I find it a bit offensive that you assume Google employees can only comprehend the simplest language, and it’s coincidentally the language handed to them from on high by Google themselves. (Ah. Dot ML.)
But let’s assume you’re correct, and engage in a little creativity to simplify employee complaints in order to make it have fewer loopholes.
Employees pushing back on the deal are concerned that it could open the door for Google’s technology [could] be used for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of American citizens.
I’ve been in tech labor organizing for 8 years at this point. I know written documents matter pretty much nothing for organizing, let alone tech workers organizing. And yes, tech workers need a simple language.
The statement you’ve written is very good to argue on the internet, but it closes any avenue for picking winnable issues in the real world. If the original one sets a clear, achievable goal (canceling a new contract), the one you wrote prevents any kind of realistic demand and sets an unachievable goal for a newly formed union.
I guess we’re moving on from the topic of employee understanding on to the topic of negotiation.
On concession: Do they really need to concede to Google talking point verbatim? Why not argue for three gaping loopholes instead of four? Why not add a fifth to smooth things over? Or (even better): in order to differentiate themselves from every AI company that has the same fake “red line” doctrine, they could omit it altogether.
because these statements are instrumental to building power. They are not a draft of a negotiation proposal. They are a galvanizing message for workers, not a formal demand. Without power, formal demands are pointless. To build power, clarity, concreteness and directness beats idealism, rigour and formalism every day.
Okay… Guess we aren’t talking about concessions or simplicity now… Moving on to a new point, 3/3?
If the statements aren’t used for negotiation purposes, then they should be much clearer and not tow the Google line, right?
The formal “red line” doctrine is intentionally unclear and based on the idealist belief that AI will somehow become super powerful. Meanwhile a statement without big holes is more concrete, and less shaky wording makes it more direct.
Google tech can be used for weapons and surveillance (and are) right now and without AI. If the union wanted that to be their line in the sand then their jobs would cease to exist
Do you just propose the union just adopt Google’s exact stance on this? Are you willing to accept a weaker one? A much weaker one, perhaps? Where do you draw your lines?
I propose that the union membership itself knows a fuck a lot better than I do do I’m not gonna not pick specifics I don’t personally like with THEIR negotiating position
I find it a bit offensive that you assume Google employees can only comprehend the simplest language, and it’s coincidentally the language handed to them from on high by Google themselves. (Ah. Dot ML.)
But let’s assume you’re correct, and engage in a little creativity to simplify employee complaints in order to make it have fewer loopholes.
12 fewer words, 4 fewer loopholes (preexisting surveillance, semi autonomous weapons, selective surveillance, foreign mass surveillance).
I’ve been in tech labor organizing for 8 years at this point. I know written documents matter pretty much nothing for organizing, let alone tech workers organizing. And yes, tech workers need a simple language.
The statement you’ve written is very good to argue on the internet, but it closes any avenue for picking winnable issues in the real world. If the original one sets a clear, achievable goal (canceling a new contract), the one you wrote prevents any kind of realistic demand and sets an unachievable goal for a newly formed union.
I guess we’re moving on from the topic of employee understanding on to the topic of negotiation.
On concession: Do they really need to concede to Google talking point verbatim? Why not argue for three gaping loopholes instead of four? Why not add a fifth to smooth things over? Or (even better): in order to differentiate themselves from every AI company that has the same fake “red line” doctrine, they could omit it altogether.
because these statements are instrumental to building power. They are not a draft of a negotiation proposal. They are a galvanizing message for workers, not a formal demand. Without power, formal demands are pointless. To build power, clarity, concreteness and directness beats idealism, rigour and formalism every day.
Okay… Guess we aren’t talking about concessions or simplicity now… Moving on to a new point, 3/3?
If the statements aren’t used for negotiation purposes, then they should be much clearer and not tow the Google line, right?
The formal “red line” doctrine is intentionally unclear and based on the idealist belief that AI will somehow become super powerful. Meanwhile a statement without big holes is more concrete, and less shaky wording makes it more direct.
Google tech can be used for weapons and surveillance (and are) right now and without AI. If the union wanted that to be their line in the sand then their jobs would cease to exist
Do you just propose the union just adopt Google’s exact stance on this? Are you willing to accept a weaker one? A much weaker one, perhaps? Where do you draw your lines?
I propose that the union membership itself knows a fuck a lot better than I do do I’m not gonna not pick specifics I don’t personally like with THEIR negotiating position
You were just speaking on their behalf…
Newp
Who said “If the union wanted that to be their line in the sand then their jobs would cease to exist”?
Me. That was a statement of fact
Provide a citation from the union that knows better than you to back up your opinion, please