5 ms·

I mean isn't that default position? Everyone has to go into situations like this with eyes open. If there was no risk to striking or demanding better working c

I mean isn't that default position? Everyone has to go into situations like this with eyes open. If there was no risk to striking or demanding better working conditions, it wouldn't be as rare as it is. I think everyone is aware that by default "the companies" have more power than the individual or the worker class. What's unusual is that in 2021 the balance shifted for a little while for the privileged tech worker class. So it's notable that this brief blip was in fact a blip and not the start of a trend. I don't know how hackernews feels about this given that many here often acts like they are enterpreneurs-in-training, CEOs-in-waiting. Those that secretly (or not so secretly) can't wait to repress others because "<Shrug>, capitalism" rather than working towards a more equitable future (the word itself considered dirty by many here). Your key point is the last sentence. Individually we have no real power. That's because we are going against corporations and economic systems and governments, which are not individuals. The only way to have a meaningful chance at action is collectively.

monero-xmr 4y ago
It is insanely hard to build a business, and I speak as someone who has built businesses in both tech and franchising (which should theoretically be much more straightforwards). At the primordial stage, before there are reliable revenues, you must have everyone marching to the same drum. If you can’t do what I say, please GTFO because you are actively harming what is already hanging on by a thread. If I can’t fire bad people then I can’t build a business, period. And if you don’t like it, please go create a business model, raise and invest the capital, hire the workers, spend a huge fraction of your waking hours worrying and agonizing over the business, and then deal with entitled people who have way less stake in the game who think they can do it better. One thing I like about government offices is that the people most motivated to live in insane bureaucracies, punch a card, act entitled, and hurt customers go to work for them. At least it exits a large fraction of nightmare employees from the private sector pool.
- nkjnlknlk 4y ago
  Wow. It sounds like you'd benefit from society where the risk of innovating (assuming your business is innovating in some capacity) is not life or death! I daresay a more equitable society would make it so you have an easier time with running your business as well.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  You don't have the right to build a business. You have the right to try, of course, but it's not like there's some natural law that you should be able to succeed. So appeals to "it's hanging on by a thread!" don't really do much for me; maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees, in which case I'd really rather the thread be cut. Your comment about firing people is kinda flippant. That’s your prerogative as a business owner, but don’t be surprised when your employees treat you just as transactionally as you treat them.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    People have the right to freely associate with who they want, ergo the right to build a business.
    - eropple 4y ago
      If they'd like to operate as a sole proprietorship with unlimited liability, perhaps. If they'd like to operate as a virtual person that insulates personal assets from liability, then the society that grants such a charter absolutely should get to put boundaries on what, as a collective deployer of potentially significant capital, that business is allowed to do.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees This is a weird take, as it absolutely does. Kind of how the viability of a military also relies on an imbalance of power between generals and privates. Power structures are fundamentally necessary in productive endeavours.
    - petsfed 4y ago
      Two things: First, power structures are not fundamentally necessary in productive endeavors, but division of responsibility absolutely is. I submit to your authority in situation A, and you in turn submit to my authority in situation B. But insofar as there is a power imbalance, it is a function of how the responsibility is divided, and how often situation A comes up vs situation B. Is there actually a power imbalance between a general and a private though? There is absolutely a difference in scope of responsibility, but a general, BY THEMSELVES, does not have some special ability to compel that the private does not. The organization inflicts discipline, and its clear that the discipline is necessary for the organization to achieve its goals. But armies that understand the enforcement of discipline as the exercise of a power differential frequently mutiny. I've read pretty frequently that when you start conceptualizing your marriage in terms of power structures, you may as well draw up the divorce papers, because that endeavor is no longer productive.
- kilburn 4y ago
  It is not _necessary_ to get large investments and people who dedicate every walking minute of their lives to build a succesful company. There are plenty of businesses built on the back of solid work done under healthy life-work balance conditions.
  - analognoise 4y ago
    That's the kind of startup I'd join: "I have a reasonable plan, and it doesn't involve bullshit appeals to grinding, absurdist rowing metaphors, or rely on setting cash on fire for growth" "Sign me up."
- spamizbad 4y ago
  People are going to be mad at you but rather than getting mad the correct thing to do is to just not work for a startup. Working at a startup means dealing with a boss (and a business) living on the razor's edge. Maybe that's exciting to you and you want to work really hard to see it succeed -- in which case, go for it! However, if it's just a job to you, you're actually better off working somewhere else. Also, be aware that most startups are either unable or unwilling to share a piece of the "upside" with you, beyond their ability to simply give you a job, so there's really no point in working for them unless you specifically prefer that work environment OR you can't get hired anywhere else. I will also say if you're a very talented engineer your talents are likely going to be wasted at a startup. The founder(s) will be too inexperienced and/or under-resourced to utilize your skills beyond building an MVP or whatever. If you're fine with that, again, go for it. But if you're looking for deep technical challenges you're going to need to join a more mature organization.

monero-xmr 4y ago

It is insanely hard to build a business, and I speak as someone who has built businesses in both tech and franchising (which should theoretically be much more straightforwards). At the primordial stage, before there are reliable revenues, you must have everyone marching to the same drum. If you can’t do what I say, please GTFO because you are actively harming what is already hanging on by a thread. If I can’t fire bad people then I can’t build a business, period. And if you don’t like it, please go create a business model, raise and invest the capital, hire the workers, spend a huge fraction of your waking hours worrying and agonizing over the business, and then deal with entitled people who have way less stake in the game who think they can do it better. One thing I like about government offices is that the people most motivated to live in insane bureaucracies, punch a card, act entitled, and hurt customers go to work for them. At least it exits a large fraction of nightmare employees from the private sector pool.

nkjnlknlk 4y ago
Wow. It sounds like you'd benefit from society where the risk of innovating (assuming your business is innovating in some capacity) is not life or death! I daresay a more equitable society would make it so you have an easier time with running your business as well.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
You don't have the right to build a business. You have the right to try, of course, but it's not like there's some natural law that you should be able to succeed. So appeals to "it's hanging on by a thread!" don't really do much for me; maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees, in which case I'd really rather the thread be cut. Your comment about firing people is kinda flippant. That’s your prerogative as a business owner, but don’t be surprised when your employees treat you just as transactionally as you treat them.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  People have the right to freely associate with who they want, ergo the right to build a business.
  - eropple 4y ago
    If they'd like to operate as a sole proprietorship with unlimited liability, perhaps. If they'd like to operate as a virtual person that insulates personal assets from liability, then the society that grants such a charter absolutely should get to put boundaries on what, as a collective deployer of potentially significant capital, that business is allowed to do.
- dvt 4y ago
  > maybe the viability of your business relies on an imbalance of power vs. your employees This is a weird take, as it absolutely does. Kind of how the viability of a military also relies on an imbalance of power between generals and privates. Power structures are fundamentally necessary in productive endeavours.
  - petsfed 4y ago
    Two things: First, power structures are not fundamentally necessary in productive endeavors, but division of responsibility absolutely is. I submit to your authority in situation A, and you in turn submit to my authority in situation B. But insofar as there is a power imbalance, it is a function of how the responsibility is divided, and how often situation A comes up vs situation B. Is there actually a power imbalance between a general and a private though? There is absolutely a difference in scope of responsibility, but a general, BY THEMSELVES, does not have some special ability to compel that the private does not. The organization inflicts discipline, and its clear that the discipline is necessary for the organization to achieve its goals. But armies that understand the enforcement of discipline as the exercise of a power differential frequently mutiny. I've read pretty frequently that when you start conceptualizing your marriage in terms of power structures, you may as well draw up the divorce papers, because that endeavor is no longer productive.
kilburn 4y ago
It is not _necessary_ to get large investments and people who dedicate every walking minute of their lives to build a succesful company. There are plenty of businesses built on the back of solid work done under healthy life-work balance conditions.
- analognoise 4y ago
  That's the kind of startup I'd join: "I have a reasonable plan, and it doesn't involve bullshit appeals to grinding, absurdist rowing metaphors, or rely on setting cash on fire for growth" "Sign me up."
spamizbad 4y ago
People are going to be mad at you but rather than getting mad the correct thing to do is to just not work for a startup. Working at a startup means dealing with a boss (and a business) living on the razor's edge. Maybe that's exciting to you and you want to work really hard to see it succeed -- in which case, go for it! However, if it's just a job to you, you're actually better off working somewhere else. Also, be aware that most startups are either unable or unwilling to share a piece of the "upside" with you, beyond their ability to simply give you a job, so there's really no point in working for them unless you specifically prefer that work environment OR you can't get hired anywhere else. I will also say if you're a very talented engineer your talents are likely going to be wasted at a startup. The founder(s) will be too inexperienced and/or under-resourced to utilize your skills beyond building an MVP or whatever. If you're fine with that, again, go for it. But if you're looking for deep technical challenges you're going to need to join a more mature organization.