12 ms·

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

by erlich 4y ago

Tostino 4y ago
Because the people doing the work want a say in the overall direction of the company?
- xvedejas 4y ago
  This sounds like a case for different corporate governance, yeah?
Apocryphon 4y ago
Maybe because the leadership is actively undermining the survival? From this case alone, it seems possible that the Mapbox leadership is chasing a hopeless strategy by focusing on the auto industry, which is dominated by other much larger companies.
- erlich 4y ago
  And a committee of employees has a better strategy for profitability? I don’t see it. The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Perhaps the employees who are actually executing a faulty business strategy can see its first errors up front.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      I’m sure that’s true some of the time. I wouldn’t say it’s true most of the time.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Perhaps your supposition should be put to the test.
        simondotau 4y ago
        Without access to a parallel universe generator, I don't see how you could. All I'm asserting is that I think that you can't reliably say that management or workers/employees are consistently in a better position to understand the best path forward for a company. Either one can be overly focused on replicating past success; either one can be wrong about opportunities for growth.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        It could be put to the test if more industries, such as tech, experimented with unions, or otherwise empowering employees to share in decision-making. It is rather strange that in a field where there are all sorts of autonomous movements such as open source projects or hacker collectives, there is still the hierarchical belief that the managers knows best. Ah, well FOSS always do have their share of Benevolent Dictator for Life positions.
        simondotau 4y ago
        If you want to look at it that way, then it's already being put to the test. Successful companies succeed, unsuccessful companies do not.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        But as there are not many tech companies with unions, co-ops, or other structures with more employee power, that test does not exist and the current success and failure of companies is immaterial to this debate. The experiment has not been started in full, other than a few isolated causes such as Kickstarter (which was only inaugurated recently).
        4y ago
  - andrewmutz 4y ago
    The employees don't have a better strategy, but they think they do. This happens when trust and respect is lacking (in both directions) between management and workers.
  - mch82 4y ago
    > The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment. What has led you to this conclusion? I’ve observed the opposite to be true: employees have more incentive than investors to seek the long-term success of a company. Building a career within a company and industry requires an investment of time and effort. Career changes are slow and become increasingly difficult. In contrast, investors can invest in anything so investments are more liquid than careers. In the case of a company failure, well managed investment portfolios are exposed to significantly less risk than the typical salaried career.
    - erlich 4y ago
      > Long term success Employees concept of this is not aligned with investors. Investors need a return on investment. It’s not enough for them to have a moderately profitable company with happy employees. They need a big exit event that fits their investment characteristics. And this is fair because then accepting VC money gives them an advantage over their competitors who might have bootstrapped. We shouldn’t feel sorry for employees of a heavily VC funded company, but by their bootstrapped competitors trying to compete. We shouldn’t try to protect employees with high salaries at entrenched big tech companies. We should allow entrepreneurs to create new companies to challenge them which is better for society. It’s better to have less monopolies and it would be better if one high salary was split in two due with someone from a smaller competing company. This is better for the labor market.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        > It’s better to have less monopolies and it would be better if one high salary was split in two due with someone from a smaller competing company. But the VCs whose needs you are arguing for are the ones who are seeking those monopolies, at least in tech. With the advent of blitzscaling as a preferred strategy, we are seeing VCs who are seeking to create monopolies and own markets from the start. So why do you feel sorry for those investors? They burn plenty of money, and if they lose money on one company, they have plenty more in their portfolios. And if unions are truly as detrimental to the system as you claim, then perhaps it is good if they arise in VC-hyperfunded startups, because then they will thwart these nascent monopolies, and allow bootstrapped companies more of a fighting chance. Your narrative contradicts itself. > We should allow entrepreneurs to create new companies to challenge them which is better for society. The existence of unions would not poise a challenge to entrepreneurship.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  A union can't fix that scenario. You need a coop with employee ownership to have any influence over the business.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    If the U.S. had co-determination, as in Germany, where unions reps have board seats, but point is taken. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-boards.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo... Still, having a union would provide a stronger bargaining position than individuals voicing concerns during all-hands.
    - jenny91 4y ago
      Thank you, that was the concept I was referring to in another comment but didn't know the name of!
  - int_19h 4y ago
    You're right, but we have to take one step at a time to get there. Among other things, unions normalize the notion that employees also have a say in how the business runs, even if it's rather limited.
groby_b 4y ago
In almost all cases where a company is fighting for survival, leadership has failed, often quite visibly. It's one of the few moments where rank-and-file folk realize they do need a say in where things are heading - because you start seeing that the leaders aren't somehow magic beings with perfect decision making qualities. And, at the same point, you get strong reminders that your livelihood is coupled to the company's livelihood - which is making bad decisions right now. That's why "fight for survival" is a common inflection point for unionization.
- erlich 4y ago
  ”Your livelihood“ Buts it’s not. They can leave and find another job easily. I agree that management can often be shit and make bad decisions. But at the end of the day everyone is working to make the owners a lot of money, and if the owners cannot see how shit management is, why should employees bother? They don’t stand to gain, only keep working at a company they believe could do great things. See…the incentives for employees drift off into intangible and unmeasurable things. If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company. They have no skin in the game. It makes no sense.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > They can leave and find another job easily. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818323 > why should employees bother? Perhaps they care about the mission. Perhaps they care about the customers. Perhaps they want to ensure the work they've been working on was not made in vain. You seem to see work as purely satisfying the lower ranks of Maslow's hierarchy, but for many workers it is also a means of self-actualization. > If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company. And what if management or the owners do that? How about giving someone else involved in the endeavor a try? > They have no skin in the game. They literally have skin in the game?
  - groby_b 4y ago
    1) Owners and management are, especially in the startup world, tightly intertwined. 2) Uh, yes, unions do have skin in the game. Again, it's the whole "keeping your livelihood" thing. 3) I'm not saying it's the best moment for people to start thinking about a union. They should've done that way earlier. Better late than never. 4) "What happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company" - I am sorry, do you have any idea what unions are and how they work? There are any number of vultures that'll fleece the body of a company before a union can "bankrupt" it. They happen to be all on the ownership side.

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

by erlich 4y ago

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

Tostino 4y ago

Because the people doing the work want a say in the overall direction of the company?

xvedejas 4y ago
This sounds like a case for different corporate governance, yeah?

Apocryphon 4y ago

Maybe because the leadership is actively undermining the survival? From this case alone, it seems possible that the Mapbox leadership is chasing a hopeless strategy by focusing on the auto industry, which is dominated by other much larger companies.

erlich 4y ago
And a committee of employees has a better strategy for profitability? I don’t see it. The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Perhaps the employees who are actually executing a faulty business strategy can see its first errors up front.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    I’m sure that’s true some of the time. I wouldn’t say it’s true most of the time.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Perhaps your supposition should be put to the test.
      - simondotau 4y ago
        Without access to a parallel universe generator, I don't see how you could. All I'm asserting is that I think that you can't reliably say that management or workers/employees are consistently in a better position to understand the best path forward for a company. Either one can be overly focused on replicating past success; either one can be wrong about opportunities for growth.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        It could be put to the test if more industries, such as tech, experimented with unions, or otherwise empowering employees to share in decision-making. It is rather strange that in a field where there are all sorts of autonomous movements such as open source projects or hacker collectives, there is still the hierarchical belief that the managers knows best. Ah, well FOSS always do have their share of Benevolent Dictator for Life positions.
        simondotau 4y ago
        If you want to look at it that way, then it's already being put to the test. Successful companies succeed, unsuccessful companies do not.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        But as there are not many tech companies with unions, co-ops, or other structures with more employee power, that test does not exist and the current success and failure of companies is immaterial to this debate. The experiment has not been started in full, other than a few isolated causes such as Kickstarter (which was only inaugurated recently).
        4y ago
- andrewmutz 4y ago
  The employees don't have a better strategy, but they think they do. This happens when trust and respect is lacking (in both directions) between management and workers.
- mch82 4y ago
  > The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment. What has led you to this conclusion? I’ve observed the opposite to be true: employees have more incentive than investors to seek the long-term success of a company. Building a career within a company and industry requires an investment of time and effort. Career changes are slow and become increasingly difficult. In contrast, investors can invest in anything so investments are more liquid than careers. In the case of a company failure, well managed investment portfolios are exposed to significantly less risk than the typical salaried career.
  - erlich 4y ago
    > Long term success Employees concept of this is not aligned with investors. Investors need a return on investment. It’s not enough for them to have a moderately profitable company with happy employees. They need a big exit event that fits their investment characteristics. And this is fair because then accepting VC money gives them an advantage over their competitors who might have bootstrapped. We shouldn’t feel sorry for employees of a heavily VC funded company, but by their bootstrapped competitors trying to compete. We shouldn’t try to protect employees with high salaries at entrenched big tech companies. We should allow entrepreneurs to create new companies to challenge them which is better for society. It’s better to have less monopolies and it would be better if one high salary was split in two due with someone from a smaller competing company. This is better for the labor market.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      > It’s better to have less monopolies and it would be better if one high salary was split in two due with someone from a smaller competing company. But the VCs whose needs you are arguing for are the ones who are seeking those monopolies, at least in tech. With the advent of blitzscaling as a preferred strategy, we are seeing VCs who are seeking to create monopolies and own markets from the start. So why do you feel sorry for those investors? They burn plenty of money, and if they lose money on one company, they have plenty more in their portfolios. And if unions are truly as detrimental to the system as you claim, then perhaps it is good if they arise in VC-hyperfunded startups, because then they will thwart these nascent monopolies, and allow bootstrapped companies more of a fighting chance. Your narrative contradicts itself. > We should allow entrepreneurs to create new companies to challenge them which is better for society. The existence of unions would not poise a challenge to entrepreneurship.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
A union can't fix that scenario. You need a coop with employee ownership to have any influence over the business.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  If the U.S. had co-determination, as in Germany, where unions reps have board seats, but point is taken. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-boards.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo... Still, having a union would provide a stronger bargaining position than individuals voicing concerns during all-hands.
  - jenny91 4y ago
    Thank you, that was the concept I was referring to in another comment but didn't know the name of!
- int_19h 4y ago
  You're right, but we have to take one step at a time to get there. Among other things, unions normalize the notion that employees also have a say in how the business runs, even if it's rather limited.

groby_b 4y ago

In almost all cases where a company is fighting for survival, leadership has failed, often quite visibly. It's one of the few moments where rank-and-file folk realize they do need a say in where things are heading - because you start seeing that the leaders aren't somehow magic beings with perfect decision making qualities. And, at the same point, you get strong reminders that your livelihood is coupled to the company's livelihood - which is making bad decisions right now. That's why "fight for survival" is a common inflection point for unionization.

erlich 4y ago
”Your livelihood“ Buts it’s not. They can leave and find another job easily. I agree that management can often be shit and make bad decisions. But at the end of the day everyone is working to make the owners a lot of money, and if the owners cannot see how shit management is, why should employees bother? They don’t stand to gain, only keep working at a company they believe could do great things. See…the incentives for employees drift off into intangible and unmeasurable things. If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company. They have no skin in the game. It makes no sense.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > They can leave and find another job easily. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818323 > why should employees bother? Perhaps they care about the mission. Perhaps they care about the customers. Perhaps they want to ensure the work they've been working on was not made in vain. You seem to see work as purely satisfying the lower ranks of Maslow's hierarchy, but for many workers it is also a means of self-actualization. > If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company. And what if management or the owners do that? How about giving someone else involved in the endeavor a try? > They have no skin in the game. They literally have skin in the game?
- groby_b 4y ago
  1) Owners and management are, especially in the startup world, tightly intertwined. 2) Uh, yes, unions do have skin in the game. Again, it's the whole "keeping your livelihood" thing. 3) I'm not saying it's the best moment for people to start thinking about a union. They should've done that way earlier. Better late than never. 4) "What happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company" - I am sorry, do you have any idea what unions are and how they work? There are any number of vultures that'll fleece the body of a company before a union can "bankrupt" it. They happen to be all on the ownership side.