[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.

[sudosysgen]

What is your standard for "good decisions"? Is your standard maximum profit and growth? In that case, sure. Is your standard general customer and employee satisfaction, along with stability? In that case, no.

I'd say the second criteria is infinitely more useful, and empirically it works. The most stable bank in North America is democratically run by both customers and employees, I'm a very happy customer, and I know of many happy employees.

[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....