Reading the article, it sounds like they do need to find ~40,000 votes. The article mentions that now they've announced the unionisation attempt, they're gonna starting doing lots of public campaigning to collect the votes they need.
Yeah, they definitely need to gather support of some sort, I'm just curious about the scale. 40,000 people from within the 120,000+ organization seems huge. If that's really the case, the coverage so far would seem fairly sensationalist - 0.25% of employees signing on to unionize is a drop in the bucket next to a required minimum 30% of the workforce signed on.
I think the article is pretty accurate, the title looks pretty spot on
> Google workers announce plans to unionize
I agree that the number involved is quite small at the moment, but given how hostile Google has been to any unisation effort, the fact the 230 people have organised anyway, and now put their jobs on the line, is quite a big thing.
I suspect that there are many at Google that would happily join a union, just look at how high the attendance of Google's walk outs have been. This announcement clearly indicates that union organisers believe they have enough support to come out of the woodwork, and start some serious campaigning.
> I suspect that there are many at Google that would happily join a union, just look at how high the attendance of Google's walk outs have been.
You're assuming a lot here. The Google Walkout had a huge attendance because it had zero teeth and zero commitment. People took their lunch break outside to say "I don't like sexual harassment". Then they went back to their desks and back to work. Google refused all but one of their demands, fired or drove out all of the organizers, and went on with it's day.
Essentially, very few people who walked out would put their cushy Google job on the line for what they believe in. The organizers did, they're gone. A handful of other people since then have also put their jobs on the line for their principals, they've also now been fired. Every time Google has fired organizers, it has made it much harder for the remaining workers to organize, both because the people who would organize are gone, and those left have a cautionary tale of what happens if they do.
Everyone at Google today is someone who had a chance to stand up for what's right in a manner that risks their employment, and has chosen not to do so.
The title is technically accurate, but I think the omission of scale and any sense of how far along these plans are leaves quite a sensationalist tidbit. "Google workers announce plans to unionize" translated to "the necessary amount of employees at Google to form a union are unionizing" on my first pass. I clicked immediately because that seemed significant. I'm sure this was the intention, though I can only speculate. A clear and less sensationalist (though less click-worthy) title could have been as simple as: "230 Google workers announce plans to unionize"
That being said, I'm not contesting the validity of the movement - it's certainly possible that thousands of Googlers will sign on in support now that the movement is public, and more power to them!
It just seems like the reporting on this should be making it more clear where this effort stands and just how much needs to happen before it's legally viable. Arguably, more honest reporting in that regard would help make clear to potential allies that their support is needed, and this is not a sure thing.
Without defending Google management at all, I'll say that everyone who got fired was not at all careful in their activity. Organizing a union is different from doing intentionally disruptive protest activity, and while one can argue that both are morally correct, one is a lot more job-threatening than the other.
The people who are organization the union and signing petitions, but not hacking employer systems or calling their coworkers "Nazis" are still employed and organizing but also less visible to the public.
Much like cyclists facing cars have to learn that it's better to be alive than claim the right of way and be dead, activists need to be smart about taking calculated risks. (And if people are calculating that getting fired is good for their political cause or future career at a like-minded organization, then good for them!)
> I suspect that there are many at Google that would happily join a union, just look at how high the attendance of Google's walk outs have been.
I'm hopeful that you're right, but I also suspect that a lot of engineers will look at the fees and decide "hey, 1% of my total compensation is actually a hefty amount." The walkouts were free.
> 1% of 100K people making over $100K/yr is an insanely huge amount of money for a union.
Well, think about it this way. 1% of 200k people making >$50k is the same amount.
There are 775k members of the IBEW, for reference, which charges 2% of base wages in additional to fixed overheads. The SAG charges dues of 1.575% on the first $500k. Writer's Guild charges 1.5% with no cap. So 1% is actually low.
> (But that 1% is perhaps/likely only salary not equity.)
The article stated "compensation", which I suppose could go either way, but I lean toward "total compensation" in my reading. But either way, I'm sure the majority of Google employees do make over $100k in base salary (between those in the Bay Area, New York, Seattle, Boston, London, and more).
> A big question to ask is whether Googlers need to pay for union or if they should donate to politicians who would regulate Google.
How many of those regulations would impact the profitability of Google (e.g. through antitrust enforcement) versus encourage better working conditions?
I mean, I think it is always the case that organizing efforts start with a small number of very activist employees and escalate from there. That has at least been my understanding of organizing MO, so sort of an odd standard to hold.
Huge difference between signing on and voting in a secret ballot - esp. in the context of in a company.
