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

Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#341

Post by mdszy »

chrisco255 wrote: post #241
advisedwang wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leverage. Without a union, you can ask management for stuff, but they can just say no. Your only recourse then is to quit, which wouldn't change anything when it's just one person. With a union, a work stoppage is a possibility. Suddenly management have a reason to come to the negotiation table and make concessions.

First of all "asking for stuff" implies a negotiation between two parties. A negotiation implies that either party can walk away from a deal. You're implying management shouldn't be able to say no. Management is not necessarily out to get employees and excessive compensation or regulation around hiring and firing leads to either insolvency or stagnation. It's a balancing act. A union can be just as exploitative as a…

And the company can walk away too, they just don't get to take the workers with them.

A corporation is not entitled to anyone's labor.

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#342

Post by ryanwhitney »

chrisco255 wrote: post #241
advisedwang wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leverage. Without a union, you can ask management for stuff, but they can just say no. Your only recourse then is to quit, which wouldn't change anything when it's just one person. With a union, a work stoppage is a possibility. Suddenly management have a reason to come to the negotiation table and make concessions.

First of all "asking for stuff" implies a negotiation between two parties. A negotiation implies that either party can walk away from a deal. You're implying management shouldn't be able to say no. Management is not necessarily out to get employees and excessive compensation or regulation around hiring and firing leads to either insolvency or stagnation. It's a balancing act. A union can be just as exploitative as a…

Pretty sure they were just phrasing it casually…

Of course there are negotiations involved. Having workers be organized provides a better ability to ask for (and negotiate) things by banding together. As well as protections. Without, sticking your neck out—alone or in a small non-unionized group—can be a major risk.

High demand does not mean workers are not exploited (hi amazon), and employees organizing can provide protections and benefits for all staff, some of which may not be in the same “high demand” group.

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#343

Post by tikhonj »

pathseeker wrote: post #282
calderarrow wrote: post #235

Coming from a public accounting background, I’ve seen a variety of businesses. Somewhat obviously, I’ve seen some be successful with unions and others be successful without, which makes sense, as unions are neither inherently good nor bad. They are a tool which can change the power dynamic and incentive structure of workers and employers throughout an organization, but there is nothing inherent about having a union t…

>Somewhat obviously, I’ve seen some be successful with unions and others be successful without From the company perspective maybe, but I've not seen a union in the US that successfully rewards high performing employees over mediocre lifers. Overachievers end up leaving and you're left with no innovation. Do you have any examples of unions that have solved this problem?

Aren't a lot of professional sports leagues unionized? I know that NBA players have a union, and top players definitely get rewarded well.

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#346

Post by spa3thyb »

HeroOfAges wrote: post #307
spa3thyb wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on the theory, up until your last statements - the vote to unionize was 46 to 37; 55% in favor with no breakdown in the roles means we can't be sure the dissenting voice wasn't the development staff. It could be the support and community management roles (or any other 'soft skill' role which is less scalable and no less valuable but perceived as more easily replaced) carried the vote.

"...support and community management roles..." are less scalable? Does this mean companies are finding it more difficult to fill community management roles than developer roles? Also, what do you mean by "no less valuable"? I don't think you can have a company who's product is software without developers. You do not, however need community managers. You make an interesting point: I do wonder if those in "soft skill"…

Support and community management are less scalable in the sense that the relationship between user interactions and time needed from staff is fairly linear. Each one is therefore less valuable, but collectively (no pun intended) essential when there are other, hungrier alternatives.

At it's current stage of maturity, the Kickstarter platform needs maintainers (SREs, Security, etc.) and staff to interact with creators and backers. I don't know to what degree new features or efficiencies will help Kickstarter become more profitable on 5% than it has been since 2010 - the product is essentially the same.

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#347

Post by mc32 »

coldpie wrote: post #223
mc32 wrote: post #138

I want to know if their union contract does anything from preventing parent co from shipping jobs to places with less regulation and cheaper labor...

That will kill your company way, way faster than any union will.

India, Eastern Europe and other places have English speaking devs. Good ones may not be dirt cheap but they may perhaps be cheaper in the eyes of management in the face of unionized devs...

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#348

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ditonal wrote: post #64
echelon wrote: post #3

I really don't understand this. A career in software is one of the most pampered and lucrative ones I can think of. Due to the shortage of software engineers, we can go anywhere and get a job instantly. The only downside I can think of is ageism, but then again, I have colleagues in their 50s and 60s where I work. But I suppose this isn't universal. (I'm in Atlanta and we have a lot of older workers. Age doesn't seem…

Why do people on HN constantly claim that companies are right to consider “a false negative is better than a false positive”, act like insane interview gauntlets are normal and desired, AND claim that people can easily change jobs? It’s not true. I live in the SF Bay Area, have worked as a SWE for 10+ years including at top companies like Google, and changing jobs is NOT easy and I’m sick of the implication it is. Th…

Make your case. Why do we desperately need to organize?

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#349

Post by lexs »

pathseeker wrote: post #282
calderarrow wrote: post #235

Coming from a public accounting background, I’ve seen a variety of businesses. Somewhat obviously, I’ve seen some be successful with unions and others be successful without, which makes sense, as unions are neither inherently good nor bad. They are a tool which can change the power dynamic and incentive structure of workers and employers throughout an organization, but there is nothing inherent about having a union t…

>Somewhat obviously, I’ve seen some be successful with unions and others be successful without From the company perspective maybe, but I've not seen a union in the US that successfully rewards high performing employees over mediocre lifers. Overachievers end up leaving and you're left with no innovation. Do you have any examples of unions that have solved this problem?

NBA players association, actors guild, writers guild etc are famous examples of "rewarding high performing employees"

Re: Kickstarter employees vote to unionize

#350

Post by pathseeker »

blattimwind wrote: post #136
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be misunderstanding - "risk" here is a financial thing, not a personal risk of being tossed on the street. If someone is worth $10 billion and will lose $2 billion if their company fails, that's still a lot of risk being covered, even though it won't really change their life to only have $8 billion.

"The consequences of $X failing will have no impact" is quite literally the definition of risk-free.

Losing $2 billion is not 'no impact'. That's money that could have been pumped into the economy somewhere else and could have done much better for both the investor and society. The investor might get some extra tries, but going from 5 attempts down to 4 is still a big loss.
Post reply on HN