

Or perhaps you'd rather continue to grumble that HR is always there to take the company's side, but do nothing about it?

[mempko]

Really sad you are being downvoted.

[qeternity]

They absolutely should. And companies/management have a fiduciary duty to give them as little as possible. This is the competition that gives rise to capitalist efficiencies.

The concern from people like myself is that another word for a union is a cartel. When companies form cartels and engage in anti-competitive behavior, we penalize them severely (in theory at least...but that's another issue). Yet when labor colludes, we simply call it a union.

Tech is especially interesting because the usual claims of "workers have less power individually" (which is always true in all industries) is really really not a great argument in tech. The labor market in tech is so unbelievably competitive, and the average worker has leverage that is only seen in the upper echelons of other industries.

[acdha]

> And companies/management have a fiduciary duty to give them as little as possible.

This is a popular myth but if you do any research you’ll learn it’s not true. There’s no such requirement because there’s no way to reliably predict the future impact of decisions: for example, does paying “too much” for employees lower turnover and avoid them starting competitors? Skimping on maintenance, outsourcing jobs, or taking on debt will definitely “maximize” shareholder value for a little while, until the bill comes due.

Think for a minute about how you’d argue any of those points in court and you’ll understand why the real laws have significant deference to executives’ judgement. Neither side would have any trouble finding people to say their decision was best, and even after the fact there are inevitably many factors which people can point to when explaining whatever happened.

[matz1]

I think more accurate to say the fiduciary duty is to make money as much as possible. At least that I would want the my company to do.

[acdha]

Try to find a legal statement to that effect. You’ll find a lot of people claiming that but there’s nothing binding for the reasons I gave: nothing is certain in business and people will reasonably differ about the best ways to produce growth over any non-trivial time scale. Remember all of the people who very confidently said that Apple was wasting its time with phones and would never overtake Nokia?

[jimcsharp]

I would liken unions to corporations rather than cartels.

[missedthecue]

What about the definition of cartel doesn't match what a union does?

[ForHackernews]

Sure, but will these salad days continue forever? I feel like most of HN is too young to remember the dot-com crash.

Seems far better to unionise and try to institutionalise and lock-in better pay and working conditions then to count on always having a hypercompetitive labor market and obscenely profitable employers.

[alisonkisk]

Management is a cartel. I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.

[qeternity]

That's not the legal or economic definition of a cartel.

[mrzimmerman]

Nor is a union the economic or legal definition of a cartel. A union is closer to creating a company that acts as a negotiating and protective apparatus for its employees as they do contractual work for other companies.

That isn’t a cartel and there can be multiple, competing unions working for the same type of workers in the same industry.

[missedthecue]

an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level

That's the definition of cartel. Unions exist to maximize the amount they extract from buyers of labor. This is rent seeking plain and simple.

What's more, they don't compete with each other, which is what corporations must do. Why does the UAW get to enjoy a monopoly on the sale of autoworker labor? Should Ford and GM and Chrysler be able to unionize together to keep wage costs lower?

[Anderkent]

>I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.

Why not? If you go talk to your manager and tell him "I have another offer at XXX, I want you to match it or I'm leaving" what is going to happen?

[Afton]

You absolutely can. Managers will push back with "rules" that only apply if management doesn't want to pay you more. Or they will go to HR to get an exception if they think you are worth that exception (that is, if they aren't worried about not being able to match an offer for an employee that they really care about). You can absolutely negotiate.

In the past, I've been quite open when I thought that I needed more money to my manager, and have even given specific ways of making me "not distracted by money concerns". Sometimes they can meet those goals, sometimes they can't.

Personally, the offer as you've given it is probably more adversarial than I'd prefer. Something like "I feel like I'm worth more to the company than X, I feel like I'm worth Y, and here is a list of reasons, here is my career goals, etc etc". Then if they don't match it, you can accept that other offer. But YMMV.

[johnathandos]

If I were the manager, I’d respond to this by wishing the person luck and asking when their last day will be.

[lokar]

Not at Google you can't

[Simulacra]

Because they are workers. If they want to “capture” some of that profit, to start their own company, or work at a different company. Unions today are more about punishing the owners for making too much profit than it is about keeping anyone safe or fair. Just because you work at a company does not give you “ownership.”

[alistairSH]

* but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google*

Oh how quickly we forget. It wasn't all that long ago that Google was involved in a massive wage fixing scandal (along with darn near every other major player in the "big tech").

[alisonkisk]

There was no wage fixing. This was a non recruiting agreement that had an imputed effect of reducing wages.

[ddingus]

You mean an act of agency resulted in control over wages?

[JKCalhoun]

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

This article (from 2015) "Apple Makes $407,000 Profit Per Employee, Walmart And Retail, $6,300: Who's The Exploiter?":

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/28/apple-ma...

[Ragnarork]

> It seems clear to me that these are people who are unwilling to sacrifice some of the money they earn to follow their ideals and principles, so they are trying this instead.

So you missed the part of the article that explained they will commit a portion of their salary to fund the union?

They are working for a company known to hire union-busters, fire employees trying to unionize or point out issues, and you want to argue that this is the safe way to try to follow their ideals and principles? This doesn't make much sense.

[jgwil2]

> Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc.

What nonsense. Comparing two countries is not the same as equating them. Of course we can compare and contrast the two, taking into account the differences. To suggest we cannot compare two different things is to deny a crucial tool of abstract, critical thinking.

[taurath]

> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google, I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Alphabet makes $1.7 million per employee. Its clear that those employees don't necessarily individually have that level of contribution. Nor is it that the business model that sergey and larry made would necessarily be possible with any given number of people who aren't sergey and larry. Its much more about the ratio.

The business idea + investor money is the original capital for the business. Sergey/Larry and the investors deserve to be compensated, and are, wildly. No problem there. Basically everyone believes that inventors and creators have all sorts of rights to be compensated for that. The question is how much, since they utilize the labor of others to realize their goals.

[Spooky23]

You're entitled to nothing. Given that it's 2021 and the entire workplace is in play, it's foolish to assume that the status quo is the status quo.

The smart move is to have a contract that addresses various aspects of work.

[mrzimmerman]

That is exactly what unions do. They setup contracts with the employer to ensure protections and compensation using collective bargaining to balance out the power of the employer for the employer.

Collectively bargaining for hundreds or thousands of employees is obviously more powerful then a single individual bargaining against the same employer, especially when you factor in the information and resource asymmetry that exists in the latter situation.

[chartpath]

As the article says, that is not the kind of union they set up. They set up a "members only union" which is voluntary to join or not. Either you are unhappy with conditions and need protection so you join for the the support network, or you are happy with conditions but join anyway out of solidarity with the lower classes of employees. https://tcf.org/content/report/members-only-unions-can-they-...

Or not join at all, which is fine, but punching down and across at your coworkers comes across as not being a team player.

[parasubvert]

Seems pretty straightforward. Sometimes you fight for reform inside a system instead of leaving it. This is how those inside gain leverage.

[wbl]

Not having sexual abusers in management stay with no repercussions?

Why shouldn't Googlers be entitled to more of what they produce?

[WhyNotHugo]

Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't work at Google for a few extra bucks, because I know the price of these few extra bucks is payed by society as a whole.

If you're a talented professional at Google, and want to make a positive impact in the world, join a company that cares about making a positive impact in the world.

[8note]

Getting a job somewhere doesn't mean being able to negotiate for the things you want.

Eg. Google workers don't like the facial recognition or censoring search results in China.

Getting a new job isn't going to change that, nor is closing down orgs going to be part of your job offer negotiation

[avianlyric]

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

You're entitled to as much as you can negotiate. Isn't this a founding principle of capitalism?

If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?

[short_sells_poo]

This is exactly the point, I really don't know what is the parent arguing for here. Companies try to maximize the profit they can extract from employees. Why does parent try to paint employees doing the same in a negative light? We see that big corporations will not shy away from outright law breaking behavior if the payoff is likely to be greater than the fine. When the employees exercise wholly lawful means to maximize their payoff that somehow becomes icky?

This mindset in the US that workforce empowerment is bad has to stop. It feels like the middle class in the US is fighting ferociously alongside the mega-corporations in obliterating the middle class. Corporations are not your friends. The C-suite at corporations, and the shareholders are not your friends. They are not enemies, but because they are more like an amoral hivemind than a single benevolent entity, they'll naturally gravitate towards maximizing their payoff, even if this is at the expense of the workforce. Again, I'm not saying there is outright malice there, it's just the natural optimum state for the a group of entities who currently hold most of the power.

The US is basically a feudal society in everything but the name. If the Google employees manage to get traction and their efforts spread to the other parts of the industry, and perhaps even other industries, and the balance of power tips even just slightly back towards equality, that's already a win in my book.

[logicchains]

>This is exactly the point, I really don't know what is the parent arguing for here. Companies try to maximize the profit they can extract from employees. Why does parent try to paint employees doing the same in a negative light?

The difference is that people associate a union with forced membership; people who wanted to work at Google and to negotiate directly with Google, rather than accepting what the union negotiated for them, wouldn't be allowed to. If the union membership was entirely voluntary I imagine most people wouldn't object.

[short_sells_poo]

That's fair, but if such a union does not represent the will of the majority of Googlers, it's a bad union. It doesn't mean that unions are unconditionally bad. I'd even posit that such a union is unlikely to arise if indeed this is against the will of the majority of Googlers, since the union members would vote against such a mandate.

The other aspect (and I'm not trying to make a strawman here), is I'm getting the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" vibe from your post. People would object to a collective under the pretext that they are special among the 120k googlers and would somehow be able to negotiate a higher comp than what a hypothetical collective agreement would force on them.

What I found downright comical is this objection comes before the union is formed, before any details about how compensation would be handled is even discussed. So again, it feels like the very people who would be empowered by this move (since it is them who the collective would represent), object to the concept before even discussing the details. All under this uninformed notion that they'll be prevented from partaking in outsized compensation in the future when they inevitably rise to the top echelons of Google.

I call this uninformed, because unless any of these objectors have information, they can't know what the comps would be, since it was not discussed to the best of my knowledge. Nevermind the fact that by definition, most Googlers will not rise to the very top echelons because space there is naturally limited.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The article mentions that the union membership will be entirely voluntary. I don't think there's much reason to be concerned about this changing; they'd need a majority of employees to establish a mandatory union, and their initial organizing efforts didn't get very close to that.

[twh270]

Many people don't know how to negotiate (well), so they are at a disadvantage when entering compensation negotiations with a prospective employer who has HR/management that have the knowledge/skills to be able to negotiate lower compensation.

In addition, even assuming someone is a good negotiator, they generally can live without work for far less time than a particular employer can live without an employee filling a particular role. So people will often take a less-than-optimal compensation package because a job today that pays the bills is far more valuable than a job tomorrow that has the "best" compensation package.

I'm not saying collective bargaining is the only -- or even the best -- solution to this, but it's not as simple as just saying people should negotiate more.

[collyw]

Being someone who is likely closer to bad negotiator than good negotiator, this is something that can be learned. I am pretty sure there are hundreds or thousands of books on the subject.

[pclmulqdq]

I would assume that based on the amount of money that is at stake, most software engineers would try to become extremely good negotiators. A 1% improvement in salary for a SWE could easily be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars over 10 years, so it is really silly to not try to understand how to get that money.

[travisoneill1]

The only way to get good is practice, and as an employee you only do this once every couple years or so. The company has people who do it every day.

[sumeno]

You would assume wrong

[Afton]

Yup. This seems like the right spot to plug this excellent article that has made me many 10s of thousands of dollars over my career:

https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/

Good thing patio11 doesn't demand a percentage for the millions and millions of dollars he is responsible for people collectively getting in increased salary/comp.

[patio11]

The great thing about my business model, such that it is, is that if I keep pushing that number higher I won't have to demand anything.

Winking, but not in the least bit a joke.

[q-big]

> If collective bargaining allows employees to negotiate more, then shouldn't they negotiate more?

It is not clear whether these employees are actually in a good position for negotiating. The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs). I consider how many products were scrapped by Google as quite some evidence that Google would be nearly as successful if it fired the unionized employees and continued working with some "core team".

This does, of course, not mean that I endorse this reality, but when you negotiate, you better know what leverage you actually have.

[avianlyric]

> The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized

I think this is a slight perversion of the truth. A union that relies entirely on industrial action (a.k.a. strikes) to get a company to change, isn't a good union. If a union walks into every negotiation with just an ultimatum, then very quickly the otherside is going to get fed up of their bullshit.

Ideally a union should be working closely with senior leaders to find win-win situations for both employer and employee. An an obvious example would be preventing Andy Rubin from getting a $90mil payday for sexually harassing people. Clearly that's not only a serious injustice, but was ultimately always going to end up public and damaging Google brand.

A union could help senior leaders find a better solution, part of that would be providing representation to those sexually harassed so they could bring a stronger case, and make it much easier for other senior leaders to throw Andy Rubin to the wolves.

[q-big]

> Ideally a union should be working closely with senior leaders to find win-win situations for both employer and employee. An an obvious example would be preventing Andy Rubin from getting a $90mil payday for sexually harassing people. Clearly that's not only a serious injustice, but was ultimately always going to end up public and damaging Google brand.

If the solution is already of economic advantage for Google itself, you simply don't need a union since it is already in the economic self-interest of Google to apply the solution. Employees unionize to have leverage against the employee for topics that employees have an interest in, but are of economic disadvantage for the employer (historically in particular salaries)

[Anderkent]

This assumes that leadership has perfect knowledge of the situation, which is just never the case. Unions can be an additional source of information about the state of the company, for things that are not being communicated via the usual management structure.

[acdha]

That last point is key: a union exists outside the management hierarchy. There are countless examples of situations which are well known but ignored for political reasons because everyone involved reports to someone with a vested interest in the status quo. A union can be extremely useful for forcing things into the open and doing so in a context where people feel safer commenting because they’re not the only one drawing attention.

[Applejinx]

How are moral, ethical or legal quandaries EVER of economic advantage to resolve?

Doing crime, cheating, being abusive, generally are more profitable than not doing it, in the absence of consequence. 'The economic self-interest' of Google is to be absolutely monstrous, if and only if it can get away with it.

And since it can…

[throwaway80332]

> I think this is a slight perversion of the truth. A union that relies entirely on industrial action (a.k.a. strikes) to get a company to change, isn't a good union. If a union walks into every negotiation with just an ultimatum, then very quickly the otherside is going to get fed up of their bullshit.

If those unionized googlers are worth their salt, can't they use more aggressive negotiation tactics, at least like a DDOS?

[freebuju]

> A union that relies entirely on industrial action (a.k.a. strikes) to get a company to change, isn't a good union. If a union walks into every negotiation with just an ultimatum, then very quickly the otherside is going to get fed up of their bullshit.

You must have not met the publicly employed unions we have in other countries. Teachers, nurses unions in my country for ex. threaten (and sometimes they do) all the time to down their tools to relative success. Sometimes the only way to get a point across your deaf employer is the way of the iron fist.

[CydeWeys]

> The idea behind unions is that an employer is not willing to lay off all the employees that are unionized (because this would lead to a sharp decline in productivity and thus KPIs).

It's also illegal.

[q-big]

> It's also illegal.

Then you find another pretense for firing many of them.

Addendum: There exist so many oblique "performance metrics" you can apply on the employee to find such a pretense.

[CydeWeys]

It's super obvious if the unionized employees have a much higher firing rate than the non-unionized employees.

[0x445442]

What if you're a candidate for employment and can negotiate more individually, as a non-union member?

[ilaksh]

This is for the contractors also.

[ProjectArcturis]

"Entitled" has nothing to do with it. Workers get paid based on how much they can negotiate. Forming a union improves bargaining power.

[Arelius]

> Employees can ask for better, but when you already work at the company that pays and treats their employees like Google

I think one important aspect is this union includes their contractor workers, which are treated far worse than Google SWE's, this allows the union to do collective bargaining on their behalf. Which I do think is a pretty worthwhile goal.

[adamsea]

> I'm not sure what more you are entitled to.

Entitled? Who's talking about entitled? I thought we were talking about negotiation and leverage, since, you know, corporations are all about money and profit.

Is there some theoretical upper limit on what employees are entitled to?

[mcot2]

It clearly states in the article they are not looking for better pay for fulltime staff. The things mentioned are the contractors/vendors, huge severence payments for sexual harrasement and unethical government contracts.

[orthecreedence]

Never thought I'd see the day Karl argued against unions...

[wing-_-nuts]

>Comparing Germany to USA is pointless, very different government, history, culture, business climate, etc.

Ah there it is. The libertarian's go to when one compares the US to any country with better institutions such as universal healthcare, unions, etc. We couldn't possibly do that here, no, American 'exceptionalism' only goes so far it seems.