> 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?
This smells like "1% is the smallest positive number" fallacy on behalf of the owners.
(But that 1% is perhaps/likely only salary not equity.)
Blue collar unions need money to pay bills during a strike, but Googlers don't need that.
A big question to ask is whether Googlers need to pay for union or if they should donate to politicians who would regulate Google.