News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @11:52AM (#25749564)
> A union shouldn't be telling their boss who they can or cannot work with, partner with or have as clients

I don't agree with that assessment. If Google employees have a strong opposition to working with, say, federal agencies to share data they've gathered on users, then I think it makes perfect sense for them bring that concern to the table.

Honestly, I don't see why a union shouldn't have the ability to bargain anything it wants to try and bargain. I'm open to someone changing my mind on that.

Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by ta76893548 on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @12:38PM (#25750271)
I think the appropriate way for the employees to have a say in the direction of the company is probably to give them voting shares. Otherwise the employees may end up disagreeing with a decision that the shareholders voted on and that seems like a recipe for a bad situation. I could be wrong, but I believe the officers and directors of a C corporation (unlike a B corp) owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders so to some extend they must prioritize growth over social purposes

Edit: to clarify, letting the employees of a public corporation decide the direction/priorities would be like if the employees of a non-profit had a union which could force the non-profit to change from planting trees to something unrelated like washing dogs. The people who donated money would probably be upset that they were deceived about what the donation would be used to accomplish.

Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @01:59PM (#25751650)
> to clarify, letting the employees of a public corporation decide the direction/priorities would be like if the employees of a non-profit had a union which could force the non-profit to change from planting trees to something unrelated like washing dogs.

Who's forcing anyone? If the company doesn't want to play ball they are free to hire replacements when the workers strike. If the workers don't care enough to risk their jobs over it then their bluff has been called.

If the company does play ball and the shareholders don't like it they are free to elect a new board or sell their shares.

Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by whimsicalism on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @01:46PM (#25751455)
> Otherwise the employees may end up disagreeing with a decision that the shareholders voted on and that seems like a recipe for a bad situation.

Yes, this is where negotiation between owners & the union comes in. Sometimes reality can disagree with a decision shareholders voted on and that is okay.

Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by kaba0 on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @12:48PM (#25750465)
And that’s why the Earth will collapse on humanity, growth over everything else..

Money is not the only value here, so I don’t see why it has precedence over what other’s find valuable?

Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by ta76893548 on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @01:01PM (#25750691)
This is not my area of expertise so I could be 100% wrong, but the idea is basically you have to do what you've advertised to your shareholder that you're doing so growth is valued in a C corp over everything else because that's what the shareholders want and expect. If you want your company to value something over money you could establish a non-profit or a B corp and that's equally acceptable, but you can't just decide one day that growth isn't the primary goal of a C corp because then you've misled your shareholders. The same way if you established a non-profit or B corp with a specific social purpose and then decided to prioritize growth over accomplishing that social purpose, that would be misleading your donors/shareholders
Re:Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues by kaba0 on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @02:10PM (#25751831)
But doing things the way in line with what is “acceptable” for your employees could be seen as a cost that should be substracted from the profits as any other cost is. I don’t see why would it be bad? We already don’t do things like working children (unfortunately we still do it in third world countries) and the like, even though it could increase margins.