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?
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)
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.
> 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?
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.
I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to fire me, I didn't mean to imply that they would suffer no consequences however the consequences of 100% of my income is way smaller than whatever tiny fraction I make up of a 50,000 person company.
Did you consider your management may be shit and maybe the person should make the rules now, not you? If you were harassing them, for instance, or bullying them, they may have a point and your single point of control over the enterprise may be harmful not just to the worker but to the company.
Just because you would like to fire them doesn't mean you should, as after all, the fiduciary duty is to the company and not to you personally.
That is specifically the value that the union would provide in this case.
Sure, management can be shit, but then the company should simply go to ruins. Likewise, employee decisions can be bad, too. It's mostly magical thinking to assume with unionized employees there will be better decision making.
If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions.
With unions, in the end you have courts decide on economic decisions. That's bullshit.
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.
> 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.
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?
> 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.
"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.
> "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.
> 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.
> It's still a social construct - all the laws, even nations, are social constructs.
So? Social constructs have a lot of teeth in the real world, and always have. Wishing them away won't have any effect.
> I'm saying there should be no special benefits for employees
So are you arguing that those benefits (i.e. health insurance) should be universal? Or are you making the argument that only those in a position to pay should have access to those things?
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There's the asymmetry at play; with their immense wealth, these corporations can more easily pay employees more and have less effect on their bottom line- though perhaps simple math will prove this point wrong- than individual workers choosing to take pay cuts. But while this is a good discussion, I don't see how any of this differentiates being greedy from being a rational actor or homo economicus.
It's rational in the sense that you'd seek to maximize your comp. But the reasoning of "they can afford it, therefore I should get more" is not a rational argument because (1) it makes enormous and unstated assumptions about what a company can/will/should do with its money and (2) the conclusion doesn't logically flow from the premise. It's underpants gnome reasoning, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that fills in the "???" step.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?