6 ms·

> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them"

by Nikkau 8y ago

scotch_drinker 8y ago
I think this is important. The OP seems to think that management is totally open to just being fair and inclusive with individual employees but that the situation becomes too polarized when a union is implemented. This ignores the fact that it's in management's favor to keep people isolated and unaware of other employees issues. No matter how great your workplace is, it's already us vs them whether you want to admit it or not. That's the nature of the beast.
sokoloff 8y ago
And a clear downgrade from "us and them vs our actual competition"
- Retra 8y ago
  Whose competition? Other companies are not employee's competition, they are potential places to work. They only compete with the company, not the employees.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Kickstarter's prime competition is Indiegogo. Kickstarter employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize, IMO. (The same is true for Kickstarter leadership, of course.)
    - dagw 8y ago
      employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize Suboptimize what? By what metrics? And why are those the primary metrics I should be using to make extremely important life choices?
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        The overall success and value they are able to create jointly with their colleagues and take home a portion of for themselves and their family. I also find that to be an interesting, motivating, fun, and financially rewarding game to play. I support your right to use other metrics as you prefer to make your choices, of course.
        dagw 8y ago
        take home a portion of for themselves and their family I'm sure there are companies where the portion of value I get to take home is directly related to the value I and my colleagues created, but I've never worked at such a company. Perhaps that is the sort of thing unions could help with? edit: That being said, I've worked at companies where the primary 'enemy' was either "the bosses at HQ" or rival departments and I agree that it is toxic and a terrible way to run a company. However when the company ends up in that state it is a failure of management and not of the workers.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        In such a tech company, I’d recommend employees leave rather than unionize. Simpler, faster, more effective, more thorough fix.
  - cc439 8y ago
    How many companies are located within such close geographic proximity to their competitors that employees can choose to work for the competition without moving to a completely separate place? Outside of natural resource extraction, this kind of thinking only applies to nascent eras of new and flourishing industries such as the late 19th century steel industry, early 20th century automobile industry, and current SV-centered tech industry. Eventually those industries will expand away from that overly competitive region in a fragmented manner, divorcing an employees choice in employment from affecting any change in the labor market for a given industry.
    - Retra 8y ago
      None of that is relevant to the employer-employee relationship. My employer's competition is not my competition. Even if there were no hiring competitors, they would still not be my competition. I would still want equitable bargaining power with my employer. And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union.
      - joejev 8y ago
        > And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union. Do you not believe that a CEO could have at least 20 times the impact on the value of a company than the average employee, and if so, should they not be compensated accordingly?
        Retra 8y ago
        No, I do not believe in the divine right of kings.
InTheArena 8y ago
> That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them" But a huge step down from "Us"
- standardUser 8y ago
  At what imaginary time in history did owners and management consider themselves part of an "us" with workers? Maybe in some rare, contained instances. You can't take a step "down" from something that simply doesn't exist.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Many family businesses are "us", at least in the good times. Non-family employed by those businesses are seldom under any illusions about being included in that...
    - mverwijs 8y ago
      > at least in the good times Exactly.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Those can last for decades, however. A profitable family business is less likely to get bought out and fire everyone. No one's job is safe in an unprofitable business, family or not.
- naravara 8y ago
  >But a huge step down from "Us" This sounds like an argument for full worker control/employee ownership, not an argument against a union.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. The only way to solve the inherent adversity in the employer/employee relationship is to eliminate the employer/employee distinction. Expecting owners to be fair by default is to be at the whim of their charity. "Friendly work environment" and other anti-union canards are merely an attempt to paper over exploitative behavior with flowery words. Unions are a stopgap at best. The only business that can reliably be expected to run ethically is one that is owned by the workers.
soheil 8y ago
But that's divide and conquer, it may be a good strategy if you're trying to win a war but if you're trying to form a culture of teamwork and individual responsibility maybe not so much.

> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them"

by Nikkau 8y ago

> It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them"

scotch_drinker 8y ago

I think this is important. The OP seems to think that management is totally open to just being fair and inclusive with individual employees but that the situation becomes too polarized when a union is implemented. This ignores the fact that it's in management's favor to keep people isolated and unaware of other employees issues. No matter how great your workplace is, it's already us vs them whether you want to admit it or not. That's the nature of the beast.

sokoloff 8y ago

And a clear downgrade from "us and them vs our actual competition"

Retra 8y ago
Whose competition? Other companies are not employee's competition, they are potential places to work. They only compete with the company, not the employees.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Kickstarter's prime competition is Indiegogo. Kickstarter employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize, IMO. (The same is true for Kickstarter leadership, of course.)
  - dagw 8y ago
    employees who think their competition is against Kickstarter leadership rather than Indiegogo are at risk to seriously suboptimize Suboptimize what? By what metrics? And why are those the primary metrics I should be using to make extremely important life choices?
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      The overall success and value they are able to create jointly with their colleagues and take home a portion of for themselves and their family. I also find that to be an interesting, motivating, fun, and financially rewarding game to play. I support your right to use other metrics as you prefer to make your choices, of course.
      - dagw 8y ago
        take home a portion of for themselves and their family I'm sure there are companies where the portion of value I get to take home is directly related to the value I and my colleagues created, but I've never worked at such a company. Perhaps that is the sort of thing unions could help with? edit: That being said, I've worked at companies where the primary 'enemy' was either "the bosses at HQ" or rival departments and I agree that it is toxic and a terrible way to run a company. However when the company ends up in that state it is a failure of management and not of the workers.
        sokoloff 8y ago
        In such a tech company, I’d recommend employees leave rather than unionize. Simpler, faster, more effective, more thorough fix.
- cc439 8y ago
  How many companies are located within such close geographic proximity to their competitors that employees can choose to work for the competition without moving to a completely separate place? Outside of natural resource extraction, this kind of thinking only applies to nascent eras of new and flourishing industries such as the late 19th century steel industry, early 20th century automobile industry, and current SV-centered tech industry. Eventually those industries will expand away from that overly competitive region in a fragmented manner, divorcing an employees choice in employment from affecting any change in the labor market for a given industry.
  - Retra 8y ago
    None of that is relevant to the employer-employee relationship. My employer's competition is not my competition. Even if there were no hiring competitors, they would still not be my competition. I would still want equitable bargaining power with my employer. And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union.
    - joejev 8y ago
      > And regardless of that, if my employer is willing to pay our CEO over 20x what they pay their average employee, they are not in a position to niggle over the kinds of systemic inefficiencies they would suffer under a union. Do you not believe that a CEO could have at least 20 times the impact on the value of a company than the average employee, and if so, should they not be compensated accordingly?
      - Retra 8y ago
        No, I do not believe in the divine right of kings.

InTheArena 8y ago

> That's the point, "us vs them" is pretty good upgrade from "me vs them" But a huge step down from "Us"

standardUser 8y ago
At what imaginary time in history did owners and management consider themselves part of an "us" with workers? Maybe in some rare, contained instances. You can't take a step "down" from something that simply doesn't exist.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Many family businesses are "us", at least in the good times. Non-family employed by those businesses are seldom under any illusions about being included in that...
  - mverwijs 8y ago
    > at least in the good times Exactly.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Those can last for decades, however. A profitable family business is less likely to get bought out and fire everyone. No one's job is safe in an unprofitable business, family or not.
naravara 8y ago
>But a huge step down from "Us" This sounds like an argument for full worker control/employee ownership, not an argument against a union.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. The only way to solve the inherent adversity in the employer/employee relationship is to eliminate the employer/employee distinction. Expecting owners to be fair by default is to be at the whim of their charity. "Friendly work environment" and other anti-union canards are merely an attempt to paper over exploitative behavior with flowery words. Unions are a stopgap at best. The only business that can reliably be expected to run ethically is one that is owned by the workers.

soheil 8y ago

But that's divide and conquer, it may be a good strategy if you're trying to win a war but if you're trying to form a culture of teamwork and individual responsibility maybe not so much.