Damn, wtf are intuit and GM doing to their engineers?
Maybe they just forgot to brainwash them with anti-union propaganda
This is likely the case with GM given that their manufacturing is unionised. Engineers just got a demo what that can do for them last year. They aren’t getting the raise assembly workers got.
Edit: cause some jackass is implying I’m a bot - I should have joined a union and a union would’ve protected me from the mass layoff in '23 but that doesn’t change that while there I never thought about needing a union because it was such a nice place otherwise.
As someone who previously worked at Google - they didn’t have any antiunion propaganda.
They just, like, paid well, had top tier benefits, great perks, and had a good work life balance.
I am a human being, and I enjoyed my employment at Google
That’s the other option, of course: If your employees are happy, they don’t need to form a union to press complaints.
That’s my situation at a Silicon Valley tech company. Nobody ever mentioned unions one way or another but I honestly have no idea what I could ask for that I don’t already get. We have good benefits, good perks, everyone works frok home, unlimited PTO that nobody tries to limit or work around (all we are asked for is to give a rough estimate of time we’ll be taking off during each quarter so that it can be factored into planning), good work environment, good pay.
which also references an effort to use the media to quietly disseminate Google’s point of view about unionized tech workplaces.
Bogas’ order references an effort by Google executives, including corporate counsel Christina Latta, to “find a ‘respected voice to publish an op-ed outlining what a unionized tech workplace would look like,” and urging employees of Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google not to unionize.
in an internal message Google human resources director Kara Silverstein told Latta that she liked the idea, “but that it should be done so that there ‘would be no fingerprints and not Google specific.’”
From the article posted by 100_kg_90_de_belin.
Google seemingly does care about their internal image, so they will only make their actions obvious when they fire you for bogus reasons after wanting to join a union.
Quite nasty in that they give you no hints about how extreme their efforts on this are. They monitor internal employee tools like they are cosplaying the NSA, but you wouldn’t know before you are fired out of the blue.
Idk about intuit but GM is probably a result of their union coworkers getting awesome Bennie’s.
The union autoworkers get good benefits like overtime pay for work over 8 hours. Union working come in at 6, then take a fixed breakfast and lunch break and then leave at 2:30. Anything over that will need approval and overtime pay. I’m surprised Ford and Stellantis isn’t alongside with GM.
Funny, seeing them at the top gave me a favorable impression of them, but seems to have caused the opposite for you. My impression was probably due to, like someone else said, feeling like maybe they’re not being drilled with as much anti-union propaganda.
But I’m from a place where you have to go out of your way not to be part of a union.
10% of people are insane so they even got significant chunks of the crazy vote for GM and Intuit
If you want to read about this on a website that isn’t full of ads and doesn’t just present as an ad for their own news app, here is the source material by Blind.com.
Unfortunately I couldn’t find a link to the raw survey data and I generally don’t trust surveys that aren’t accompanied by raw data.
I went looking for the data because 1901 respondents across 32 of the largest companies globally doesn’t seem like it would be statistically representative of any one company. If you assume the same sample size per company, which it probably isn’t but again that’s unverifiable because I couldn’t find the raw data, you’re looking at, what, 60 employees for a company the size of Google?
Look, I’m a recovering tech worker who left the industry because of the toxic work culture, having spent a quarter of my life at one of the good ones. Even there I saw the value of unions. No matter the industry, workers deserve the right to collective bargaining and fair treatment. But I don’t think surveys with unverifiable data help move that conversation forward.
Now, if I’m mistaken and someone finds a source link to the data that we can all verify, I’ll happily take another look and reconsider my opinion on it’s validity.
Look, I’m a recovering tech worker who left the industry because of the toxic work culture, having spent a quarter of my life at one of the good ones.
What are you up to these days? Which unicorn was that?
I spend most of my days working on healing myself with time in nature, and I’m developing a personal photography project connected to my natural surroundings. I also spend time working on my garden when weather permits and am learning to paint and draw when the weather is gloomy. All in all that keeps my days pretty packed and active, not even thinking about tech most days whereas before it was all consuming.
The majority of my career in tech was at Mozilla, followed by a relatively brief stint at Element. I’m lucky that I was able to spend my entire career working for companies whose missions and products I still champion. But even as good and well intentioned as they are, they cannot escape so-called “Silicon Valley” as they’re very much a part of it.
I think blind itself drives some interesting bias. The public posts are pretty incel. You need a critical mass of folks at your company to have a company private board so it attracts folks from bigger companies. It doesn’t seem to represent average folks well. Unless I have no idea what average is.
I’m not sure what to do with that instinct. The overall results say a thing I wanted to hear. It all feels weird.
My thoughts exactly, I would not trust Blind members to be a statistically representative sample of workers at these tech companies. Blind tends to draw people who aren’t super happy with their job, and may-or-may not be more likely to be interested in unionization.
Holy shit Intuit and GM better shape the fuck up or the workers should just hurry up and fucking do it.
GM also has tons of union employees which has some impact on the non-union portion (i.e. better benefits etc), so seeing first-hand what unions can do for you might make them more likely to support one even if their current working conditions are great.
When I think of a tech worker union my thoughts first go to standardizing everyone’s pay and limiting what I can earn myself. I’ve probably fallen to anti-union propaganda.
A tech worker union that says nothing about pay could still do so much.
A union could ensure that the company’s incentives are aligned with worker’s incentives around things like on-call.
I’d love a union that forced a company to give all on-call workers compensation. Something like:
- If you’re woken up in the middle of the night, you automatically get 8 hours comp time (time off), plus 2x the time you spend on-call during off hours.
- Accrued comp time over 20 hours must be payed at 10x normal pay if the employee leaves the company for any reason. The idea here isn’t for employees to accrue comp time, but to give the company a strong incentive to ensure employees use their comp time.
Basically, if a company is having lots of on-call alerts, or the company is preventing employees from using their comp time, you want this to be directly painful to the company. Incentives should be aligned, what is painful for the worker should be painful for the company.
Or, regarding “unlimited PTO”. I’d love to see a union force companies to:
- “Unlimited PTO” policies are fine, but they must have a guaranteed minimum amount of PTO specified in writing. So none of this “yeah, we heave ‘unlimited PTO’; oh, we’re really busy this quarter, so can you wait to take PTO until next quarter?”.
Tech workers have it good compared to a lot of workers, but there are still plenty of abuses a union could help with, even if the union never even mentions pay.
Unless unions work differently where you live, they are a democracy that will pursue whatever issues its members vote on. If members don’t think pay is a problem, why would they try to change it?
Had to explain this to my dad when he told me about the carpenters unions not allowing his brother to work after he retired.
1: Unions are the democratization of workplaces; for better or for worse.
2: Should you really be working when you’re claiming retirement checks from your union?
3: People are often falsely confident on their views about things. People love to complain about the government while hardly understanding anything about it. The same happens everywhere, including unions. Just because some dude is miffed doesn’t mean they have any right to be. They can be misinformed.
Should you really be working when you’re claiming retirement checks from your union?
As a carpenter? Yes and no. It shouldn’t compete with what union people are by and large doing for their steady bread and butter but completely outlawing earning any money is cruel to the type of busy-bees that many tradespeople are. Hand-craft chessboards or something, anything where skill and mastery is eclipsing the industrial aspect. Also teaching, training, and consulting. Retirement should be a role-change (if desired), not a kick to the curb. Also, accommodate for half-retirement: Half the cheque, half the jobs kind of situation.
Absolutely. I guess I just consider those things more in the realm of “hobby” rather than a job that might come to the union. No reason someone shouldn’t be able to make wood-whatever and sell it in their retirement. That was actually one of the things my dad argued, it’s sad to see someone work their whole lives to become a tradesman, only to have that same ability kneecapped because you’ve retired. And I agree. That’s why I also made point 3, because usually when things don’t make sense there’s a reason. Whether it’s a lack of information or just misinformation. We both had a lot of questions neither of us could answer, ya know?
A union lets you have leverage when negotiating for anything with the corpo. Individually you have a little if you’re top talent, and none otherwise. Very few people are irreplaceable, some are somewhat painful to replace, the rest are less so. We’ve been mistaking the tight labor market in this industry for our own self worth but hopefully the last couple of years have helped most of us snap out of it.
Speaking of pay, the structures I’ve seen at a union university for example have pay scales based on the job and defined pay increases in every job. You know what you’re gonna get paid for a position you’re applying, and you know what you’re gonna get paid years ahead in that job. With that said, a union can negotiate any sort of pay scheme. Perhaps most importantly a union can negotiate to get a much larger portion of the profits for the engineers. You think some folks in tech are paid very well, but if you look at the value they generate, they might not be paid nearly enough. If you think a union might take your 500K salary to 300K while raising some other people’s salaries you should consider that a union can take it to 800K or more. Assuming this is happening at one of the wildly profitable companies where this money exists.
And of course a union gives you the leverage to negotiate any other conditions like the ones that you mentioned. On-call, PTO, remote, etc.
Yeah the tech labor market has really proven that the idea of employment contracts being negotiated between equal parties isn’t true even in the best of circumstances.
Even when companies are desperate for talent, and willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on salaries and perks, they are not willing to negotiate on anything outside of that. They still have terrifying contracts with non-compete and damages clauses they could use to wreck your life, no workplace democracy, unpaid overtime and whatever other shit is legal.
But hey! You get free snacks and enough money to buy the dinners you don’t time to cook and save up to survive your inevitable burn out!
When you learn that publicly traded companies are mostly obliged to squeeze as much work from you while paying as little, then all the all the puzzle pieces fall into place and all of what you said starts to make perfect sense.
Another concern I have - which might also be anti-union propaganda - is that I won’t be allowed to do certain things because that job is supposed to be done by someone else according to the contract.
I hate doing that sort of thing because it makes me wait and by the time they get back to me another fire has started that I have to put out and it takes me a while to get back to the first thing.
I’d be happy to hear this isn’t a legitimate concern.
You’re unlikely to be told that you aren’t allowed to do this or that, unless it’s a safety violation of some sort. The idea that you can describe jobs to the letter and everyone is aware of what’s written there and only does that is absurd. What’s in the job descriptions protects you against abuse if someone makes you do things aren’t paid for trained for, capable of, etc. It’s a backstop. It doesn’t prevent you from doing other things. In fact doing extra is a basis for promotion, just like it works in non-union shops. That’s what how I’ve seen things working in a unionised university I have access to.
In any case, if a union card comes to my desk, I’d get the power first and worry about these details later. At least someone would ask me how I want these things to work, instead of telling me with the only alternative being to leave the company or be fired.
Thanks for the answer!
Honestly, the fact that junior folks won’t be allowed to do things would be great. I’d love to see IT getting proper engineering certifications. People wouldn’t allow their factories to be built by non-certified engineers, but they’ll let their nephew who’s good with computers build their network. Seems like unions could help with that, too.
While I agree it is absurd, it absolutely happens. See the Las Vegas convention workers union. I was told that one worker could not plug-in an extension cord that had been previously plugged in because it wasn’t his job. There were numerous other instances exactly like that, while working a convention center floor.
It does happen.
That’s not the case the parent was asking about though. They were asking whether they can do more than what’s in their job description. Not whether someone else is obliged to do more.
I don’t doubt your experience and it’s totally fine by me. That’s how they want to run their workplace, that’s the way they run it. It doesn’t mean you’re gonna make yours like that. It’s unlikely that a software org would be run like that. At the end of the day unions are democratic institutions where their members decide how to do these things. Because of that, your current org would likely be run the way you and your colleagues want to run it. Not in some bizarre way that Las Vegas convention workers do. :D
Those compensation requirements would basically make it financially impossible to have someone on-call or they’d just have to hire people for those hours and say they are normal working hours.
How would you force someone to take time off?
How would you force someone to take time off?
If I was their boss I would say something like “you’re job is to stay home and do anything besides work for the next week, you will still be paid for this time”. Easy.
As for the on-call stuff. Yes, that’s the point. It should be unsustainable for a company to continually rely on their daytime programmers for frequent on-call alert handling.
If off-hours issues happen often, the company can hire an additional team to handle off-hours issues. If off-hours issues are rare, then you can depend on your daytime programmers to handle the rare off-hours issue, and know that they will be fairly compensated for being woken up in the middle of the night.
I’ve been at too many companies where an off-hours alert wakes up a developer in the middle of the night and the next day the consensus is “that’s not good, but we’ll have to fix the underlying issue after we finish implementing the new UI the design team is excited about”. It’s not right for a developer to get woken up in the middle of the night, and then the company puts fixing that on the backburner.
I’ll say it again. It’s about aligning incentives. When things that are painful for the worker are also painful for the company, that is alignment. Unfortunately, most companies have the opposite of alignment, if a developer gets woken in the middle of the night the end result for the company is that they got some additional free labor, that’s pain for the worker, reward for the company; that’s wrong.
“that’s not good, but we’ll have to fix the underlying issue after we finish implementing the new UI the design team is excited about”
Classic. Once I landed in a team who’s been woken up every night, often multiple times a night for several years. The people left were so worn down, burnt out and depressed that it was obvious just by looking at them. The company has cut the team to the bone and the only people left were folks that didn’t have the flashy resumes to easily escape. They had drawn up plans to fix the system years ago. BTW, none of that was disclosed to me until I had signed up and showed up for work and asked who are those miserable looking people over there. “That’s your team” the man replied.
“that’s not good, but we’ll have to fix the underlying issue after we finish implementing the new UI the design team is excited about”
If this is happening, sounds like you have a shit-ass Product Manager (or no PM).
Signed, not a shit-ass Product Manager
While there are voluntary shit-ass PMs, you can only afford to be not a shit-ass PM because the org isn’t squeezing you for all it can. Once it does, you’d have to make similar decisions. If you quit because you don’t agree with the way things are going, a compliant shit-ass PM will take your place, or no PM, and the people would end up in the place the parent described.
Leadership definitely drives a lot, but even with bad leadership a PM can and should do a lot to help here. I spent 5 of my years of PMing with an operations org that drove every big decision and I still did everything I could to protect my devs. I ended up in major burn out from it multiple times, but I don’t regret it.
Alerts that are waking devs up in the middle of the night have a user impact too, and a PM can and should communicate that impact and risk to the business side as part of why it needs to be prioritized. Alternatively, there might be a reason that the UI change is ultimately more valuable, and it’s the PM’s job to communicate why that is the priority to their devs. If developers with a Product team ever truly believe the reason they’re building something is just “because [insert team here] is excited about it,” then the PM failed at a critical responsibility.
Those compensation requirements would basically make it financially impossible to have someone on-call or they’d just have to hire people for those hours and say they are normal working hours
These are not the only options. Here are some others:
- Ensuring the on-call load is shared more evenly so that everyone is woken up under the painful limit
- Fixing the broken shit that keeps waking people up, which they keep ignoring because “it’s low priority”
- Hiring people for a night shift, appropriately compensated for their diminished health and other life impacts. The union can ensure such positions aren’t paid the same as normal work hours while not being prohibitively expensive. Night shifts are a standard thing in some occupations
Something’s telling me most orgs where 2 is an option would go with that. Related to that - increases in labor compensation is what forces companies to spend money on capital investment that increases productivity - read new equipment, automation, fixing broken shit, etc. If there are cheap enough slaves to wake up during the night, doing this investment is “low priority” (more expensive) and isn’t done.
Not bad, I thought our heads were still further up our asses.
Anything using Blind as a “verified industry source” is going to be skewed to the type of person who uses Blind. Beyond that, it’s low sample size, and there are suspiciously round fractions for some of the larger companies. Worse, because Blind is blind - this doesn’t represent current employees, but merely people who worked at some point in the past at those companies.
Not saying it’s not good - just saying not to get overly excited over a badly done survey
Doesn’t blind require you to validate via corporate email yearly or something?
Only on signup
How afraid are you of retribution if you tried to unionize?
That’s why you get as many people to sign up first, organize BEFORE the vote, not after.
I guess not much if I were an Intuit employee and significantly if I were at Apple. 😄
How afraid of retribution is my manager/ hr because they’re all too fat to walk home when they get 4 flat tires.
Wow that’s crazy that such a thing could happen. What are the chances.
Now how do we do it? Especially with remote work, not sure how to organize.
Especially with remote work, not sure how to organize.
Remote work didn’t stop you working, did it? Why would it stop unions from working? There’s on the ground work for sure, but it’s mostly desk stuff, especially in IT.
The same way you organize anything. Start by talking to a couple trusted coworkers to form an organizing committee. All the members of the OC need to talk to coworkers, handle workplace drama, agitate for better conditions, educate people about unions, maintain systematic campaign tracking, and fight against the boss during their union busting campaign. When I worked remotely, it was as simple as sending a dm like this:
Hey, would you be able to talk over break? Some coworkers and I were discussing some issues and I wanted to hear your thoughts.
Form out of band relationships with coworkers you trust to get a base going then send an email to everyone from your department from an anonymous email address to solicit feedback and organize a vote.
Would a union be able to repeal this lame IT overtime pay expectation? This dumb rule was the $27.63 over ten years ago too. I once worked at a place and a co-worker was told by his staffing agency that they didn’t have to pay overtime.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-computer#:~:text=However%2C Section 13(a)(,duties%20and%20who%20are%20paid
A collective agreement can’t include less than the law but can provide more than the law, so they could add paid overtime in the collective agreement and the employer would have to follow that even though the law doesn’t make it mandatory.
A collective agreement is a work contract, the only difference is that the employees negotiate it as a group instead of one by one.
Unions generally don’t write or repeal laws, but a union contract can negotiate overtime pay where there isn’t any.
The US labor laws need to be updated too. They suck compared to the 1st World EU members. I fully support unions too.
Get ready for corporate announcing the layoff of 67% of the workforce
They’re doing that in any case when they can get away with it. Not forming a union isn’t going stop them.
If that happens, they are going to see a lot of things seemingly from the past connected to union activity though.
Not just strike breakers being hired (some of tech work is not that demanding in expertise, think typical Hindu web devs), but also actual spies, saboteurs, hitmen being involved, propaganda attacks, possibly legal attempts to bust unions and use of force. And, of course, crucial positions in union bureaucracy becoming attractive for organized crime (which likely has very few of people associated with it ever convicted, as in mostly invisible until it’s too late).
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. Just the more adult level of the game. Considering that the tech industry is at the core of our civilization now, and considering its profits, this can get as historic as battle of the Blair mountain.
this can’t happen because the kill switch activates after 72 hours and “order 66” initiates, plunging the whole stack into lockdown and the org into absolute chaos.
hope there were backups you strike busting pieces of shit.
don’t fuck with IT professionals. you take away the only fulfillment we get out of life and you will come to personally understand the meaning behind, “there are worse fates than death”
apes strong together.
As much as I love the sounds of that it seems like a good way to get arrested under some anti-hacking laws.
lol. you think any judge or jury is going to understand the nuances of how a kill switch works?
“did you implement a kill switch that harmed my clients interests?” – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and furthermore had your client not broken anti-union laws and came to negotiations, staff could have been available to identify and resolve the issues your client allowed to happen through their own willful negligence.”
The Judge and Jury don’t have to know how a kill switch works. The Judge and Jury have to believe the expert testimony that one was placed and caused damage.
Sam Bankman Freed didn’t get jail time because the judge and jury understood the nuances of cryptocurrency and financial scams.
I think the key here is intent. kill switch or not, proving you had the intent to harm is what you’re found guilty of.
can’t prove intent on code that’s had all history wiped from it and sat in prod for several years.
“why does this code exist?” – “IDK” “in your expert opinion why does this exist?” – “I cannot express my expert opinion because of a lack of evidence”
That feels like a very… hopeful interpretation. Instead of “In my expert opinion there is no non-malicious use of this component, and SysadminX was the only one with possible access.”
Intent is not always necessary, it depends on the charges.
Computer Forensics isn’t a new discipline at this point. People have literally gone to jail for putting in kill switches. It’s possible SysadminX is actually smarter than teams of people that are dissecting what happened after they were fired and is a real life Keyser Soze, but it’s extremely unlikely.
Honestly, you don’t have to create a kill switch. Most stuff will fall apart due to dependency on manual intervention. Usually because there isn’t enough staff to automate it. Tech debt comes for everyone.
Yes, I do think that.
I agree, this particular trait of today’s tech industry in this particular case works in our favor.
For other political and social factors - not so much.
One new difference in our favor: we can reasonably have meetings online, no longer needing a large shared space.
WFH + satellite internet + solar panels = If you want to threaten violence, you’ll have to find me
Be sure to use a VPN or Tor!
Apple, tesla, and Google suspiciously at the bottom three there
What is the legality of unions across the US?
Unions are legal in all occupations. There may be restrictions on some form of collective action (i.e. the government can force strikers back to work) but organizing is never illegal.
Unions are legal in all occupations.
One caveat: the legal protections of the right to unionize apply to non-supervisors. If you have people who report to you, your power to unionize is pretty limited.
There are also some specialized jobs that aren’t allowed to unionize by either federal or state law: actual soldiers in the Army, certain political jobs, etc.
But for the most part, if you are employed, you’re probably allowed to unionize (and protected against retaliation even in an unsuccessful union drive).
Unions are legal in the US. The labor movement is currently seeing a huge swell in new bargaining units across most unions
Legal but some States have weird laws in place like being able to not be part of the Union if you don’t want to
Me too. I work for none of the above, but yes I would.
