Thousands of Google’s cafeteria workers have unionized

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/31/21043467/google-union-cafeteria-workers-unionized-alphabet-silicon-valley-mountainview

by 80mph • 7 years ago

171 171 7 years ago

vox.com

vjktyu4• 7 years ago

Good for them. As for the tech workers, they need something like a guild with membership fees and staff lawyers that would sue the state for allowing binding arbitration and non compete agreements (i.e. do what California did).

utopian32• 7 years ago

Sue the state for allowing it? Honest question— Is that a legal argument? If laws don’t exist, how can you sue the state for not enacting them if it doesn’t violate a constitutional right...

vjktyu4• 7 years ago

That's why we need lawyers on a payroll that would figure out all the details.

reaperducer4• 7 years ago

they need something like a guild with membership fees and staff lawyers that would sue the state for allowing binding arbitration and non compete agreements

Serious question: How is this kind of a guild different from a union in your view?

jedimastert2• 7 years ago

Apparently guilds are for independent contractors and unions are for employees. A developer guild would be for freelance devs and the like

pjc502• 7 years ago

Professional organisations are middle class, while unions are working class.

(Per downthread, the dividing line is really "if your organisation comes into conflict with the state, does the fight happen in a courtroom or on the street?")

vjktyu4• 7 years ago

Afaik, a union can tell you what you can and cannot do, while I only want a team of well funded lawyers to change some laws. And the u word attracts unnecessary attention. Let's call it a club, actually.

krtong• 7 years ago

but Just remember, the bargaining power of any union is a non compete agreement. Corporations are unions for the modern day mercantile class.

greatscott4046• 7 years ago

The only reason labor unions are legal is that certain unions have outsized political clout, in a perfect world labor unions would be illegal under antitrust laws as forcing companies to pay workers more than what a free market dictates inevitably increases prices.

ganzuul• 7 years ago

Prices increase regardless.

lykr0n2• 7 years ago

Sure. In a perfect world labor unions wouldn't need to exist because government regulations would make sure employees didn't abuse employees and employees have protections.

Unions are the logical outcome of lax labor regulations.

greatscott4046• 7 years ago

Are you suggesting that employee cartels squeezing money from consumers is justified?

Want worker protections ask for that, no need to burden businesses any further.

alexpetralia• 7 years ago

Your assumption of "free markets" is a mythical one.

baddox2• 7 years ago

Regardless, labor unions would be a feature of any conceptualization of free markets I’ve ever heard of. In what sense is cooperation and organization not compatible with a free market?

Kluny• 7 years ago

Free markets are as real as perpetual motion machines.

vernie• 7 years ago

Feel better?

shantly9• 7 years ago

Cool cool. We can have our government stop recognizing the existence of corporations at the same time we outlaw unions. Deal?

greatscott4046• 7 years ago

Why? Corporations are largely great assets to a country, labor unions on the other hand are parasitic cartels.

nbp160130• 7 years ago

Exactly. We should repeal the minimum wage and the 13th amendment so no corporation should ever have to pay more than what a free market dictates.

jayd162• 7 years ago

Don't forget child labor. The market demands child labor.

jayd162• 7 years ago

Using anti-trust laws to ensure labor can't organize in a way it deems fit because that's free market...wow.

kingkawn• 7 years ago

demonstrative of the western world’s idea of freedom; anyone, with sufficient ruthlessness, can aspire to become the feudal lord.

pmoriarty2• 7 years ago

"forcing companies to pay workers more than what a free market dictates inevitable increases prices"

Does it inevitably increase prices, or could its millionaire/billionaire execs just maybe own a few less private jets and McMansions?

Anyway, even if prices were increased, what's wrong with a market in which all participants earned a living wage?

Or are the absolute minimum prices that markets can bear something we should be striving for even if it means those at the bottom can barely survive?

missedthecue2• 7 years ago

Anyway, even if prices were increased, what's wrong with a market in which all participants earned a living wage?

Because if prices increase, what you thought would be a "living wage" is no longer a living wage

opportune• 7 years ago

In a perfect world, unions would be unnecessary. I think that would be a less controversial opinion. Wanting them to be illegal is more a moralization of your economic ideology - it would not be compatible with a belief that “labor is entitled to all it creates”. And stating it as matter of fact rather than as an opinion is kind of lame

greatscott4046• 7 years ago

When corporations band together to extract higher profits we penalize them, same logic should apply to labor unions.

ElonMuskrat2• 7 years ago

Google has net income of almost $30.7 billion and payed only $4.2 billion in tax. If they gave all 2,300 cafeteria workers a raise of $25,000 that would reduce their net income from $30.7 billion to $30.64 billion.

Google has become a social parasite - one that propels greater and greater wealth inequality. The parasite profits tremendously from public infrastructure and open source - while giving nothing back.

dominotw4• 7 years ago

ppl also talk a lot about union for tech workers. Its not feasible in tech because a sizable majority of tech workers are on various visa's that precludes them from joining a strike, making the union essentially ineffective. This needs to be addressed first.

Chicago has teachers union but filipino teachers on J1 cannot participate in a strike, it works for CTU because there are only a tiny fraction on J1 visa.

baddox2• 7 years ago

A majority of tech workers are on visas? I find that hard to believe.

en4bz• 7 years ago

TCS, Wipro, etc. probably skew this but it seems true to some extent at least in the bay area. [1]

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/h-1b-visa-row-foreign-workers-make-...

dominotw4• 7 years ago

Sorry I meant 'sizable' not 'sizable majority'.

jacquesm• 7 years ago

GP has a habit of exaggerating claims that have some basis in fact when looked at through your eyelashes but that fall apart on closer inspection:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899843

I don't think this will be any different.

tehjoker7• 7 years ago

You can strike if you're on a visa, but it does put you at enhanced risk of retaliation. You can strike even if it is illegal. The question is the balance of power.

For example, if the company retaliates against visa workers, and the other workers strike in protest, the company will probably not continue to try that. This is why solidarity between workers of different dispositions is so important.

dominotw4• 7 years ago

You can strike if you're on a visa

You are right, for some reason i thought it was not possible.

But from what I've seen, lot of H1B people are subcontractors.

pandaman• 7 years ago

IANAL but when I had H1B visa it was for working for a particular company, not striking. I don't know if it's been tested yet but not working definitely had and it is a violation of H1B status. Google for "h1b bench NOIR".

ryanseys2• 7 years ago

Disclaimer: FTE at Verily (Google Life Sciences)

Sounds like this isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last. Both Compass (the firm that employs these cafeteria workers) and Google both have experience working with unions and are committed to working through this. Happy that these employees are getting the representation they deserve. I hope this means that these people will get better benefits that Google FTEs enjoy and stronger protections.

As a FTE at Verily (an Alphabet subsidiary), the management's priorities are very clearly not focused on challenging the status quo in these areas -- they are focused on running the "core business". I can only guess the sentiment is similar within Google.

I look forward to seeing this issue continue to get light and hope that business priorities evolve to incorporate the more humanistic aspects of running a business instead of simply focusing on the bottom line all the time.

sfink2• 7 years ago

Google [has] experience working with unions and [is] committed to working through this.

My impression is that Google's experience is mostly in seemingly illegal union-busting (well, preventing) efforts. Then again, my impression is wholly based on reading HN articles on the topic, generally related only to engineers.

But I suppose they'll do what they're legally forced to do, more or less.

pmoriarty2• 7 years ago

Or Google could just leave.

I hope they do.

Good riddance.

fallingfrog• 7 years ago

“Committed to working through this”

“Look forward to seeing the issue continue to get light”

“Business priorities evolve”

You didn’t say anything particularly disagreeable but I wonder if you realize how this kind of language comes across- this is the way people talk to you right before they fire you or take away your healthcare or something. This kind of business speak just screams, I’m someone who cannot be trusted. It’s the language of power. We all cringe and grimace when the boss talks like this. It’s why you’re getting downvoted, I’d guess.

ryanseys2• 7 years ago

Guess I've worked in the corporate machine for too long...

Thanks for keeping me in check. I didn't mean any harm from my comment but I can see where you're coming from, just wanted to give a summary of what the article seems to imply and a bit of perspective from the inside.

To me this whole thing feels like a complex issue with a lot of nuance, varying perspectives and information asymmetry, so downvotes don't surprise me.

zelon883• 7 years ago

I look forward to seeing this issue continue to get light and hope that business priorities evolve to incorporate the more humanistic aspects of running a business instead of simply focusing on the bottom line all the time.

Do you really? Because the next step is automating the cafeteria.

When was the last time business priorities evolved to become more expensive?

minimuffins4• 7 years ago

The corporation can only do things like automate away the cafeteria if its employees let it. The point of a union is that workers - the people who do all the work and keep the profits rolling in - take back some control and decide things like this for themselves.

It's defeatist, and extremely unrealistic, to think we just have to roll over and let the bosses do whatever they want just because that's what we've always done up til now.

There's not some deterministic invisible power that says immiseration via automation is inevitable. It's just a matter of collective will as to whether we accept or reject power's desire to screw us over in that particular way.

freeopinion2• 7 years ago

Imagine a gigantic apartment building in San Francisco. Let's say some 400-unit monster. Then picture a campus with four of those buildings.

Then realize that such a campus could not house all the Google employees in the area. Then realize that such a campus could not house just the Google cafeteria workers in the area.

avocado4• 7 years ago

Is this an argument against high density construction and tech workers at the same time?

OnlineGladiator• 7 years ago

What is the point of this comment other than to say Google has a lot of employees?

jjeaff5• 7 years ago

I figured they just had the same reaction to the headline as me. "Wow I can't believe they have that many cafeteria workers".

novok2• 7 years ago

Well good thing there is plenty of enough space to build 400 of them in a small area! ;)

filoleg• 7 years ago

To make this clear, you are suggesting that having just those 4 buildings won’t solve the issue completely, despite making it better, so it isn’t worth doing?

freeopinion2• 7 years ago

No. I didn't suggest that. Not even remotely. I am not aware of any such undertaking and did not state any opinion on the worthiness of such an undertaking.

I was just a bit stunned by the sheer number of people that work in the cafeteria. I make no judgement here about those people, their abilities, working conditions, living conditions, or anything else except their quantity.

seemslegit3• 7 years ago

I wonder if they can now help people who lost access to their gmail accounts because they wouldn't give google their phone number

seemslegit3• 7 years ago

I'll take it as 'probably not'

komali25• 7 years ago

Sucks but I'm guessing people don't think your comment was relevant to the topic.

remote_phone• 7 years ago

I’m glad they were able to unionize but why should they deserve to have similar or same benefits as Google workers? Sorry to be blunt but they are cafeteria workers working for Bon Appetit. If I were Google I would just close all the cafeterias in order to avoid further precedent setting actions. The meals are going to get taxed by IRS anyway so might as well bite the bullet now and get rid of free food entirely.

shantly9• 7 years ago

"Deserve" and "should" hasn't got shit to do with it. Are we going to start policing sales and contracts corporations make to ensure the value they deliver "deserves" the compensation they're receiving? You get what you can get. If they can get more, good for them.

asdfasgasdgasdg3• 7 years ago

Google would be pretty unique among high tech companies and large companies in general if it didn't have cafeterias at all. I doubt they would close the cafeterias. If Compass is unable to negotiate a cost effective labor contract, the more likely outcome would be google switching to another provider. But that in itself doesn't seem very likely considering the optics, and the relatively small cost of this labor.

But, for the sake of argument, can you imagine what the lunch rush hour would look like in downtown mountain view and Sunnyvale if Google didn't have cafeterias at all? It was already pretty bananas when I left the Bay Area three years ago. Google's headcount on the peninsula was much lower then. And they did have cafeterias. Now it would be totally insane.

hindsightbias3• 7 years ago

Or it would be a renaissance for urban restaurateurs and workers, who could afford the city again. Some of these tech areas are surrounded by dead zones.

turtlecloud• 7 years ago

some people don't want to create a servant caste despite all the pressure from Sundar Pichai to recreate Indian society in Google HQ.

ElonMuskrat2• 7 years ago

That would be funny. Their engineer employment motivation boils down to: Come to Google and be comfortable.

walshemj6• 7 years ago

They are not Google employees here they are employed by a third party.

gbronner2• 7 years ago

Expect google to start "optimizing" the cafeteria soon enough.

jedimastert2• 7 years ago

Employees will go apeshit. Food is such a huge deal for the culture.

novok2• 7 years ago

If you work in a tech company, you'll quickly realize that the food is something everyone focuses on to a disproportionate degree. This guy knows what he is talking about.

ChuckMcM• 7 years ago

Yeah, and there will be some noisy exits while people say "man Google has really lost its way" and they will open up the hiring spigot a bit and replace all of those exits with new employees for whom Google has always had a pay per meal policy (or no cafes in the satellite offices) or what ever method Google used to prevent the hit to their profitability.

After a few years nearly everyone will think this is the 'regular' Google and won't know anything about the 'old' Google way.

When I was working there, there was a tool called 'percent' that would tell you what percent of the employees were newer than you were. What astonished me was how rapidly one became an 'old timer' in the sense that > 50% of the employees had arrived after you had[1]. I watched this process in real time as people got fed up and left because they felt that the company had "let them down" or "failed to meet their commitments." It was a lot like university where every 4 or 5 years its an entirely different set of undergraduates. You tell them "how it was" and they believe you because, you are there and they just arrived.

[1] That particular astonishment, combined with the reported employee numbers, led to another investigation which was how Google could replace 50% of the staff without anyone noticing, and discovered that churn was a pretty big thing.

mikestew• 7 years ago

Many moons ago, Microsoft’s cafeterias were subsidized. And then they weren’t. Remember that mass exodus from Microsoft in the 90s over the cafeteria stink? Neither does anyone else, because what noise there was didn’t amount to much.

jjeaff5• 7 years ago

Especially considering that the recent tax law changes are phasing out some fringe benefits that corporations could previously deduct. Regular meals provided for employees on site is one of the deductions that has been nixed.

Obviously, the kitchen salaries will be deductible. But none of the food cost and other ongoing expenditures related to providing that food.

reaperducer4• 7 years ago

I have mixed feelings about unions, but I'm OK with this move.

Cafeteria workers need unions. The maids who muck out hotel room toilets need unions. Coal miners who work in horrific conditions for little pay need unions.

You know who doesn't need unions? Millionaire TV anchors. Millionaire movie studio execs and actors. Anyone who makes six figures, which includes a hell of a lot of union members. In those cases the unions need the members, not the other way 'round, and it leads to greed and corruption because all both sides can see is dollar signs.

So, again. I think it's good that the caf workers got some protection. I'm still on the fence about computer programmers, though.

chomp• 7 years ago

All workers can be abused regardless of their salary.

Examples for programmers that come to mind:

- Companies that require workers to enter arbitration and give up their right to sue.

- Companies that force workers to give up IP generated in their free time (not using company resources)

- Companies that require programmers to work 12 hour days, "crunch times", minimal paid leave (game dev industry, VFX industry comes to mind.)

Unions collectively negotiate with employers to reduce or eliminate these abuses. Some unions have poor leadership, which is to be expected. Some companies have poor leadership. Not everyone is good at negotiating, which can create power imbalances on either end of the table. But on the whole, unions are a Good Thing, even for IT folk.

notJim• 7 years ago

A lot of people on HN are interested in a 30-hour work week. A strong union movement could get that done, as they have been working on in Germany: https://www.businessinsider.com/german-workers-can-now-work-...

username902• 7 years ago

Another example of abuse:

- Unions that forces its members to only work specific contracts giving up their right to work.

kmlx4• 7 years ago

Cafeteria workers need unions. The maids who muck out hotel room toilets need unions. Coal miners who work in horrific conditions for little pay need unions.

aren't all those jobs ripe for automating? unions feel like an intermediary measure to the end goal: no more humans in shitty jobs.

sbilstein• 7 years ago

In tech we talk about automation like it’s an inevitable thing but for as long as the cost of developing robots to do all of these jobs is much more than hiring humans it’s not happening. Even that stupid pizza oven Zune is all about won’t replace workers anytime soon.

walshemj6• 7 years ago

Everyone needs unions - not just the little people.

brosinante• 7 years ago

Yeah let's create fake talking points about unions using the million-dollar salaried talking heads of media owners.

jkrems2• 7 years ago

Entertainment unions handle such things like health insurance and retirement funds. Most actors aren't millionaires. Having the few millionaires in the same union is good for the non-millionaires. Because it means that studios only get the in-demand millionaires if they provide okay conditions for everybody else as well.

walshemj6• 7 years ago

And in the UK "tech" and "Entertainment" are in the same union.

There is a lot of similarity and crossover between teh workers in that area.

reaperducer4• 7 years ago

Most actors aren't millionaires

Which is why I specified millionaires. Let the actors who are working paycheck to paycheck or earning a middle-class wage, or working second jobs as waiters or whatever join a union. But when an actor is making $10 million for a movie, they don't need a union. They have an accountant and an agent who take care of them.

raverbashing• 7 years ago

Millionaire movie studio execs and actors

The story about these is interesting. Because for every millionaire actor there are hundreds/thousands of wannabe actors. Who may or may not one day become a millionaire actor.

Not to mention all the rest of the TV/movie production chain: writers, directors, cinematographers, gaffers, production assistants, stunts professionals, etc, etc, etc

The "over-unionization" of that sector ensures fair pay and conditions (which sometimes are already grueling) for the professionals involved in this area of business. What happens without unions? Check the VFX companies for an example.

whatitdobooboo2• 7 years ago

Does anyone have any good/neutral book recommendations on unionization?

haecceity• 7 years ago

Communist manifesto?

tehjoker7• 7 years ago

People will think you're joking but this is essentially what that world historic text is about and it makes its argumentation clearly: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/MarxEngelsTheCommunistM...

Start on page 14.

rorykoehler• 7 years ago

I dunno why you are down voted. It seems that many people see the word communist and have an emotional reaction. If you take the time to read this masterpiece you will soon realise that Marx knew more about capitalism than most of us who live it.

dqv• 7 years ago

There isn't anything really neutral to recommend. People are pretty adamant about "the right way". Start with ABCs of Socialism[0] and take a look at the texts they recommend. You'll have to come to your own conclusion about what you like and dislike about what it says.

The problem with this stuff is that the left is extremely sectarian so I might have someone jumping down my throat for recommending something published by Jacobin.

[0] https://s3.jacobinmag.com/issues/jacobin-abcs.pdf

tehjoker7• 7 years ago

I really liked that series! While you can get into sectarian arguments and Jacobin is electoralist, the ABCs series is wonderful for someone new to this material imo.

Symmetry• 7 years ago

I'd really like a good book on the legal basis and evolution of unions in different countries. My sense is that there's a lot about US versus, say, Danish unions that works differently and Japanese unions are generally specific to a given company making them something else again.

bransonf• 7 years ago

I don’t think many people write light reading on the topic of unionization.

That said, you should be able to find plenty of modern material on class, law and labor.

If all else fails, read some classic sociology.

minimuffins4• 7 years ago

Jacobin magazine, In These Times, Labor Notes and other publications like that cover contemporary union movements thoroughly, and it's pretty much light reading imo.

JamesLeonis• 7 years ago

A great book is No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age by Jane McAlevey[1]. She specifically goes over history, organizing tactics, analysis about why some unions succeed vs others that don't, as well as how to transition from a bad/no union to one that is representative. Each have examples of recent strikes and efforts in the last decade.

Here's a quote that jumped out at me.

According to Buffkin's congressional testimony, it was the [Smithfield Foods'] intent to replace blacks with Latinos with two objectives in mind: to keep the workforce divided through both instigation of racial conflict and overt segregation, and to create an undocumented immigrant workforce that the employer believed they could more easily control.
[Key to success was] first earning legitimacy with each major constituency in the plant, and then bridging the divisions between them, creating unity and solidarity despite the extraordinary efforts by the boss to systematically pit worker against worker.

[1] https://janemcalevey.com/book/no-shortcuts-organizing-for-po...

minimuffins4• 7 years ago

Just want to second this. It's a great read and McAlevy is a smart and experienced strategist and scholar. You can find her talking about her ideas in old episodes of the New York radio show Behind the News, all of which are online.

tehjoker7• 7 years ago

This was a really great Twitter thread about how capitalism isn't really about meritocracy but about bargaining power and by implication how necessary unions are for workers to be treated humanely and paid more than the bare minimum for survival:

https://twitter.com/ArashKolahi/status/1210332075787608065

zelon883• 7 years ago

I agree that unions were important, at one time.

However technology is at a point where large enough companies can simply engineer around the human resources problem if they want to.

So bringing a company like Google's feet to the fire will only make them want to cut you out of their supply chain. Your "bargaining power" is short term. Merely until Google can find another way to subvert you with technology.

In the industrial revolution Unions had bargaining power because they offered a valuable service that you couldn't live without. Today there is no problem that technology can't solve with the right amount of funding.

Apocryphon3• 7 years ago

Your last line writes the whole enterprise off, because politics and bureaucracy is a very real challenge. Google can automate away service workers in the same way they can fix their product organization issues, reduce fragmentation of Android, improve their hardware offerings, stop the endless churn of their products ending up in the Google Graveyard, etc.

That is, you can say they can do anything with their resources, but it’s a paper tiger because the organization simply does not have the will nor interest to engage in such efforts, not when they have other priorities they’re focused on. So perhaps they’ll simply pay their workers.

refurb2• 7 years ago

As someone who has worked in a union shop, it’s not always a great way to achieve meritocracy.

It’s usually based on seniority.

mr_toad• 7 years ago

how capitalism isn't really about meritocracy

Who said it was? Classic example of a straw-man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

minimuffins4• 7 years ago

Anyone in their right mind knows that meritocracy is a basic tenet of capitalist ideology, especially the Silicon Valley variety.

motohagiography3• 7 years ago

The consequence of this means rights for union organizers to be on the job sites and access to other workers. There is a thin edge of the wedge strategy at play here. It's not just the cafeteria workers.

The opposition I have to unions at companies like Google is that the companies themselves are too politically powerful to have staff who in effect must to behave criminally to be terminated. When you look at the impact of unions in law enforcement and national security, they are almost universally recognized as the main enabler for the social problems bad individuals in these fields cause.

The amount of social harm a malicious Google (twitter, facebook, reddit, pornhub, etc) employee can cause is astronomical and the main thing keeping the worst %10 in check is the likelihood of losing their job. Literally thousands of people who can divert or sabotage the lives of others without accountability.

They already have enough privacy and political problems, but I would predict unionization spreading to their tech workforce would trigger divestment and a general market reduction of risk exposure to their businesses.

These companies are different, and a political artifact of the industrial revolution will have disproportionate unintended consequences.

wrsh072• 7 years ago

I'm much more concerned about executive accountability than I am about individual employee accountability at a company with as much political power as, say, Google.

Unions are a way of balancing executive power. (I don't think they're a panacea though! All I hope for in this case is that it is able to improve the lives and working conditions of Google's cafeteria workers)

motohagiography3• 7 years ago

There are at least 10x the number of employees to executives who have access to your email contents and browsing history. Using the worst %3 of individuals as a baseline, the executives are the people you have the very least to worry about.

itronitron• 7 years ago

You make an interesting point. It remains to be seen whether Googlers will form a union in which members that share differing viewpoints will feel more empowered to express their views without fear of losing their jobs.

mark_l_watson• 7 years ago

Good for them. I mostly ate at their Mexican cafe and Authentic Asian Cafe (I forget the exact name), but sampled many others. The cafeteria workers would remember me, be friendly and helpful, and certainly deserve to make a good living.

I used to be ambivalent about labor unions but in modern times when corporations act as all powerful gods, hell yes, unionize.

Thousands of Google’s cafeteria workers have unionized

Related Stories