Everyone got so caught up in the unionization narrative that they didn't even read the details of the union in the first place. Specifically, this union isn't the kind of union with collective bargaining rights, which is what most people assume when they see the word "union".
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/04/google-...
> The Alphabet Workers Union will push for change without traditional collective bargaining rights.
This pseudo-union is more like a Discord group of 100-200 Google employees who will try to influence change together, without actually forming a traditional union.
The model of unionism you reference isn't universal or even the most common cross culturally. Even within the US, pre-New Deal minority unionism was the dominant form of worker organization.
That sounds very much like condescendingly downplaying the seriousness of affiliation as something they should not be worrying about, when in fact it is something that the members are concerned about.
> In a statement, AWU executive council member Auni Ahsan said: “We want to honor the concerns that have been raised, but our primary focus as a union isn’t affiliation or disaffiliation.”
> After the article came out, however, multiple AWU members told The Verge they were blindsided by the news. A Google worker in Europe also said they hadn’t known about the announcement, but noted they typically don’t find out about union news before it becomes public.
> Uni told The Verge that McEnany was “very involved” in the alliance, and during the meeting, McEnany acknowledged he was partly to blame — he’d told Uni to attribute the quote to Koul.
So... just your standard communications mixups? I mean, if the journalist has to quote a Googler who didn't know about the announcement but admits they don't typically get non-public union announcements anyways... it tells me there isn't much here.
This doesn't really seem like "turmoil" to me, but more of a journalist trying to create a sensationalistic narrative.