Sad about losing Google Reader? Spare a thought for the blogs you had listed on it

Which blogs will lose out?

Google announced last night that it will be shutting down its RSS feed, Google Reader, in a couple of months. It was an unpopular decision. On twitter the black smoke rising from Google obsured most other news - "Google Reader" reached the top of worldwide trends, even with a new pope elected - and every tweet was outraged.

Some of these outraged twitter users were clearly hoping that their disappointment might make Google change their minds. After all, it's a user-influenced feature - no? Well no. At least, not enough of one:

"We know Reader has a devoted following who will be very sad to see it go," said Google's Alan Green on the Google Reader blog. "We're sad too ... as a company we’re pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience."

The thing that we're all finding it hard to grasp, as Alex Kranowitz over at Forbes points out, is that Google was never ours. As flies to wanton boys are we to Google software engineers; they kill us for their sport. He writes:

We are all participants in a user driven Internet, but we are still just the users, nothing more. No matter how much work we put in to optimize our online presences, our tools and our experiences, we are still at the mercy of big companies controlling the platforms we operate on. When they don’t like what’s happening, even if we do, they can make whatever call they want. And Wednesday night, Google made theirs.

Bottom line, we shouldn't have let ourselves get so comfortable. Even with the big, stable companies like Google, the online landscape can shift under our feet with very little warning.

But life goes on, and after the various stages of mourning, we'll all find another RSS feed to use. The real losers here will be blog publishers. Blog publishers shouldn't have got comfortable either. As today's news suggests, building any sort of strategy on the existence of a feature provided by companies like Google is a major flaw.  Marginal Revolution reckons the blogs that will be harmed most are the infrequent blogs (which don't show appear in searches so frequently, and which you might not visit on a regular basis), and those with a lot of ads, like Forbes (where every lost hit costs). But then it's hard not to build strategies on features run by online behemouths, because they have the power to hugely influence how well you do. Bloggers are in a sticky situation.

The decision was made, according to Google, because "usage has declined" - but it's difficult not to see the decision as Google flexing its muscles, showing publishers just how much power it has. They'll have to take their chances with Google search and Google news now. 

Google Reader is closing down. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.