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

Mapbox Workers Union

mapboxworkersunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#11

Post by confused_corbin »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #8
confused_corbin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a private company, they are literally investors in it, with the least liquidity and information. Are you anti stock option / RSU or something?

I don't follow your point. Could you elaborate?

I am an investor in the companies I work for. Everyone in the union is an investor. The voting model and incentives have gotten increasingly more abusive and fucked up. Shit like the loans against equity, debt rounds, and so many other things are there to fuck over the people actually doing the work, to benefit the people laundering money. I've yet to see a private company fulfill even their basic stockholder duties to their shareholders who are also employees.

Go dig up uber's sheets, or look into what happened at zynga, or hundreds of other places.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#12

Post by kdamica »

confused_corbin wrote: post #11
CryptoPunk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your point. Could you elaborate?

I am an investor in the companies I work for. Everyone in the union is an investor. The voting model and incentives have gotten increasingly more abusive and fucked up. Shit like the loans against equity, debt rounds, and so many other things are there to fuck over the people actually doing the work, to benefit the people laundering money. I've yet to see a private company fulfill even their basic stockholder duties…

Aren't debt rounds good because there's no dilution? How are they worse than selling new shares? (Genuinely curious)

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#13

Post by CryptoPunk »

confused_corbin wrote: post #10
CryptoPunk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What collusion are you referring to? There was one case I am familiar with, from several years back, where tech giants had a gentlemen's agreement to not cold call each other's employee AT work to recruit them. It seems to be an outlier, and pretty mild as far as collusion goes. Competition amongst tech employers for workers is actually very intense, which produced the arms race in tech talent and corresponding salar…

wtf, you can't be that stupid. They were and are fixing salaries. They were explicitly turning away people in addition to failing to go after people they should have. Executive salaries are going up, particularly in exits, IC salaries aren't. It wasn't and isn't the outlier, it is openly talked about. Corporations have no natural rights, those are for individuals.

It's better if you don't insult people and just provide a source.

Also, you didn't address my main objection to what's happening in this situation.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#14

Post by CryptoPunk »

confused_corbin wrote: post #11
CryptoPunk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your point. Could you elaborate?

I am an investor in the companies I work for. Everyone in the union is an investor. The voting model and incentives have gotten increasingly more abusive and fucked up. Shit like the loans against equity, debt rounds, and so many other things are there to fuck over the people actually doing the work, to benefit the people laundering money. I've yet to see a private company fulfill even their basic stockholder duties…

If what you say is true, you should be able to convince shareholders/investors to require the workforce of the companies they own shares in to be unionized. There is no justification to back laws that limit the contracting rights of the employers. Such advocacy is based on a "I know better, so I will dictate your choices" principle.

And I would bet that companies that see their workforce unionize see a drop in market performance, across all dimensions: revenue, profits, innovation, etc. And I would make that bet in the market, and you would stand to make money off of me if you bet the opposite and were right.

But the labor laws as they stand don't allow these varying models to compete freely. As soon as a company's workforce unionizes, it receives regulatory protection from dismissal, and has the power to suppress the employer's contract freedom, by forcing it to forego negotiating with any party not in the union.

It's a situation that's ripe for abuse, and rampant abuse has occurred in such situations over the past century, as unions suck shareholders dry.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#15

Post by cinntaile »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #4

These workers have just obtained regulatory privilege that shields them from competition from other people who may want to apply for their positions, while allowing them to exploit MapBox's investors by suppressing their contracting rights in deciding who to hire. Of course, ideological hocus pocus is needed to obfuscate the exploitive nature of regulation-entrenched unions, so you get statements like this: >>Our ope…

You're giving this the most negative interpretation you can because of your own ideological bias. That's not particularly helpful.

Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#16

Post by CryptoPunk »

cinntaile wrote: post #15
CryptoPunk wrote: post #4

These workers have just obtained regulatory privilege that shields them from competition from other people who may want to apply for their positions, while allowing them to exploit MapBox's investors by suppressing their contracting rights in deciding who to hire. Of course, ideological hocus pocus is needed to obfuscate the exploitive nature of regulation-entrenched unions, so you get statements like this: >>Our ope…

You're giving this the most negative interpretation you can because of your own ideological bias. That's not particularly helpful. Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard.

I am biased against restrictions on people's right to freely interact, and that includes people acting in the capacity of an employer.

It's perfectly reasonable to be highly critical of something one views as a violation of human rights.

My comment is also a valuable contribution to the public discourse, because it describes the poorly understood mechanism by which unions derive their power, which is regulatory restrictions preventing people outside of the union from competing on a level playing field with people within the union.

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#17

Post by cinntaile »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #16
cinntaile wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're giving this the most negative interpretation you can because of your own ideological bias. That's not particularly helpful. Perhaps internal changes at the company are no longer benefiting employees and the employees feel that they need to team up to get heard.

I am biased against restrictions on people's right to freely interact, and that includes people acting in the capacity of an employer. It's perfectly reasonable to be highly critical of something one views as a violation of human rights. My comment is also a valuable contribution to the public discourse, because it describes the poorly understood mechanism by which unions derive their power, which is regulatory restr…

I don't know what the right to freely interact is, where is this defined somewhere? An employer is a collection of people, so is a union. Why is only one of those allowed to "freely interact"?

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#18

Post by throwawaysea »

From their FAQ:

> Additionally, we will reserve the individual right to refuse to work on any projects that conflict with a worker’s ethics and to do so without fear of reprisal; as well as the ability to deny service to any customer completely if put to a majority vote by the workers.

This union's landing page already reads like a desire to bring progressive politics into the workplace, a disturbing trend throughout the tech industry that is completely inappropriate and needs to stop. But this portion from their FAQ goes even beyond that, basically saying they want to control business decision making based on their personal ethics and politics, but without any consequence. Put another way, they basically want to take control of the company and create a new management structure that supplants the existing one. Maybe they should just go do the hard work of leaving and forming their own company, instead of engaging in a long march through the institution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_insti...).

Re: Mapbox Workers Union

#19

Post by grasshopperpurp »

throwawaysea wrote: post #18

From their FAQ: > Additionally, we will reserve the individual right to refuse to work on any projects that conflict with a worker’s ethics and to do so without fear of reprisal; as well as the ability to deny service to any customer completely if put to a majority vote by the workers. This union's landing page already reads like a desire to bring progressive politics into the workplace, a disturbing trend throughout…

>Put another way, they basically want to take control of the company and create a new management structure that supplants the existing one.

Why do you think unions exist?

Post reply on HN