[AlstZam]

I don't understand this "ideological" issue. (but maybe it's just due to language as English is not my mother-tongue) Lots (/most) of what you choose to do (or not) can be see as a result of your own ideological standpoint. (investment, buying, culture, laws, politics, culture, media...) I prefer when the so-called ideological point is explain in an article rather than discovered after fact. This is more honest.

[ceilingcorner]

Unions are traditionally there to bargain collectively for their members. Typically that means higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things.

This union seems less focused on that and more on pushing sociopolitical ideas currently in vogue in left-wing political circles.

[conanbatt]

> Typically that means higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things.

Nominally but it just isn't so. The strongest bargain an employee has is a competitor. What makes G salaries high is that there are other companies competing for the same talent.

The fundamental way unions increase wages is by constricting supply: by being part of the hiring process and blocking people, or by putting conditions that make people that would otherwise be eligible to work. In the end unions end up being very ineffective, and their administration cost ends up not worth it, thus the only way to get any leverage is with the law.

If unions had their way, it would be illegal to drive a lyft. Whoops, that happened. If I were a Union rep in a tech company, the first thing I would do is kick out immigrants. Easiest way to increase wages for (remaining) tech workers.

[ric2b]

What's your opinion of trade unions in Norway, which seem to me like they work quite well for everyone?

[conanbatt]

We don't need to go too far for examples of unions, look at the unions SF has. Health staff, Police, Bart and Teachers. Unabated disasters.

The best a union can achieve is being irrelevant. It will surprise me how obvious it is in the populace that if companies all agree on something it is a terrible monopoly but if all workers agree on something it is liberating. The mechanics of anti-competition are always the same, even if different markets produce different results.

[AlstZam]

I agree on the first part. But "higher salaries, better work conditions, more benefits, and similar things" are usually part of left-wing political ideology too. So for me there is no surprises and nothing new in unions sharing/pushing "sociopolitical ideas currently in vogue in left-wing political circles".

If i understand correctly your point (and to paraphrase), unions are not setting the correct priorities between work condition and more general sociopolitical ideas. For me this is a good new : It mean works conditions are not that bad and that union want not just to take care of personal interest but of company interests as well. But this is a ideological stand point :)

And some may argue that's not the role of unions. But the role of union is to carry the worker voices. If this is the subjects workers want to talk about, i don't see any issue. If it's not, the union will just not meet enough workers to join them.

[bovermyer]

I'd argue that higher salaries, better work conditions, and so forth is exactly what this union is being formed to address.

The idea is that collective bargaining can equalize the salaries, work conditions, etc. for all members, not just the pale-skinned ones.

[desgrior]

By "pale-skinned" you mean women ? https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/04/google-found-it-paid-men-l...

[sojournerc]

You seem to be implying Google plays its white employee pays more because of overt discrimination, and that is impetus for a union. Any evidence for this belief?

[bovermyer]

I'm not implying that, nor do I believe that. I'm only trying to rationalize the union from their viewpoint.

[ceilingcorner]

Maybe, but if that were their real goal, they’d lose all the activist language and moral judgments.