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

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#161

Post by groby_b »

erlich wrote: post #118
NelsonMinar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions and Mapbox is a very sore topic and now the subject of a NLRB lawsuit for firing the union organizers. https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/mapbox-sued-firing-union-... But the union drive came far too late to help the larger problem. The big change happened in 2017 when Softbank invested $164M into MapBox. In retrospect it was far too much money with too many expectations. And with the ugly side effect of salti…

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

In almost all cases where a company is fighting for survival, leadership has failed, often quite visibly.

It's one of the few moments where rank-and-file folk realize they do need a say in where things are heading - because you start seeing that the leaders aren't somehow magic beings with perfect decision making qualities. And, at the same point, you get strong reminders that your livelihood is coupled to the company's livelihood - which is making bad decisions right now.

That's why "fight for survival" is a common inflection point for unionization.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#162

Post by Apocryphon »

erlich wrote: post #160
Apocryphon wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why does (in your view) capitalism mandate that only owners hold management responsible, and that workers having a say would distort that process? Are you suggesting that class warfare is inevitable? (That's a Marxist concept.) Otherwise, why keep workers out of the decision-making process?

Also, if in most tech companies workers are given equity, are they not owners also?

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#163

Post by erlich »

Apocryphon wrote: post #159
erlich wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Different incentives. If a company fails, employees would be disappointed but can go get another job pretty easy. For investors they lose a lot of money. Employees have less to gain+lose.

A collective of employees is not going to make better decisions than management. And if there are some who would, then they should be moved into management.

I only see the impact a union could have on improving morale and staff retention and therefore productivity if management/owners didn’t value it enough. These are things management are measuring and factoring in to their decisions. If management/owners are this bad then there isn’t much hope for the company.

And without a union management could simply provide autonomy to have the same effect. If Union force needs to be used to get mgmt to do the right thing for maximizing profits, it’s not really worth it.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#164

Post by kfox2010 »

Trying to understand how in the same short form piece we get: > "I still bristle at the word “career”. Not for me."

And then end it with:

> "The skills and connections I developed at Mapbox set me up for a smooth and satisfying career transition."

So do you have a career or not?

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#165

Post by erlich »

Apocryphon wrote: post #162
erlich wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why does (in your view) capitalism mandate that only owners hold management responsible, and that workers having a say would distort that process? Are you suggesting that class warfare is inevitable? (That's a Marxist concept.) Otherwise, why keep workers out of the decision-making process? Also, if in most tech companies workers are given equity, are they not owners also?

Workers don’t have same incentives. They can push for conditions that would risk bankrupting company, and if the company does shutter, they can simply get new jobs with no loss. Meanwhile owners lose their money.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#166

Post by Fordec »

prescriptivist wrote: post #65

A lot of negative sentiment about Mapbox in this thread. I have been prototyping a (native) app powered by Mapbox -- would it be a bad idea to hitch oneself to their ecosystem?

I'd suggest reading their terms of service and licensing model. They changed it on their 2.0 version and it stopped being right for a lot of use cases, either for financial, privacy or legal reasons. Make sure it fits for yourself also.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#167

Post by erlich »

pm90 wrote: post #152
erlich wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Smart companies will provide conditions that attract and retain talent. Companies can compete on culture. The market will discover the necessary incentives to bring on employees. This has already happened. Look at all the perks companies offer without any union involvement.

If management sucks and cannot listen to their employees then it’s better that they don’t get more capital/talent and their competitors suck up all their talent.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#168

Post by Apocryphon »

erlich wrote: post #163
Apocryphon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Different incentives. If a company fails, employees would be disappointed but can go get another job pretty easy. For investors they lose a lot of money. Employees have less to gain+lose. A collective of employees is not going to make better decisions than management. And if there are some who would, then they should be moved into management. I only see the impact a union could have on improving morale and staff rete…

> employees would be disappointed but can go get another job pretty easy

True enough in tech, though the economy will tell.

> For investors they lose a lot of money. Employees have less to gain+lose.

VCs expect 9/10 of their investments to fail. Ask Masa Son how much Vision Fund's startup losses impact Softbank's bottom line, or his machinations.

> A collective of employees is not going to make better decisions than management.

Unsubstantiated value judgement.

> If management/owners are this bad then there isn’t much hope for the company.

And what's so wrong trying to save a company?

> If Union force needs to be used to get mgmt to do the right thing for maximizing profits, it’s not really worth it.

That's just defeatism!

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#169

Post by erlich »

Apocryphon wrote: post #138
erlich wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

Maybe because the leadership is actively undermining the survival? From this case alone, it seems possible that the Mapbox leadership is chasing a hopeless strategy by focusing on the auto industry, which is dominated by other much larger companies.

And a committee of employees has a better strategy for profitability? I don’t see it.

The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#170

Post by Apocryphon »

erlich wrote: post #169
Apocryphon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because the leadership is actively undermining the survival? From this case alone, it seems possible that the Mapbox leadership is chasing a hopeless strategy by focusing on the auto industry, which is dominated by other much larger companies.

And a committee of employees has a better strategy for profitability? I don’t see it. The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.

Perhaps the employees who are actually executing a faulty business strategy can see its first errors up front.
Post reply on HN