1. 16
  1.  

  2. 10

    I support workers of Google to unionize. Naver, the #1 tech company in South Korea, recently unionized.

    1. 3

      Working in large tech companies can be depressing enough even without compensation determined by union seniority.

      1. 1

        This kind of outcome entirely depends on how you unionize.

        1. 4

          In theory, sure. In practice tho it’s really hard to find examples of strong unions without formalized payscale.

          1. 1

            FYI, Naver union is one such strong union without formalized payscale.

        2. -1

          are you american?

          1. 2

            No. Why?

        3. 1

          They would definitely benefit from a union.

          But they have stronger challenges in this process then most other employees around the west.

          First the individualistic culture/propaganda they have been fed for years could prevent them from trading the promise of individual benefits for the reality of shared ones.

          But most relevant is the distribution of the company around the world. There are different legal and economical environments out there and it’s likely that several different unions will compete for Google employees, each focused on the local issues and interests people see most.

          OTOH Google guys are pretty smart, they could learn how to think globally and how to balance long term benefits with short term local ones more easily than other workers.

          1. 3

            First the individualistic culture/propaganda they have been fed for years could prevent them from trading the promise of individual benefits for the reality of shared ones.

            I would say this is widespread in the tech community. This is not just Google or the USA. The same situation is very common here in Europe. That’s why ideologies like libertarianism or identity politics are more easily spread in the tech community.

            That said, I believe people like the Tech Worker Alliance are getting it right in the way they communicate: they disguise the unionist message as something else, avoiding “problematic words” and basically working around the prejudice of the average programmer. I believe this is the key for a new unionist movement around the West, because the old one cannot be revived and it’s tainted by its own problems and by years of anti-unionism.

            1. 0

              First the individualistic culture/propaganda they have been fed for years could prevent them from trading the promise of individual benefits for the reality of shared ones.

              The xkcd “sheeple” comic was given to the contrarian in this thread, but it applies to this too. Your hubris is just less overt and more civilized, but almost as off-putting from my perspective.

              1. 3

                Your hubris…

                Can you please elaborate?

                I just noticed two issues that a union in Google would face: a cultural bias and the legislative/economic complexity due to the multinational nature of the company.

                The cultural bias against the unions is well known in the USA, mainly because of the country narrative is based on the competition and on the solo hero/entrepreneur. In other states the country narrative value cooperation a lot more, for example in families (that are large group of people), in tribes, in church and so on…
                This is an historical and sociological observation that could be false, but doesn’t look like hubris.

                The multinational observation is also self evident: in different states around the world, laws are different, cultures are different, economical issues are different and so on… the tendency to only focus in the local space could be exploited by the ownership of the company to divide and conquer the employees.

                Finally, while I do not like the Google’s corporate culture that I’ve found among engineers, I acknowledge they hire very smart people and what happened with Project Maven show how much they care about their work.

                So I think they have an unique chance to overcome these difficulties.

                The fact is that in a company that has built an internal narrative based on knowledge and intelligence, now face the fact that the employees hold collectively more knowledge and intelligence than the ownership by several orders of magnitude.

                If knowledge is power, in Google, the employees are more powerful than the ownership.

                They still call the ownership as “leadership”, but they will soon realize they are the true leaders there.

                1. -2

                  Your hubris is in the implication that individualism is not a reasonable stance to hold. Why would anyone knowingly choose “promises” over reality?

                  I’m not interested in having a long drawn conversation with you on this topic. I’m just saying, as someone who disagrees with you, your comment is deserving of the “sheeple” xkcd. You might want to reconsider your approach.

          2. 2

            Google will continue to finish the current contract they have to design AI that better automates targeting for killer drones.

            Of course, Google employees, including Kim, will continue to work for Google like the slaves and sheep they are*, even after Google lies to them, about, of all things, building Skynet for the Pentagon:

            Kim: [..] They also tried to downplay the scope and involvement of the project. But that rhetoric dissolved when we found out that leadership had been lying.

            BT: What were they lying about?

            Kim: From the beginning, they told us that Project Maven was a small contract purely for non-offensive purposes. They said that we weren’t building anything custom. They said that this was a one-off project only worth $9 million, and that it wasn’t part of any further collaboration with the Pentagon.

            Those all turned out to be lies. On April 12, DefenseOne published an article that landed like a bombshell in the company. Drawing on conversations with Pentagon officials, it revealed that Project Maven was actually a pilot project for future collaborations between Google and the military. In particular, Project Maven was part of Google’s push to win the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract.

            JEDI is the military’s next-generation cloud that will network American forces all over the world and integrate them with AI. It’s basically Skynet. And all the big cloud providers want to win the contract because it’s worth $10 billion.

            When we found out that Project Maven was an audition for JEDI, people started becoming extremely concerned. And as the media attention to the story increased, we learned a lot more. For instance, Diane Greene had told us that the Project Maven contract was only for $9 million, but internally they expected it to increase to $250 million per year. And they weren’t just giving the Pentagon access to open-source software — they were going to build a massive surveillance system that gave military analysts real-time information on people, vehicles, and buildings in a Google Earth–style interface.

            Exposing all of those lies damaged leadership on this issue just as much as anything else that we did. That loss of trust really hurt them.

            * Except for a few “dozens [who] resigned.” Kudos to those people.

            1. 14

              Google will continue to finish the current contract they have to design AI that better automates targeting for killer drones.

              If it leads to fewer accidental bombings of wedding parties and civilians, I think one can make the case that this is not without benefits.

              Of course, Google employees, including Kim, will continue to work for Google like the slaves and sheep they are*, even after Google lies to them, about, of all things, building Skynet for the Pentagon

              Please have some consideration for people who have different situations or value systems than you–calling people slaves or sheep because they have made a moral tradeoff is just as insulting as people calling you a crackpot for being a 9/11 truther, assuming Lobsters is infested with trolls, being willfully ignorant of how Bitcoin actually interfaces with the economy, or any of a number of other views you’ve professed that are baffling.

              Angry namecalling lowers the quality of discourse for everyone.

              1. 5

                Of course, Google employees, including Kim, will continue to work for Google like the slaves and sheep they are

                If only everyone was as morally superior and enlightened as you are