7 ms·

217 is an astonishing number of employees to operate what appears to be a moderately-complex Wordpress install.

j_walter 5y ago
This was my first thought also. How is this not just a few people doing this as a hobby or second job. How much really goes into daily operations? I would think they are big enough to be known by most internet savvy people that they don't need marketing. I also don't understand this "Radha Nath, 30, a product designer at the company, said she is paid $16,000 less than she was at her last employer. The union will fight to bring wages across the company to the industry standard, she said." So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right?
- criddell 5y ago
  > So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right? Isn't that true of every person working somewhere who then votes to unionize?
  - hokumguru 5y ago
    I think they mean that she voluntarily took a pay cut relative to her former place of employment. Which, in my opinion is an interesting take. Many people take pay cuts to work at start ups and it would be irresponsible to think that a 10 or even 200 person company could pay like FAANG. Salaries aren’t static across the industry.
    - criddell 5y ago
      There's a lot we don't know though. We don't know how long ago that was or what she was told to expect as far as salary increases go. Plus, Change.org is 14 years old now so I wouldn't really call it a startup anymore.
      - j_walter 5y ago
        You are right that it's not a startup, but a ~200 person company is far from Google or Apple and you can't really compare them. Change.org is about social justice as I would say their major goal is not profits so the pay will be lower than a publicly traded company.
    - gotostatement 5y ago
      okay.. then unionizing and negotiating will reach a fair agreement. I dont understand how this is remotely an argument against unionizing.
      - j_walter 5y ago
        How is it not currently a fair agreement? They knew the pay going into the job...that's not fair?
        gotostatement 5y ago
        I'm not saying necessarily it was unfair, I'm saying that unionizing can only make it more fair - there's no downside to unionizing.
        criddell 5y ago
        Underpaid workers generally know the pay going into a job. I don't think that makes it fair or unfair.
        readflaggedcomm 5y ago
        The power imbalance ensures it's never fair.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      It doesn't say she left her previous employment in order to take on a job for less money, it simply says it paid less than her previous employment. For all we know she could have been out of work for a year between, trying to get a job. Saying someone accepted a job at a miserly rate doesn't make the rate acceptable. We don't think paying immigrants a fraction of the minimum wage is acceptable, we don't (any more) think that expecting years of unpaid internships is acceptable, and we don't think that the jobs the factory workers first started to unionize against, with terrible wages and unsafe conditions were acceptable, despite all those people "voluntarily" accepting the jobs. Having a job isn't just "voluntary" for most people. The pressure to have one in order to survive, plus the difficulties, costs and risks associated with switching, gives the employer power over the employees.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual? In our world of capitalism, the only justification a product needs is that it sells. And sometimes things that don't work or don't work well are superior products, because then customers keep coming back for more to get their desired results.
- SamBam 5y ago
  The headcount is justified by the fact that it's a multimillion dollar for-profit corporation. The multimillion dollar aspect seems to be due to a number of factors, but a large part seems to be the absolutely-scammy "chip-in" request, where they ask petition-signers for money, clearly designed to make them feel like they are donating to the cause, but instead it's simply a promise to display the petition more prominently within the change.org website. I think it's basically a scam. https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-get-asked-to-chip-in-after-signing-a-petition-on-change-org-27b1f79c05fd https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-ge...
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual This isn't my experience. Yes, if you're using a Change.org petition to lobby POTUS, that's dumb. But for local politicos? University administrators? In other words, people sensitive to being publicly embarrassed? I've seen it work.
  - crackercrews 5y ago
    The issue with niche change.org petitions is that the numbers mean nothing. There's no way to prove that the signers are from the key population.
sergiomattei 5y ago
Right on cue, HN armchair experts underestimating the complexity of real world businesses.
- tmp_anon_22 5y ago
  Yes but don't underestimate the number of wastefully run businesses either.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    IDK, I mean, people are employed. That's a good thing right?
    - umvi 5y ago
      Not really unless it is gainful employment. Toll booth worker is employment, but it isn't gainful employment. It's mindless soul crushing work.
      - xeromal 5y ago
        Unionized work sounds pretty gainful. Less chance of getting screwed over. Anyways, I'd agree that gainful is ideal, but I think most humans prefer to be employed and occupied over having nothing to do.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        I'm certain there's at least one toll both worker that loves their job.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tengbretson 5y ago
  What business?
- kesselvon 5y ago
option 5y ago
that’s why they formed a union
slongfield 5y ago
Looking at the skill they're looking for on their hiring page: https://careers.change.org/ https://careers.change.org/ Seems like it's a Ruby/React stack on AWS. Looks like they're trying to grow internationally (hiring "campaigners" in Japan).
Spivak 5y ago
Why do you assume all that work is engineering? I mean you’re probably right that comparatively the number of people who actually work on the site itself are teeny tiny. But then there’s the whole rest of the business — admin, finance, accounting, sales, marketing, design, support. Like $15m ARR and a $300m valuation isn’t “a website.”
magila 5y ago
Perhaps the most amazing part is them having enough revenue to pay that many people. Even if only a fraction of those are FTEs that's a fair amount of cashflow to sustain. I always thought Change.org was mostly known for being a nexus of naiveté and impotence so it's surprising to see enough people willing to pay into it to sustain that kind of headcount.

This was my first thought also. How is this not just a few people doing this as a hobby or second job. How much really goes into daily operations? I would think they are big enough to be known by most internet savvy people that they don't need marketing. I also don't understand this "Radha Nath, 30, a product designer at the company, said she is paid $16,000 less than she was at her last employer. The union will fight to bring wages across the company to the industry standard, she said." So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right?

criddell 5y ago
> So she wasn't forced to work there...she voluntarily accepted less pay when she started. It's not like they duped her on what her pay would be right? Isn't that true of every person working somewhere who then votes to unionize?
- hokumguru 5y ago
  I think they mean that she voluntarily took a pay cut relative to her former place of employment. Which, in my opinion is an interesting take. Many people take pay cuts to work at start ups and it would be irresponsible to think that a 10 or even 200 person company could pay like FAANG. Salaries aren’t static across the industry.
  - criddell 5y ago
    There's a lot we don't know though. We don't know how long ago that was or what she was told to expect as far as salary increases go. Plus, Change.org is 14 years old now so I wouldn't really call it a startup anymore.
    - j_walter 5y ago
      You are right that it's not a startup, but a ~200 person company is far from Google or Apple and you can't really compare them. Change.org is about social justice as I would say their major goal is not profits so the pay will be lower than a publicly traded company.
  - gotostatement 5y ago
    okay.. then unionizing and negotiating will reach a fair agreement. I dont understand how this is remotely an argument against unionizing.
    - j_walter 5y ago
      How is it not currently a fair agreement? They knew the pay going into the job...that's not fair?
      - gotostatement 5y ago
        I'm not saying necessarily it was unfair, I'm saying that unionizing can only make it more fair - there's no downside to unionizing.
      - criddell 5y ago
        Underpaid workers generally know the pay going into a job. I don't think that makes it fair or unfair.
      - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
        The power imbalance ensures it's never fair.
  - SamBam 5y ago
    It doesn't say she left her previous employment in order to take on a job for less money, it simply says it paid less than her previous employment. For all we know she could have been out of work for a year between, trying to get a job. Saying someone accepted a job at a miserly rate doesn't make the rate acceptable. We don't think paying immigrants a fraction of the minimum wage is acceptable, we don't (any more) think that expecting years of unpaid internships is acceptable, and we don't think that the jobs the factory workers first started to unionize against, with terrible wages and unsafe conditions were acceptable, despite all those people "voluntarily" accepting the jobs. Having a job isn't just "voluntary" for most people. The pressure to have one in order to survive, plus the difficulties, costs and risks associated with switching, gives the employer power over the employees.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago

I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual?

tablespoon 5y ago
> I also wonder what justifies the headcount when Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual? In our world of capitalism, the only justification a product needs is that it sells. And sometimes things that don't work or don't work well are superior products, because then customers keep coming back for more to get their desired results.
SamBam 5y ago
The headcount is justified by the fact that it's a multimillion dollar for-profit corporation. The multimillion dollar aspect seems to be due to a number of factors, but a large part seems to be the absolutely-scammy "chip-in" request, where they ask petition-signers for money, clearly designed to make them feel like they are donating to the cause, but instead it's simply a promise to display the petition more prominently within the change.org website. I think it's basically a scam. https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-get-asked-to-chip-in-after-signing-a-petition-on-change-org-27b1f79c05fd https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/the-actual-reason-you-ge...
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Change.org petitions are almost universally pointless and ineffectual This isn't my experience. Yes, if you're using a Change.org petition to lobby POTUS, that's dumb. But for local politicos? University administrators? In other words, people sensitive to being publicly embarrassed? I've seen it work.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  The issue with niche change.org petitions is that the numbers mean nothing. There's no way to prove that the signers are from the key population.

sergiomattei 5y ago

Right on cue, HN armchair experts underestimating the complexity of real world businesses.

tmp_anon_22 5y ago
Yes but don't underestimate the number of wastefully run businesses either.
- xeromal 5y ago
  IDK, I mean, people are employed. That's a good thing right?
  - umvi 5y ago
    Not really unless it is gainful employment. Toll booth worker is employment, but it isn't gainful employment. It's mindless soul crushing work.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Unionized work sounds pretty gainful. Less chance of getting screwed over. Anyways, I'd agree that gainful is ideal, but I think most humans prefer to be employed and occupied over having nothing to do.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      I'm certain there's at least one toll both worker that loves their job.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tengbretson 5y ago
What business?
kesselvon 5y ago

option 5y ago

that’s why they formed a union

slongfield 5y ago

Looking at the skill they're looking for on their hiring page: https://careers.change.org/ https://careers.change.org/ Seems like it's a Ruby/React stack on AWS. Looks like they're trying to grow internationally (hiring "campaigners" in Japan).

Spivak 5y ago

Why do you assume all that work is engineering? I mean you’re probably right that comparatively the number of people who actually work on the site itself are teeny tiny. But then there’s the whole rest of the business — admin, finance, accounting, sales, marketing, design, support. Like $15m ARR and a $300m valuation isn’t “a website.”

magila 5y ago

Perhaps the most amazing part is them having enough revenue to pay that many people. Even if only a fraction of those are FTEs that's a fair amount of cashflow to sustain. I always thought Change.org was mostly known for being a nexus of naiveté and impotence so it's surprising to see enough people willing to pay into it to sustain that kind of headcount.