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

81–90 of 303 posts

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#81

Post by carlosjobim »

capitol_ wrote: post #51
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…

That could be a long play from the employer side to disincentivize the workers from joining forming/joining a union.

Is the goal to improve wages and conditions for workers or is the goal that everybody's in a union? If companies improve wages and conditions for workers to deter then from forming or joining a union, then there is no need for a union. Unless you've fallen for partisan faith.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#82

Post by elicash »

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?

The decision to unionize isn't about a "third party." It's a decision to negotiate collectively versus individually. Collectively you have more bargaining power, it's a pretty straightforward and obvious calculation.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#83

Post by 8ytecoder »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #70
coldpie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I struggle to imagine a scenario where employees would unionize despite already feeling like they are treated fairly. The union/employer relationship is inherently hostile. The whole idea is that unionized employees can threaten production/profits as negotiation leverage. Choosing that path means the employees have already given up on cooperation based on goodwill. It must take a very sour relationship to reach that…

That’s a very US centric view. It’s quite common to join unions in most European countries. It does not indicate mistreatment at all. In the US, unionisation happens when all else has failed.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#84

Post by dboreham »

mvexel wrote: post #24

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?

> Fastmail has 116 U.S. based employees

Wow. Considering they're not a US-based company this seems amazing (yes, I'm aware that unicorn startups need a zillion people because...reasons, but this is Fastmail not a unicorn).

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#85

Post by sneeze-slayer »

I am a software engineer who used to work in a "unionized" workplace. It was quite nice, and the union would negotiate increases in time off and fight against policy changes that were worse for us. The union leaders were elected every few years (very important IMO) and the union was only within the (rather large) company; there was no affiliation with a larger union.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zbyte64 wrote: post #61
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also cost in coordination and agility--this is fundamentally true of any new bureaucracy, company, system or process. I'm reading this as a sign of cultural stress unless we have evidence to the contrary. (EDIT: I didn't realise Fastmail has almost 1,000 employees, with many remote. That comes closer to where structure is merited, though I'd still argue that this points to dysfunction in the U.S.-HQ bridge gi…

The kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind.

> kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind

Take this to an extreme: a start-up. A union is overly bureaucratic. I’d wager a union doesn’t start making sense until the lowest-ranking employee ceases to have on-demand access to senior management.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#88

Post by rini17 »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #77
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.

> You know a company is morally bankrupt if they fight their employees unionizing Any company would oppose their employees unionizing; they have a fiduciary duty to do so

Everyone has a duty to maintain human dignity, too.

Re: Fastmail Employees Form a Union

#90

Post by burkaman »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #70
coldpie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I struggle to imagine a scenario where employees would unionize despite already feeling like they are treated fairly. The union/employer relationship is inherently hostile. The whole idea is that unionized employees can threaten production/profits as negotiation leverage. Choosing that path means the employees have already given up on cooperation based on goodwill. It must take a very sour relationship to reach that…

The relationship you're describing is balanced, as opposed to non-unionized employment, where management can threaten employment and healthcare as negotiation leverage and employees can't threaten anything.
Post reply on HN