• Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • thejevans@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That's a very defeatist attitude. In this case Google can just sign the contract to another company, but unions do work historically.

          • thejevans@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.