Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like your job requires no talent and you could be easily replaced. Is it so?
Just because there are other people out there who can do the same job as you (or them) doesn't mean that it takes no skill, nor that replacing them can be done at a snap of the fingers. But nobody is irreplaceable. That's how companies see their employees. Even you.
Of course everyone deserves a raise and I do hope they get everything they're asking for, but some people are more easily replaceable than others and in this case there might just be nothing stopping them from being replaced. It sucks, but Google isn't technically required to negotiate.
So? The whole point of organizing is that under capitalism, corporations hold way more bargaining power than individuals. Pointing out that a corporation isn't "required" to cooperate is basically a non-statement.
That's a very defeatist attitude. In this case Google can just sign the contract to another company, but unions do work historically.
They "work historically" because workers fought "illegally" for years for the rights and protections that exist today. I don't understand how this is defeatist. I'm all for worker power, and I'm glad these people are trying to push the needle further.
Pointing out that the current state of the law isn't on their side is either "defeatist" because it has some implicit is/ought bias or implies that they won't change anything, or it's meaningless because they already know what they're fighting against.