4 ms·

Here's a refutation: Microsoft spends $250k/employee/year on stock dividends and buybacks. That's quite a large slice of the pie the union could negotiate for.

twblalock 6y ago
> Here's a refutation: Microsoft spends $250k/employee/year on stock dividends and buybacks. That's quite a large slice of the pie the union could negotiate for. Those buybacks increase the stock price, and employees are compensated in stock, so stock buybacks benefit employees already. I find it hard to believe that the company would just give that money as salary instead -- and even if they did, that would mean that employees of some companies are paid way, way more than employees at other companies. That is exactly the situation we have today, without unions! So again, why do employees at large companies need unions, considering they are already paid more than everyone else? Incidentally, I get stock compensation at my job and getting cash instead would have been worse. The stock I was granted has increased in value. Cash is just cash, and loses value to inflation. I would rather have salary plus RSUs than just a large salary. I don't know if a union would see the value in that.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  As an employee I might have $100k in MSFT stock after five years. Those buybacks gave me what, a few hundred/thousand bucks at most? Come on. For such a supposed math-literate profession this objection is weirdly common. If you get cash you can turn around and buy company stock. Nobody is stopping you. Unions would also certainly see the value in employee ownership of stock, which broadly aligns with ideas of workers capturing more of the value they produce. A union enables workers, in aggregate, to capture more of the value they produce - value which would otherwise flow to the pockets of shareholders, the overwhelming majority of whom contributed nothing to its creation. Talk about employee salary distribution is orthogonal to this debate.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    People also seem to think that RSU grants somehow appreciate in value before they vest. They do not. If you sign for 400k of RSUs over 4 years with a 1 year cliff and the stock rockets up 2x just before your first vest and then plateaus, you’re still getting only 400k. There’s literally no difference to a regular salary except you get paid out twice and it makes taxes more annoying because you have to pay estimated taxes quarterly instead of doing it once like normal people. Netflix has also proven this obsession with RSUs is unnecessary. You can have strong growth without it and in large public companies, the theory that this somehow incentivizes employees in any meaningful way has a severe lack of any evidence.
    - jmgao 6y ago
      That's entirely dependent on the company. Google grants RSUs based on a dollar value when the grant is approved.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      > People also seem to think that RSU grants somehow appreciate in value before they vest. They do not. If you sign for 400k of RSUs over 4 years with a 1 year cliff and the stock rockets up 2x just before your first vest and then plateaus, you’re still getting only 400k. This happens at some places and happens based on number of RSUs at other places.
    - thatfunkymunki 6y ago
      FB grants RSUs based on an initial value at hire time translated into a total number of stock units that then vests over 4 years. So if the stock doubles, your comp doubles.
  - chii 6y ago
    > contributed nothing to its creation. no, they contributed capital. This capital came from somewhere - e.g., they took a risk and borrowed it. Or they took their own saved capital from their own past working life (or inherited, which is just the past working life of their parents). When speaking of labour and value creation, the concept of capital is often seen as "nothing", and is certainly wrong. Without capital, labour is useless. Without labour, capital is useless.
colinmhayes 6y ago
That's not how salaries work. Microsoft would just say no. Are microsoft employees really willing to strike? Seems unimaginable to me at their salaries.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  There are a lot of tools in a union's negotiation toolkit. A full-union work stoppage is the most extreme, rarely deployed. Other measures include rolling work stoppages, delaying response to manager emails, not attending meetings with management, not answering non-customer-impacting on-call pages during certain hours (I'm sure support would be widespread for this one in particular lol) - you can come up with more ideas on your own. My brother, an EMT, is part of a union that does "plainclothes" strikes where they just wear street clothes instead of their uniform, for a softer example from another field.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    There are a lot of tools in a union's negotiation toolkit. When the French train drivers go on strike they continue to run the normal service but simply don’t collect fares. Hurts management but keeps the ordinary people on their side.

twblalock 6y ago

> Here's a refutation: Microsoft spends $250k/employee/year on stock dividends and buybacks. That's quite a large slice of the pie the union could negotiate for. Those buybacks increase the stock price, and employees are compensated in stock, so stock buybacks benefit employees already. I find it hard to believe that the company would just give that money as salary instead -- and even if they did, that would mean that employees of some companies are paid way, way more than employees at other companies. That is exactly the situation we have today, without unions! So again, why do employees at large companies need unions, considering they are already paid more than everyone else? Incidentally, I get stock compensation at my job and getting cash instead would have been worse. The stock I was granted has increased in value. Cash is just cash, and loses value to inflation. I would rather have salary plus RSUs than just a large salary. I don't know if a union would see the value in that.

ahelwer 6y ago
As an employee I might have $100k in MSFT stock after five years. Those buybacks gave me what, a few hundred/thousand bucks at most? Come on. For such a supposed math-literate profession this objection is weirdly common. If you get cash you can turn around and buy company stock. Nobody is stopping you. Unions would also certainly see the value in employee ownership of stock, which broadly aligns with ideas of workers capturing more of the value they produce. A union enables workers, in aggregate, to capture more of the value they produce - value which would otherwise flow to the pockets of shareholders, the overwhelming majority of whom contributed nothing to its creation. Talk about employee salary distribution is orthogonal to this debate.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  People also seem to think that RSU grants somehow appreciate in value before they vest. They do not. If you sign for 400k of RSUs over 4 years with a 1 year cliff and the stock rockets up 2x just before your first vest and then plateaus, you’re still getting only 400k. There’s literally no difference to a regular salary except you get paid out twice and it makes taxes more annoying because you have to pay estimated taxes quarterly instead of doing it once like normal people. Netflix has also proven this obsession with RSUs is unnecessary. You can have strong growth without it and in large public companies, the theory that this somehow incentivizes employees in any meaningful way has a severe lack of any evidence.
  - jmgao 6y ago
    That's entirely dependent on the company. Google grants RSUs based on a dollar value when the grant is approved.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > People also seem to think that RSU grants somehow appreciate in value before they vest. They do not. If you sign for 400k of RSUs over 4 years with a 1 year cliff and the stock rockets up 2x just before your first vest and then plateaus, you’re still getting only 400k. This happens at some places and happens based on number of RSUs at other places.
  - thatfunkymunki 6y ago
    FB grants RSUs based on an initial value at hire time translated into a total number of stock units that then vests over 4 years. So if the stock doubles, your comp doubles.
- chii 6y ago
  > contributed nothing to its creation. no, they contributed capital. This capital came from somewhere - e.g., they took a risk and borrowed it. Or they took their own saved capital from their own past working life (or inherited, which is just the past working life of their parents). When speaking of labour and value creation, the concept of capital is often seen as "nothing", and is certainly wrong. Without capital, labour is useless. Without labour, capital is useless.

colinmhayes 6y ago

That's not how salaries work. Microsoft would just say no. Are microsoft employees really willing to strike? Seems unimaginable to me at their salaries.

ahelwer 6y ago
There are a lot of tools in a union's negotiation toolkit. A full-union work stoppage is the most extreme, rarely deployed. Other measures include rolling work stoppages, delaying response to manager emails, not attending meetings with management, not answering non-customer-impacting on-call pages during certain hours (I'm sure support would be widespread for this one in particular lol) - you can come up with more ideas on your own. My brother, an EMT, is part of a union that does "plainclothes" strikes where they just wear street clothes instead of their uniform, for a softer example from another field.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  There are a lot of tools in a union's negotiation toolkit. When the French train drivers go on strike they continue to run the normal service but simply don’t collect fares. Hurts management but keeps the ordinary people on their side.