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

On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

trashmoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 271 posts

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#151

Post by cyphar »

afandian wrote: post #62
woevdbz wrote: post #58

It sounds like OP wants to be a part of the kind of social change that fundamentally cannot exist independently of politics but trying to enact it without. A single company, especially one that is not generating monopoly/oligopoly profits and is still dependent on funding, is not really able to: unionizing creates a steep competitive downside on the capital market that is not offset by enough employee retention benef…

It's surely not that bleak (at least, not everywhere). And it doesn't have to be remotely about 'politics'. My old employer made the leap to employee-owned and they seem to be going from strength to strength. https://torchbox.com/careers/employee-owned-trust

Having companies be employee-owned (which is commonly referred to as a worker co-op) is absolutely a political topic -- implementing policies to allow more companies to become worker-owned was part of the UK Labour Party's manifesto in 2017. Just because something is political doesn't make it bad.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#152

Post by pm90 »

erlich wrote: post #127
pm90 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure that “Unions slow innovation” is true. As a counter: in tech, its the workers that generate a significant amount of value by writing software and building products. Giving them more control and a seat at the table can be useful in encouraging long term investments in lieu of extreme short term thinking that VCs typically promote.

Google tried putting devs in charge and it didn’t work. It’s obvious too. Devs have such different incentives to owners. They want a nice place to work and play with fun tech and pad their CVs. They can leave at any moment too with zero concern for what happens when they’re gone. Employee equity is usually not enough to be worth fighting for. It’s just the ability to pay less salary or get good people.

If you’re gonna go with anecdotes, its been going pretty well as Valve with having no hierarchies (aka “devs in charge”).

But that sort of conversation isn’t really useful. Study after study has shown employees’ job satisfaction doesn’t scale infinitely with compensation, other things start to matter after a certain income is reached. With many highly paid software devs, I would wager they are at or beyond that point.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#153

Post by devmunchies »

Apocryphon wrote: post #142
devmunchies wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Traitorous Eight employees who left and started a competitor? how is that mutiny? > ousting of Jobs technically, the board had the voting power, and he wasn't even CEO. Generals removing a lieutenant isn't mutiny. If anything, he was planning a coup (mutiny) himself.

Desertion isn't mutiny now? Acquiring Jobs' splinter cell, and making him a general, isn't rewarding his attempted mutiny?

either way, your examples resulted in employees leaving and starting a competitor, which were net positive for the industry. They didn't create a union. They grew the industry as a whole which was better than any union could do at the time.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#154

Post by astrange »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #136
astrange wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue is people want to copy Japan by building high speed rail, but Shinkansen isn’t actually that useful - it doesn’t carry mail/cargo, can’t carry much luggage, and though pleasant to use it’s quite expensive. It’s closer to business class flights than anything else. Economy class flights inside the country are often actually cheaper if you don’t mind going to the airport. Japan’s strength is that you can…

Well, yes? Shinkansen is intercity transport and that's exactly why it's priced to compete with airlines.

Yes, it’s competitive with airlines but it’s often more expensive. This makes sense as it’s nicer, but I think people looking at the system from overseas don’t realize this. That might also be due to how good the unlimited flat rate tourist passes are.

Besides renting/owning a car, the real cheap option for intercity travel is night buses.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#155

Post by Apocryphon »

devmunchies wrote: post #153
Apocryphon wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desertion isn't mutiny now? Acquiring Jobs' splinter cell, and making him a general, isn't rewarding his attempted mutiny?

either way, your examples resulted in employees leaving and starting a competitor, which were net positive for the industry. They didn't create a union. They grew the industry as a whole which was better than any union could do at the time.

You are right in saying they created a net positive, and I am right in asserting that mutiny is not always a bad thing, which you are wrong on.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#156

Post by ClumsyPilot »

brailsafe wrote: post #77
mikl wrote: post #17

> Over the next few years, Mapbox tried to find success in a variety of industries: journalism, social media, travel, ect. We never hit numbers that were big enough for our investors. In the process, we abandoned our focus on Open Source and Open data. Then, as is the case with many mapping companies, Mapbox shifted focus to the auto industry. My fear of loss of control fully materialized at this point. I’m a lifelon…

Employees should never feel like the company is theirs. Unless you have a real seat at the table, you should assume you have no influence over the business. That's what being an employee is (with no actual shares). You give up the risk by being an employee, and your only negotiating power is leaving.

"give up the risk by being an employee"

I have observed many folks join startups as employees, take on risk without understanding it and without a clear benefit.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#157

Post by ClumsyPilot »

roguecoder wrote: post #92
brailsafe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees should never feel like the company is theirs. Unless you have a real seat at the table, you should assume you have no influence over the business. That's what being an employee is (with no actual shares). You give up the risk by being an employee, and your only negotiating power is leaving.

That sounds like you feel pretty helpless. Personally, I find that I have numerous avenues of negotiating power, even without unionization: 1. Do I recommend the company to my network? I can make it a lot cheaper or more expensive to hire. 2. How do I spend my time? All my technical choices will make certain changes easier down the line, and others harder. I work hard to understand the business context & help those c…

Yhose are all nice when negotiating working from home or something similarly minor - but when it comes to foundamental business model, these things are unlikely to move the needle.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#158

Post by erlich »

roguecoder wrote: post #76
nightski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because as far as I know traditionally unions have existed in jobs where humans are basically robots (manufacturing, etc...). These jobs can be dangerous and also each worker is very easily replaceable giving the employer a huge upper hand. This is not the case in software at all. Skill levels can vary dramatically and the more experience you have with your company often the more valuable and harder to replace you be…

That's a pretty new development, and not necessarily true. Screen writing is pretty obviously creative, collaborative work, and they've been represented by a professional guild since 1933. I think it is more common for the umbrella union orgs to focus on industries either with high barriers to entry (like nursing) or huge employers, because they are going company-by-company & it's just more efficient. On the opposite…

What happens if a minimum wage is set but there are people prepared to work for less? Or under lesser conditions? And a company cannot hire as many people because they have to pay them more?

Isn’t it fairer to rely on the free market to set wages? There are shortages and surpluses in many industries that vary over time. Unions seem to just distort the market.

Reviewing employment contracts can be done by one’s own lawyer via legal insurance too. Why does this need to be collective? Why not pay a fee for services you use rather than union dues. A lot of the benefits you mention doesn’t need unionization.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#159

Post by Apocryphon »

erlich wrote: post #120
slively wrote: post #6

Here is the same story again. Sorry to hear about the inevitable ending, but glad they got to experience a good work culture for a time. At some point I hope we can shift the union discussion from just benefits and wages (which are not the biggest problems for SWE), to workers having a say in how a company operates. The idea that investing money garners complete control of a company is not healthy for the company or…

Most startups fail. Why burden them more? There are plenty of stable jobs out there at big boring companies. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Why do you assume that unions, or some other form of labor power, would burden startups? In fact, why do you assume that they might not lead to fewer startups failing?

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#160

Post by erlich »

Apocryphon wrote: post #150
erlich wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can quit whenever they want which is the main point. Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union. I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autono…

And who's to say that the current management isn't doing a poor job? Based on Glassdoor and Blind, they've been experiencing high turnover and mixed reviews at best. So why shouldn't the management and owners be held accountable for questionable decisions? Why are you so insistent that workers get no say, and can only leave? On what basis is blind obedience mandatory in the workplace?

The owners hold the management responsible. If targets are not met then they dig deeper, see staff turnover, find causes, and fix them. It’s capitalism at work. If the owners are not savvy enough then the company should fail or be sold and the capital should be allocated elsewhere.

If workers have a say it distorts these forces. And by say you mean the ability to force the hand of management. Because they already can have a say and modern companies measure everything and listen to feedback.

Post reply on HN