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

Fastmail Employees Form a Union

union.place

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 303 posts

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#21

Post by thadt »

Freak_NL wrote: post #7

As a Fastmail customer: great! More power to them. If anything, any negative reaction by Fastmail, the corporation will act as a signal for me to start thinking about moving away. You know a company is morally bankrupt if they fight their employees unionizing. I don't think Fastmail will do that though.

As a Fastmail customer (and software developer who is unfamiliar with how unions would/will work in this space), why would I not already be concerned? My first impression is "man, they must not be treating their employees that well if they decided they needed to bring in a third party to help them negotiate."

However - I'm not well versed in this area and willing to learn - why is this a 'good' sign?

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#22

Post by coldpie »

jedberg wrote: post #8
mattl wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because if an employer already treats you well it just adds unneeded bureaucracy. I'm a big fan of unions, but I'm also a big fan of treating employees well. I would hope that my employees would never feel the need to unionize because I already hear their feedback and give them the benefits they want. Unions create an adversarial relationship between labor and management. That shouldn't be necessary if labor and mana…

Regardless of how adversarial it is, all work relationships are contractual negotiations. Without a union, one side of the equation has a boatload of money and expertise, and the other side is... you. Unions are about balancing that equation.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#23

Post by pseudalopex »

mrweasel wrote: post #13
mattl wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because they shouldn't start their own union. Unions are across companies, having a single union for a single company doesn't make much sense. Take the UAW, they don't just cover General Motor, they cover all workers in that sector, giving them more power and influence. It's the same with a Star Bucks union, that's silly and not cost effective. You have a "restaurants (and cafe's)"- union. Take McDonalds, they have a…

The Fastmail workers formed a local branch of the Communications Workers of America.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#24

Post by mvexel »

LinkedIn says Fastmail has 116 U.S. based employees. I may be completely off base here, but if you're that small an org and employees feel the need to form a union, wouldn't that indicate a significant problem with company culture?

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#25

Post by jedberg »

Scoundreller wrote: post #14
jedberg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if an employer already treats you well it just adds unneeded bureaucracy. I'm a big fan of unions, but I'm also a big fan of treating employees well. I would hope that my employees would never feel the need to unionize because I already hear their feedback and give them the benefits they want. Unions create an adversarial relationship between labor and management. That shouldn't be necessary if labor and mana…

> Unions create an adversarial relationship between labor and management Isn’t there still an adversarial relationship between non-union labor and management? So the story goes: Management wants to pay as little as possible for the most work and labor wants to get paid as much as possible for the least amount of work?

> Management wants to pay as little as possible for the most work and labor wants to get paid as much as possible for the least amount of work?

Well for example, at Netflix, management specifically paid extra for good labor and offered interesting problems, and in return we did extra work because we were motivated by the interesting problems and the great co-workers.

And at Google back in the day, they gave significantly more benefits than necessary to attract great talent.

So no, I'd say it's possible to create a non-adversarial workplace. The trick is keeping it that way as it grows, which is usually when unions come in.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#26

Post by EA-3167 »

nightski wrote: post #10
righthand wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because software workers should start looking to form unions as large companies take to stagnate wages with large hire/layoff cycles that flood the employment market.

You can't unionize your way to a better economy, that's not how that works.

You can unionize your way to a bigger share of the profits, and better working conditions.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#27

Post by coldpie »

thadt wrote: post #21
Freak_NL wrote: post #7

As a Fastmail customer: great! More power to them. If anything, any negative reaction by Fastmail, the corporation will act as a signal for me to start thinking about moving away. You know a company is morally bankrupt if they fight their employees unionizing. I don't think Fastmail will do that though.

As a Fastmail customer (and software developer who is unfamiliar with how unions would/will work in this space), why would I not already be concerned? My first impression is "man, they must not be treating their employees that well if they decided they needed to bring in a third party to help them negotiate." However - I'm not well versed in this area and willing to learn - why is this a 'good' sign?

Unions don't always indicate there is a problem in need of solving. It's just a group of employees agreeing to bargain collectively with their employer, which helps balance out the negotiation power between employees and the employer and creates a stable, well-defined employment relationship.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#28

Post by ath3nd »

nightski wrote: post #10
righthand wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because software workers should start looking to form unions as large companies take to stagnate wages with large hire/layoff cycles that flood the employment market.

You can't unionize your way to a better economy, that's not how that works.

You actually can!

If the government doesn't protect your wages, you are left at the mercy and greed of capital. I can guarantee you that means you will be thrown under the bus the first opportunity they see fit, as soon as it makes a financial sense.

Look at the avalanche of layoffs that started with Twitter. Now the market is flooded with engineers, which makes our individual bargaining position worse. Employers notice this, and decide to stagnate your wages, saying: "well, there are many unemployed people that will be glad to be hired, just be happy you still have a job".

All of this is happening in the background of them racking in record profits and awarding their c-suite tremendous bonuses. And you are supposed to be grateful for the scraps. Does that seem fair? The government is too slow and pressured by lobbyists to act, and you are on your own.

By the way, the current cost of living crisis and the insane levels of inflation were both caused by the corporations' greed and the government's inability (or incentives to turn a blind eye) to curb them.

The mega corps used every excuse under the sun to increase their prices AND to fire people: bad macroeconomic situations, the wars in Ukraine/Palestine, high price of energy, and in that way they drove inflation up and unemployment up (thereby reducing the cost of labor). But when it comes to your salary, they don't care, as if you yourself are not impacted by inflation or layoffs.

Luckily, with unions, together, we are strong, and can at least partially retaliate to corporate greed. If anything, it's the unions that can bring the economy back, by allowing a reasonable salary for their middle class members. Thereby they are keeping funds within the country and not allowing the funds to be diverted towards the 1%'s offshore accounts. This is why, contrary to what you claimed, you can unionize to a fairer, better economy, and this is EXACTLY how it works.

Great for Fastmail employees!

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#29

Post by user3939382 »

mfer wrote: post #6

Unions are fascinating to me. When you are in a Union, part of your money goes to the union in order to, hopefully, make things better for you. This means the relationship between Union leadership and the Union members is just as important as between Union leadership and the company. Historically, we have seen Unions bring things like worker safety to the forefront and do numerous things to help people out. More rece…

What we need are Unions Squared. It’s a union for the union. If the first level union isn’t fighting for the workers they lose their membership. But… what if the second level union fails…

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#30

Post by jedberg »

coldpie wrote: post #22
jedberg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if an employer already treats you well it just adds unneeded bureaucracy. I'm a big fan of unions, but I'm also a big fan of treating employees well. I would hope that my employees would never feel the need to unionize because I already hear their feedback and give them the benefits they want. Unions create an adversarial relationship between labor and management. That shouldn't be necessary if labor and mana…

Regardless of how adversarial it is, all work relationships are contractual negotiations. Without a union, one side of the equation has a boatload of money and expertise, and the other side is... you. Unions are about balancing that equation.

Sometimes employers use that money and expertise for good by figuring out ways to get employees extra benefits, for example inventing the 10 year option, which costs the company more but is better for the employee.

When two people who get along negotiate a contract they don't need lawyers if they aren't trying to take advantage of the other party.

Post reply on HN