- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- workreform@lemmy.world
At an all-hands meeting last week, Google executives responded to employee questions about declining morale even with financial performance improving.
At an all-hands meeting last week, Google executives responded to employee questions about declining morale even with financial performance improving.
With this leadership, when you unionize. It’s literally what they’re for.
Still, asking the question in this clear way that almost evokes the answer by itself is important. It puts it into the heads of people watching. Could be a union instigator. 😅
It’s also why there’s no way Google can sustain these numbers. They pay workers like a random startup, just without any possibility of striking it rich on stock options. They are likely to be hemorrhaging talent at all engineering positions.
They don’t care. They have monopoly over everything! They have your phones private data, they have your search history, they have your automatically uploaded pictures to Google drive of your butthole! They own you and you’ll do as they like, whenever they like! Now where’s that guy who knows how to operate all that stuff? Wait, he was fired to lower costs? Oh…
For as long as Google is part of FAANG, they will have a nearly unlimited supply of fresh grads to burn through, and fresh grads still line up to work there to get that name on their CV.
Google will always be part of FAANG. It’s in the name.
But if they fail in AI and their advertising business dries up (which if you listen to earnings calls, is pretty much all anyone is concerned about), then their name won’t be stapled to FAANG anymore. It’ll just be FAAN. When you run the gamble of having great talent but wasting it, eventually you reach the point where you’re no longer a desirable location for the talent in the first place.
Ads are built. what do they need engineers for?
Yes, the suits have taken over and switched the money squeeze to max.
And they’ll argue “you don’t need [all the things that make this company great]”. And then we’ll wonder how a once leading company is dying on their now crappy products/services.
To be eventually bought up by a private equity firm that gives it the last squeeze before throwing the withered husk on the final Google Graveyard.
And that’s how Microsoft moved into irrelevance under Ballmer until Satya Nadella started focussing on innovation again. When sales lead technology businesses they always decline.
You would be mortified at how many people in big tech, including those that have directly experienced injustice or unfair treatment at work, simply want no part of a tech union.
Frankly, some industries absolutely need it (e.g. games). If they’ll put up with what they put up with and still choose not to unionize I don’t really know how software engineers will…
Oh I’m aware, am part of the industry. I think the disparately higher compensation relative to the rest of the economy has given us a false idea we’re paid fairly (perhaps even unfairly high) for what we produce. Which I have definitely felt myself. In fact I’ve felt very strange of the disparities within the industry itself. However that’s completely the wrong way to look at it. There’s no magical upper number that our labor deserves. Everything is determined by what people pay and how much they buy. (I’m not saying that’s the only way it should be) So if the revenues and profits are sky high, and we know labor makes most of it happen, then our labor is simply worth that much more. Given that someone will collect the difference, we may as well get a larger share of it. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we’ll get even higher compensation which will be much more beneficial for people in the wider economy than a much smaller proportion of the exec class getting wealthier. But that can’t happen without unions. We mistake the temporary labor shortage for stable and strong negotiation leverage.
Am I dumb or does th article not mention the executive’s response to this question?
If it’s like a lot of other tech companies, likely this was posted in a questions thread during a large meeting, and while everyone can see the questions being posed, Execs pick and choose which questions they’re interested in answering, ignoring the ones they don’t like. It’s a good way of determining employee morale while avoiding all accountability.
It’s not really a question anyways, just a statement rephrased to fit into the format.
It is a fair and square question. “This is our position, what is your response to that?” And the answer is also clear “We care so little about you, that we don’t even recognize your position.”