Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

currentaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#51

Post by eropple »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #40
eropple wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only MLB is a monopoly.

Can you expand on that? It seems like the NFL and NBA are also monopolies. I can't think of any organization, even worldwide, that could compete in their sports. There is arena football, but that is a laughable alternative to the NFL. The top foreign pros play in the NBA, they do not stay in their home leagues. It seems a lot like there is no choice of where to play for top pros in these sports, which makes them a mo…

I mean that MLB is a legally-granted monopoly in the United States. They literally have an antitrust exemption.

The NBA is the biggest game in town, but that's a question of money and I see some movement on that front. I expect to see the Chinese leagues start spending a lot more money in the near future, and Euroleague is starting to pay some players salaries that are significant even compared to the NBA (this year, Mirotic basically got what the Jazz would have offered him, after you take into account lifestyle perks and the like that come from Euroleague--and nobody in the NBA is giving Alexey Shved $4mil). The NFL is arguably closer to a monopoly but they're having a competitor to it launched next year in the re-launched XFL. Salary numbers aren't out there AFAIK, but there it's a billionaires-being-billionaires game of "what's your pain tolerance?".

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#52

Post by throwawaysea »

What are the obligations of a US corporation when a vote for unionization is successful? Do all employees get opted in? Is it always required to be hiring exclusive to the union? What makes unions different (needing specialized legislation) from corporations - why can’t employees wanting to unionize just go form their own corporation and try to sell their services on their own terms that way.

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#53

Post by fzeroracer »

pmikesell wrote: post #35

I worry that tech workers may be under-informed about what a union may mean. A union can be in many ways similar to a corporation with its own power structure and demands. Just 4 examples from my time in a union shop: 1) Pay raise and promotion via seniority only 2) Being warned by the shop steward that I was "working too fast" 3) Heavy coercion to contribute to specific political candidates 4) Going on strike for re…

As a thought experiment though: Why do we allow corporations to exist then, if we actively oppose unions for behaving in the same way as corporations?

You draw a straight parallel between union behavior and corporate behavior. By that same argument then, I will argue that if unions are bad, corporations are bad for the same reason and corporations should be abolished.

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#54

Post by fzeroracer »

I find it interesting that Kickstarter decided to go this route. It debunks the claims in the earlier HN thread [1] that the employees were fired due to performance reasons or somehow, conspiracy against Kickstarter.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972901

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#55

Post by theamk »

I don't understand:

Nathan: "Would not voluntarily recognize a union even if the vast majority of workers signed in support of one."

The CEO's statement he referenced: " If a majority of the staff in an appropriate bargaining unit votes in favor of a union in an NLRB election, we will fully respect that choice and negotiate in good faith toward a collective bargaining agreement."

Those statements seem to be opposite of each other?

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#56

Post by theamk »

unreal37 wrote: post #39
pmikesell wrote: post #35

I worry that tech workers may be under-informed about what a union may mean. A union can be in many ways similar to a corporation with its own power structure and demands. Just 4 examples from my time in a union shop: 1) Pay raise and promotion via seniority only 2) Being warned by the shop steward that I was "working too fast" 3) Heavy coercion to contribute to specific political candidates 4) Going on strike for re…

Unions have their own goals that are more than just "the interests of Kickstarter employees". So in fact, there will be times when issues are important to Kickstarter employees but are not important to their union. Or important to the union but not very many employees. And then what?

I thought the whole point of unions was to represent interests of employees? If the Kickstarter employees' issues are not important to their union, why would they unionize?

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#57

Post by pmiller2 »

derekp7 wrote: post #50
pmikesell wrote: post #35

I worry that tech workers may be under-informed about what a union may mean. A union can be in many ways similar to a corporation with its own power structure and demands. Just 4 examples from my time in a union shop: 1) Pay raise and promotion via seniority only 2) Being warned by the shop steward that I was "working too fast" 3) Heavy coercion to contribute to specific political candidates 4) Going on strike for re…

What about unions that are more like a trade guild, which sets standards for its members which make dealing with a union member more of a known quantity than hiring a random person off the street? I'm thinking of things like a union electrician or plumber. This could serve to minimize the need for interview gimmicks, since the union itself would enforce standards through its own certification process.

Seems like that just shifts the song and dance from the interview process to the certification process.

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#58

Post by Mathnerd314 »

theamk wrote: post #55

I don't understand: Nathan: "Would not voluntarily recognize a union even if the vast majority of workers signed in support of one." The CEO's statement he referenced: " If a majority of the staff in an appropriate bargaining unit votes in favor of a union in an NLRB election, we will fully respect that choice and negotiate in good faith toward a collective bargaining agreement." Those statements seem to be opposite…

NLRB elections have a lot of requirements. E.g. the NRLB has been back and forth on whether graduate students can form a union: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/20/nlrb-rev... If everything goes smoothly it takes a month or two: https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/coll...

NRLB elections are legally binding, so the CEO statement there is basically "we will follow the law".

The process Nathan is referring to is something a lot less formal where they pass around a petition to form a union and it gets a bunch of signatures. Not recognizing such a petition is consistent with Kickstarter's stance of not supporting unions.

Apparently there's also a 50% rule where if 50% sign authorization cards for the union then they can ask to be recognized directly (https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/authorization-card/), but nobody seems to be discussing that, probably because actual support for the union is low and getting even the 30% for an election will be difficult. In May there were 28 public supporters (https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/evjb47/workers-accuse-kic...), but KS has 152 employees so they'd need 18 more employees just for an election.

Re: Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance

#60

Post by evgen »

theamk wrote: post #56
unreal37 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions have their own goals that are more than just "the interests of Kickstarter employees". So in fact, there will be times when issues are important to Kickstarter employees but are not important to their union. Or important to the union but not very many employees. And then what?

I thought the whole point of unions was to represent interests of employees? If the Kickstarter employees' issues are not important to their union, why would they unionize?

The Kickstarter employees can create a “Union of Kickstarter Employees” and then try to build the negotiating and benefits infrastructure themselves, or they can join a much larger union and get the benefits of shared infrastructure. The benefit of the former is that it will be hyper-focussed on the needs of that group but it will cost more and probably be a lot less effective. A larger union costs each employee less and gives them a lot more “muscle” when it becomes necessary to negotiate but the downside is that they are one small group among many when it comes to setting overall policy or goals.

Think of a union as a business whose job is to protect employees and provide them with some benefits. Some unions will be giants with horrible customer service and corporate goals that seem to be more about self-perpetuation and some unions will be smaller and more focussed on the needs of a specific industry. Each type serves different needs.

Post reply on HN