Hey Google — Navigate To Wigan Pier

A fundamental issue with progressivism is the constant need for progress. Of course, there are always issues that warrant progress, but what happens when the wars for a cause have been won, and there is little left to fight for? Progressivism as an ideology is noble on its face, but it becomes hard to watch when it seems to want to fight the wrong battles. It is troubling to witness some of the most entitled people in the world — who should also consider themselves some of the luckiest — continue to push ideas for no other reason than their inclusion in the current ideology. Ideas, and often bad ideas, can become entrenched in a particular movement whereby followers seem to adhere to them dogmatically. Lately, unionization, especially in industries where it seems unnecessary, has become one of those dogmatic ideas. It has become commonplace for various sectors to look for unionization and left-leaning representatives to advocate for it. Though they certainly have their utility, they also tend to come with their problems. We see this every day with the drama unfolding in Chicago and San Francisco. More recently, it’s the tech industry that is turning to the labor movement. Now I have a dog in this fight, and it is a battle I intend to win.

About eight years ago, after five years as a software engineer at a large, established company, I thought it was time to venture into the free market and see what other opportunities were available. For a young engineer with real-world experience, it would not be wrong to say that opportunities were plentiful. After interviewing at multiple, interesting, rapidly growing businesses, I landed at a young fin-tech start-up breaking ground in the crypto space. The benefits, pay, and stock options were fantastic, but not for those reasons this would turn out to be one of the best decisions I ever made. I came in an entitled, over-confident 26-year-old and within the first three months, my lack of knowledge humbled me to the point of embarrassment. My coworkers were brilliant engineers. To this day, their mentorship continues to influence my decision-making and work quality. After a couple of years of growth and honing my skills, I decided I wanted a change of scenery. At the time, remote work was not as mainstream, but not knowing which city I wanted to land in, I sought remote opportunities. This was a more challenging search, but luckily by this point, my professional growth allowed me to find my current company, and four years later, I still find myself there today.

I tell this story not to gloat; I am blessed to have chosen the career path I have for many reasons. I know I am endlessly lucky to be in the position I am in, and I would never portray otherwise. Instead, I wanted to set the background for why I think the new push in the technology space for unionizing is absurd.

Let’s take a real broad, general view of job markets. You have a valuable skill, and a potential employer requires that skill. To retain the most talented employees, a company is incentivized to offer high-grade working conditions. Likewise, the employee is incentivized to enhance their skill set to increase their potential opportunities. In theory, this “incentivization cycle” enhances the job market by employers competing to keep talent and employees competing with their skill sets.

This theory falls apart when one of these pieces does not have the proper incentivization. This is where unionizing is valuable. When employers are not adequately incentivized to treat their employees properly, a union could be a useful tool to entice them to start.

Software engineering, however, does not have this problem. In my story above, through the market, I was able to find jobs that fit my current desires. Those companies were also able to provide sufficient incentives to keep the brilliant engineers who became my mentors. Without them, I would not be half the engineer I am today. The market then incentivized me to continue to grow my skills to advance my career and become desirable in the job market. The more I grew, the more leverage I had. It also incentivized companies to provide the kind of benefits I was looking for, or at least be willing to negotiate. It was up to me to make this possible. If unions were commonplace in my industry, I am confident it would not have been nearly as lush with opportunities.

So, what is the AWU (Alphabet Workers Union)? Why on earth would employees at Google feel it necessary to unionize? They are among the most privileged, blessed, fortunate workers in the country. Their pay is among the best in the industry, alongside their benefits. So, why do these engineers feel they need to band together as a voice against Google? With multitudes of growing tech companies competing for candidates, it seems detrimental to include yourself. If I were employed at Google and asked to join the AWU, I know I would emphatically decline.

The reasons for this are simple. I have more leverage individually. Free market economics work great in this case. I have more power to negotiate based on my skills than I would in a group. Not only this, but my career is entirely up to me and not tied to forces outside my control. My hard work alone will decide my future, not the average of many. Also, as an engineer, opportunities are not scarce. If I perceive that other companies will treat me better, or I prefer how executives run it, I can explore them based on my wants. I am never obligated to work at a company, and they are never obligated to keep me. I should stay because I feel it is best for me, and they should keep me because it is best for them.

Work conditions clearly not playing a role shines a light on the AWU’s primary goal. Since they have little need for bargaining and proper incentives exist on both sides in this equation, it’s undeniable they created this union as a form of activism rather than to negotiate collectively. If Google behaves in ways that these union members consider ‘immoral,’ they can speak up and urge ‘correct’ behavior. They essentially become an ideological watchdog, making sure Google never strays from what these members consider ‘righteous.’

The audacity in the perceived entitlement with this thinking, to me, is stunning. What on earth would make them feel that is part of — or even appropriate behavior for — their jobs? A large part of an executive’s role in a company is to do precisely this. They have to weigh a large set of factors — most likely with information only available to them — to make decisions that are best for all aspects of the company. They have to do what is good for the business but also simultaneously weigh how their choices will look publicly. If the company does not make the right decisions, it will no longer be a business. If it is no longer a business, your activism against it will be all for naught. This activism is only possible because of years of successful leadership and Google’s extraordinary success. To create an entity, disguise it as a ‘union,’ and then feel it within your discretion to bully the company to follow your (most likely) naive alternative, to me, is preposterous. Where are the adults in the room to stop this madness?

What is equally frustrating is claiming this is a ‘union’ at all. On its face, calling this a union is disrespectful for proper and necessary ones — jobs with actual tumultuous working conditions where employees had to fight tooth and nail for appropriate treatment. Make no mistake, there are very few (if any) workers treated better than those at Google. They are not banding together to increase their working conditions. On the contrary, if Google did bargain with them — which they currently don’t have to — they would probably get worse outcomes than they do now.

These engineers have endless choices on the free market, not to mention the skill set to start their own companies. Many employees are currently happy at Google without a union, but if not, they are free to leave or start a business and decide its culture. I know that’s difficult, but those are the hardships of company building. Decisions are complex, and there are always trade-offs. It would probably do some of these union workers good to start something and see how hard it is.

Unionizing has its utility, but when does it not? Given everything I know from my experience, I would say Google software engineers feeling it is appropriate is a prime example. In fact, unionizing here, I think, will be detrimental to the unions that need the delineation. As a software engineer, I will die on this hill that our industry unionizing is not only extraordinarily entitled, but it is arrogant, self-indulgent, and just plain stupid. It is frustrating to no end that these ‘activists’ think it is their responsibility to hold their employer accountable when it could not be further from their job description.

If these AWU members really wanted to hold Google accountable, there is one thing I think they could do: leave. If enough talented engineers did that after particular decisions, leadership would take notice. But of course, they will not. Everything else is so wonderful there. They clearly want more influence in big decisions. Instead of working hard and climbing the ladder to become part of leadership to be part of those decisions, they decide it is more efficient to form a union and inject themselves that way. No one is keeping them there, and no one claims they can not build something of their own. This is Google employees declaring they know what is better for the company than the people who currently run it. In my opinion, this is delusional, and the adults need to step in and stop tolerating this behavior. I have heard rumblings of it in my company, and I emphatically denounced the prospect. I will not join. I want to control my leverage myself. If I no longer trust the CEO’s leadership, I am free to leave and seek new opportunities. Claiming that collectively as a group of engineers, we can make better decisions than leadership is entitlement to the grossest degree. I want my hard work to be the driver of my success, and if these AWU members had any sense, they would too. Bullying your way to force your ideology, in my eyes, is a form of tyranny, and we need to stop allowing them to get away with it.