Google’s CEO faces employee questions about layoffs — “Why has there been such an extraordinary effort to limit the internal visibility of layoffs announcements?”
theverge.com
Google’s CEO faces employee questions about layoffs — “Why has there been such an extraordinary effort to limit the internal visibility of layoffs announcements?”::During a recent TGIF all-hands meeting, Google CEO Sundar Pichai addressed what sources describe as a growing morale crisis inside the company.
You are viewing a single comment
Each and every one of us deserves a union.
I'm in a union for my day job.
It's big. It's steeped in processes and safety checks, but it makes fewer mistakes and quietly wins.
Would recommend a union every day.
Each and every one of us deserves to work for a company that cares enough about its employees that they don't need a union.
That failing, we need protection from the companies we work for and the only viable opportunity at this point are in fact unions.
That's not how relations between employers and employees work.
It's like saying you don't need a democracy if the king cares enough about his subjects.
It might work for a time, but the power balance is such that you can't rely on the goodwill of leaders alone.
Believe it or not, there are jobs out there that do work that way. It's generally not in public corporations.
That's why I also said failing that we do need unions.
he's not saying there aren't any companies that do right to their employees at this current moment. he's saying if left unchecked, it leaves room for somebody to come in and make it bad for everyone. that being said, we've already failed. we need union.
So is that significantly different for me saying it would be nice if we could do that but that feeling we need unions?
It's different because you seem to be saying "workers should be able to be incredibly vulnerable to the whims of employers because employers should be good people". The other guy's response to that is "why would we ever assume employers are going to be good to their employees absent any mechanism to enforce said good behavior?"
I didn't say that at all.
you didn't say that but that's what you meant
Typical troll. actually kind of a poor excuse for a troll.
Of course we all deserve that kind of employer! Unfortunately, the entire problem is that employers aren’t generally like that.
It’s like saying we shouldn’t need laws against murder if people would just stop the killing, or we shouldn’t have XYZ problems with youth if only the parents would do a good job, etc.
We should not base our decisions on the fact that a few companies are generous enough to treat their employees well. Those are exceptions, and will always be exceptions. Capitalism doesn't reward you for doing it beyond some good PR.
Sometimes, those companies aren't even as generous as it first appears, anyway.
No thanks.
I've been a member of 3. They made for adversarial relationships between management and employees, with union leadership banking our fees. They cause other problems, like you can't fire the slacker, so people abuse it, pushing the load onto us conscientious workers.
There are places for them, they aren't good for tech.
Your relationship with management is always adversarial. They might put sugar and spice on it so you don't see it, but they are not your friend.
You sound like you've never been laid off.
Don't even have to be laid off to understand this. "You've asked for a 8% raise on the basis that you were promoted to a higher position last quarter and have been doing more work for the same pay, but we just can't swing 8% right now. But it's OK, we're all friends here. How about 4% instead?"
This reads like a note from a Stockholm syndrome survivor
The word is bootlicker. There are of course bad union leaders, and the cure is the same: organizing.
Yeah, unions are a democracy. If you don't like the leadership get off your ass.
Hell, syndicalists saw this problem over a century ago. They came up with a different solution, not finding how many boots needed tongue polishing.
Who organizes the organizers?
Agreed!
Edit - This bit is sarcasm but I guess it didn't read that way: Oh the obsequious, always finding excuses and a fall guy below. Management is never the problem and always has the best intentions.
your unions are ass then if you see them that way. but you also don't bring up any of the useful things unions probably did for you behind the scenes. provide legal protection? contract negotiations? COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? hello?
Unions only work when union leadership is actually working for the betterment of the entire unit, rather than personal clout. I was in a union that ran well, protected employees, and had a great working relationship with management. Issues were handled efficiently and effectively with the contract in place. Then union leadership changed because a retiree rallied to become president, and the effective president stopped trying so hard because of it. So leadership changed and that union went downhill. Current leadership handles issues so poorly, nothing gets resolved and raises are not going to be as high as they could have been negotiated too. The current leadership values the provided lunches at the negotiation meetings over discussion of the actual topics, and working together to come to an agreement for everyone.
Another union I was a part of prior to that was for a big box wholesale store. I was sexually harassed in front of customers by another union member. The meetings were facilitated by management and the union. Management had my side on the issue, but the union advocated for the harasser due to years of service and seniority. They couldn't even guarantee I wouldn't work with him again. I eventually left that job, for multiple reasons, but a big one was that experience really broke me. I never felt comfortable working around that person and knowing that my voice would always be lesser compared to anyone who had just worked there longer.
You'll burn for this comment here.