18 ms·
Tech Start-Up Fires Engineers Amid Union Organizing Effort
- nicetime 9y agoNot unlike the gothamist.
- curuinor 9y agothey're not going to have an actual product in 3-5 months, union or not, if they fire everybody e: it looks like they're in the salesforce ecosystem, so perhaps they're glomped onto the Benioff philosophy of "No Software". i guess they're ok with the 1.5 nines of uptime and universal agreement that the software is crap that this implies
- curuinor 9y agooh my god, they actually put Webvan as an example of a disruptive company on their site (as of 1940 PST Jan 30 2018) https://www.lanetix.com/company/#why-lanetix https://www.lanetix.com/company/#why-lanetix
- craftyguy 9y agoIn all fairness, webvan was addressing something that folks apparently want. IIRC Amazon is actively trying to roll out something very similar to this right now... Don't confuse "disruptive companies" with "mismanaged companies". The first implies they are on to something, the second implies they don't know how to reach it.
- prewett 9y agoI'm not sure you can be "disruptive" if you aren't competently managed...
- ThePadawan 9y agoIn fact, Webvan's Wikipedia article lists their fate as "Bankrupt, resurrected by Amazon.com in 2009" without going into further detail.
- rgbrenner 9y agoBut that's inaccurate bs that someone edited there. There's no real connection between Webvan and Amazon. Louis Borders founded Webvan (the guy who founded Border bookstores). They went bankrupt in 2001. Mick Mountz and a few other Webvan employees started Kiva Robotics a few years later... In 2007, Amazon launched AmazonFresh, and then in 2012 Amazon purchased Kiva... and those former Webvan employees started work at Amazon (IDK if they still work there). And if you click on the ref in wikipedia.. you'll see it's an article from 2013 saying Webvan was alive at Amazon because former webvan employees came to work there when amazon bought kiva. That's not the way acquisitions work... Webvan is long dead.
- paulgb 9y agoTo be fair, they are contrasting themselves from the companies in that category. But the copy could use some work.
- Alex3917 9y agoCongrats to all the engineers who are about to get a year plus salary without having to do any work.
- hueving 9y agoBut I thought they were unsuccessful in joining the union.
- pbk1 9y agoI think OP is referring to a potential settlement. The engineers' case alleges the startup violated the National Labor Relations Act.
- rgbrenner 9y agoit's illegal to fire someone for joining a union, attempting to join a union, or forming a union. Alex is probably referring to their settlement offers if they prove their case to the NLRB. But the truth is the penalty will probably be far less... they'll likely just be required to rehire the employee and back pay wages from the date they were fired to the day they're rehired (if they win).
- tomjakubowski 9y agoI think that was a dry joke about "lazy union workers".
- stevenwoo 9y agoThe person overseeing the NLRB was the lawyer on the side of the government breaking the air traffic controllers union under Reagan and generally sides against unions.
- aerotwelve 9y agoThis is assuming they have the money to pursue the back pay in court and the NLRB ends up agreeing with them.
- dtornabene 9y ago
- azinman2 9y ago> “We believe one of the most anti-unions things you can do is to let all employees go,” Parks said. “We’re going to fight as hard as we can.” Isn’t the strength of a union in that everyone stops working collectively? Firing all of them is basically calling their bluff.
- infinity0 9y agoWell no, unions also collectively organise to legally represent themselves to lobby and fight for better conditions at work, via legislation or judicial decisions. Such legislation or judicial decision-making may or may not include making it illegal to do destructive bluff-calling, since an argument can be made that employers shouldn't harm the economy just because they find it offensive that people want to collectively-organise themselves in order to reduce the power imbalance inherent in an employee-employer relationship.
- bwestergard 9y agoStep 2: bigger union.
- scriptingnerd 9y agoSadly, while the 21% tax law is great for companies, it can suck for those of us who sling code for a living. This administration is hostile to unions, and the last administration was not overly happy to support them but in name only. America is simply not a terribly friendly place for unions. I wish our tech scene looked more like Norway or Sweden, but good luck with that...
- Kiro 9y agoIf you think unions are strong within the tech scene in Sweden, you're wrong. I don't know anyone working in tech that's a member of a union tbh.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- conanbatt 9y agoIsn't it 'illegal' to fire as retaliation for unionizing?
- Alex3917 9y agoNot exactly. It's illegal to fire people for engaging in protected concerted activity to improve their working conditions. Unionization is one example of something that could be protected concerted activity, but not all tactics for forming unions would qualify as protected concerted activity, nor is protected concerted activity in any way limited to forming unions. (There are some explicit protections for unionizing, but this is the general principle.) For example, using your employer's Slack to discuss improving things like healthcare, overtime, wages, etc. would be a textbook example of something that would be protected. You need at least two employees (non-managers) leading the discussion though to qualify as concerted, one person complaining is just a malcontent and doesn't qualify for any protections under the law.
- HeyLaughingBoy 9y agoRelated to this, one of the most interesting things I took home from my short course in Employment Law was the statement from the lawyer teaching the class: "if you're going to complain about something to your boss that he won't like; make sure there are at least two of you complaining. That way you're covered by the laws pertaining to Collective Bargaining and you can have some recourse if you're fired as a result."
- lerie82 9y agoI think at-will states can fire for any reason, including unionizing
- Kelbit 9y agoYep. As weak as union laws are in the US, firing workers for attempting to organize is a surefire way to run afoul of the Wagner Act. As per the article: > Outsourcing jobs abroad for the purpose of punishing or discouraging union organizing, as opposed to a valid business reason, would violate the National Labor Relations Act.
- clackanon 9y agoGood, because unions have long outlived their usefulness. The time for them is OVER. Why organize for the privelege of being able to fork over a good chunk of your paycheck for not a damn thing? HOW DO I KNOW?? I've been a union member. CWA. It was worse than worthless and useless. A net negative in every respect. 20% of my net pay for not a damn thing. Unions are a waste of time/money/oxygen.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bobbles 9y ago20% of pay, what the fuck? Unions here range from $50-$100 / month memberships generally (Aus)
- djsumdog 9y agoAnd at least in Melbourne, construction unions haven't slowed progress at all. Look at the fucking building boom! They constantly fight for wages and hours and get a lot of demands met, yet there is no slowdown of tower construction any time soon. Now Melbs has more shopping centers, housing and the people building them can afford to live and shop there as well.
- KyeRussell 9y agoIt's unfortunate that you had a bad experience, but I don't know how you can expect anyone to respect your view when you've made it blindingly obvious that it's based on a single experience you've had. The "unions don't have a place anymore" argument is nothing more than privileged neoliberal propaganda. Shitty apathetic views like yours are how workplace standards slip.
- KyeRussell 9y agoSorry, I should frame my response by noting that I live in Australia - a country with way more employee-friendly hiring laws than the US. 4 weeks of paid leave with rollover, sick and carers leave, much better rights wrt getting laid off.etc. Even with these advantages over the US, I still see a need for unions.
- branchless 9y agoA graph of income share versus union membership: https://i.redd.it/nhp7e2rzy8d01.jpg https://i.redd.it/nhp7e2rzy8d01.jpg Think also of the insanely high CEO pay.
- Robotbeat 9y agoAs much as I see flaws in unions in the US, that graph should be plastered on everyone's eyeballs whenever unions come up. Unions are one of the very few proven ways to address inequality The others are worse: war and revolution.
- michaelchisari 9y agoThere's no doubt that unions in America have had their problems. But the solution was always better (more democratic, less corrupt, etc) unions, not less unions or none at all.
- pdonis 9y agoI'm wondering why an alternative solution hasn't been tried: make unions into corporations, selling the service of efficiently managed labor to other corporations who want it. All of the workers could have shares in the corporation, so they would fairly share its profits. And the union/corporation could then negotiate for itself for things like health care, retirement plans, etc., without having to depend on other corporations to do it.
- rdl 9y agoBecause all of the problems with unions come from the "closed shop" -- the right to exclude non-members from working freely for companies. No one has a problem with voluntary associations of workers (e.g. ACM or IEEE); the issue is when a group is allowed to force a business to only hire members of that organization, or to force all employees to pay dues to that organization. Your "labor contracting corporation" would just be one competitor among many. If it tried to increase the price of labor, it would be bypassed. Right-to-work solves the problems of unions. It also eliminates most of the power of unions, so it is unpopular with trade unionists. The only unions I really want to see eliminated, though, are public employee unions (prison guards, especially, but also police, fire, teachers, etc.). Those employees have other means to redress grievances. I'd also like to see AMA and ABA (which are effectively unions, but for people making far higher wages) de-fanged as well.
- jacknews 9y ago> Organizational Values > “We win only when our customers win.” > Fast, Deliberate, Accountable, With Integrity > Resourceful, Empathetic, Inclusive and Creatively Frugal Creatively frugal. Check. Not sure about the others.
- valtism 9y ago> “We win only when our customers win.” Organisational values focusing on the customer is for me a big red flag for how workers will be treated.
- wasx 9y agoThe attitude towards unionisation on this site is sickening. I live in a country with a very strong union movement and the only reason I'm able to sit here typing this message is because my parents and grandparents unionised rather than live off of slavery wages. That may mean nothing to Americans where it's every man for themselves, but don't think yourselves so lucky that you got to the position you're in without workers uniting with one another and ensuring they get a fair share against the greed of the few. It might not have affected many of you with the silver spoon you have in your mouths but the only damn reason that kids still aren't working in sweat shops and you get to go home at 5pm is because of workers organising and having each other's backs when abuses and overreach occur, and a little bit of solidarity for each other is necessary when you see such flagrant abuses like this.
- harryh 9y agothe only damn reason that... Doesn't labor productivity increases and spending some of that new found wealth on leisure time also have something to do with these things?
- wasx 9y agoWhat new found wealth do you think people would have without workers pushing for their rights? Without collective action and group bargaining, we would still be working 16 hour days. Progress doesn't just happen it requires people pushing and fighting for their rights, and our slice of the pie would not have magically gotten bigger just because the pie got bigger.
- harryh 9y agoWhat new found wealth do you think people would have without workers pushing for their rights? The wealth created by productivity improvements due to new technology. Programmers make a lot more money now than they did 20 years ago. Not because of unions (which are extremely rare for programmers), but because of productivity improvements. A single programmer can accomplish vastly more now than was possible in the past. The same is generally true for all professions though the rate of improvement is obviously generally much much slower. You're certainly right to claim that unionization can somewhat move the needle when it comes to the distribution of earnings between capital and labor, but overall this effect tends to be pretty small when compared to improvements due to productivity gains as long as we're looking at things on the scale of decades and not just the short term.
- meesterdude 9y agoIf unions are a good idea, and we're all in theory smart, why aren't we unionizing more? Why is it something we allow to be set aside; the organized effort to advocate for our needs? Are unions anti-startup? are startups anti-union? or is it really just a PG ideology trickling down? What can we do to bring about unionization efforts to the industry?
- adventured 9y agoA technology worker earning $85,000 to $250,000 sees almost zero benefit from the inherent restrictions that come with union membership. It's a step down. Technology workers are overwhelmingly served by being free agents that can constantly seek out superior opportunities, as there has been significant competition for their labor going back half a century. If there were a big surplus of technology workers, or if technology workers were being substantially underpaid and seeing a dearth of benefits, then a union would/could be beneficial to that scenario. Where there's substantial labor scarcity, unionization is not only unnecessary but it's harmful (it brings with it plenty of problems and bureacracy).
- rockinghigh 9y agoHow would a union harm employees?
- chairmanwow 9y agoIt would force the organization to its knees in my opinion. Unions for work in showbiz are ridiculous in that they restrict people to members of a specific union; e.g. All adjustments to an actor'a appearance must be done by the appropriate member of the cast, insofar as a sound guy couldn't brush a hair off of the shoulder of an actor. Imagine the same craziness applied to which kinds of code you would be able to work on. I don't see the need for crippling the actions that enable our employers from innovating quickly for what amounts to more beaurecracy.
- Bahamut 9y ago
- leot 9y agoUnions, like police, serve as a corrective force. Sometimes needed and often not, they are good only contingently. It is sad that they are often seen only as either hateful or a panacea.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lifeformed 9y agoSeems like discussions about unions never get more nuanced than: "unions are good" or "unions are bad". I wish such topics could be more about learning from the pros and cons of different systems and figuring out new solutions.
- f00_ 9y agoThe labor struggle has been so propagandized that it's impossible to talk about. Unions are about organizing to allow people to control their economic destiny. They've been violently repressed since the very beginning. The right-wing ideology of Reagan/Thatcher is prevalent, this hate of government and worship of the state subsidized corporate managers that control society. Anyways, I love the music in Dustforce, i'll leave you with a Chomsky quote "The U.S. is different from Europe and other industrial countries in this respect. The U.S. is, to a very unusual extent, a business-run society. There are all kinds of reasons for that — it has no feudal background, so institutions that remained in place in Europe did not remain in place here. There are a lot of reasons. But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is run by an unusually class-conscious, dedicated business class that has a very violent labor history, much worse than in Europe. The attack on unions has been far more extreme here, and it has been much more successful. Also, the business propaganda has been far more successful. Anti-union propaganda has been considerably more successful here than in Europe, even among working people who would benefit [from] unions. In fact, a rather striking aspect of business propaganda in the United States is the demonization of government, starting after the Second World War. The Second World War ended with a radicalization of the population in the United States and everywhere else, and called for all kinds of things like popular takeovers, government intervention, and worker takeovers of factories. Business propagated a tremendous propaganda offensive. The scale surprised me when I read the scholarship — it’s enormous, and it’s been very effective. There were two major targets: one is unions, the other is democracy. Well, [to them] democracy means getting people to regard government as an alien force that’s robbing them and oppressing them, not as their government. In a democracy it would be your government. For example, in a democracy the day when you pay your taxes, April 15, would be a day of celebration, because you’re getting together to provide resources for the programs you decided on. In the United States, it’s a day of mourning because this alien force — the government — is coming to rob you of your hard-earned money. That’s the general attitude, and it’s a tremendous victory for the opponents of democracy, and, of course, any privileged sector is going to hate democracy. You can see it in the healthcare debate. The majority of the population thinks that if the government runs healthcare, they’re going to take away your freedom. At the same time, the public favors a national healthcare program. The contradiction is somehow unresolved. In the case of the business propaganda, it’s particularly ironic because while business wants the population to hate the government, they want the population to love the government. Namely, they’re in favor of a very powerful state which works in their interest. So you have to love that government, but hate the government that might work in your interest and that you could control. That’s an interesting propaganda task, but it’s been carried out very well. You can see it in the worship of Reagan, which portrays him as somebody who saved us from government. Actually he was an apostle of big government. Government grew under Reagan. He was the strongest opponent of free markets in the post-war history among presidents. But it doesn’t matter what the reality is; they concocted an image that you worship. It’s hard to achieve that, especially in a free society, but it’s been done, and that’s the kind of thing that activists in the IWW have to work against, right on the shop floor. It’s not so simple, but it’s been done before." https://chomsky.info/20091120/ https://chomsky.info/20091120/
- pm24601 9y agosomeone needs to post to glassdoor about their experience
- doseOfReality44 9y agoUnions... the thought or intent was good, and initially they helped more than hurt, but eventually things went south as usually happens when power is wielded by a few and backed up by threats. Unions, rather then help represent workers of a company, eventually hold it hostage with their demands. This hurts the company's ability to flourish, compete and grow. Let's ask ourselves, why did we need unions during the industrial revolution? and do we still need them today? 1. The fact that unions were ever thought to have been needed suggests the lack of competition at the time. This is often a side effect of over bearing government regulation. There aren't too many jobs in America today where if you quit, you can't find another doing the same thing (Competition for workers drives wages and benefits up) 2. Worker's used to work for one company their whole career. They were loyal to a fault. This is no longer the case today. 3. It was harder to move across the country or world back then. Also Society was less racially diverse (in dispersion) back then. People would not leave their town or side of town because all the immigrants from XYZ country lived there and they would face far more challenge moving to another city than today. 4. Social pressure and media coverage (social media and other). Most companies would find it hard to survive if their workers were starving because of lack of pay. The same can be said if their factory was grossly unsafe, or if they were being a-holes to their employees in any way. The way we are connected today would expose abhorrent behavior to the world in minutes and people would start to threaten boycotts ETC. 5. We live in a much different world today. Unions, if they were ever really needed, are not anymore. Yet they exist. Teachers somehow cannot be fired for doing shoddy jobs, yet their wages aren't great (is that a good thing?). 6. Registered Nurses go to a junior college for 3 years and start at $100/hr here in northern CA. Meanwhile half of the citizens in this country cannot afford health insurance (They are part of what is driving up the price. Is that a good thing?). 7. Fireman work 3 days a week and are averaging $150k salaries where I live. They still march in protests every few years around here because they aren't able to feed their family whilst living in their frat house making $75 per hour. (I don't want to minimize what fireman do for us. They are heroes who put their life in danger, though they die less often than minors and factory workers who earn far less). The unions have extorted the cities that employ them. (is this a good thing?) 8. Police unions protect bad cops in many cases. Factory and other manufacturing jobs have gone oversees because of the overbearing demands from unions. 9. Unions demand dues, yet often push laws through that the workers don't even agree with ethically or politically. 10. Unions buy and sell politicians with their donations and favors. It's a quid pro quo that has gone on for over 100 years. What is the upside of unions in the context of 2018? Do we need them? Are they more harm than good?
- angry_octet 9y agoJust one more company I'll never deal with or buy from.
- csense 9y agoWant to know why the Rust Belt is the Rust Belt? Because the manufacturing industry discovered this strategy decades ago: If a union's going to come in and make your life inconvenient, send the jobs overseas to a country where that won't happen.
- BatFastard 9y agoIt's a cycle, workers get abused, push back on the lord, king, CEO. Workers gain power, lord gets pushed away. Workers fail, lord rises and abuses workers. How many thousands of years has the pattern repeated?
- wmeredith 9y agoYou want to know why we have a 40 hour work week and kids don't work in factories? Unions.
- enknamel 9y agoJust wait until Google engineers threaten to unionize. I'll need a few buckets of popcorn when that happens.