6 ms·

So tired of companies that raise hundreds of millions from some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world trying to pull the “we’re a startup” car

So tired of companies that raise hundreds of millions from some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world trying to pull the “we’re a startup” card. You’re not two dudes eating ramen in a garage and you don’t get to use that image to excuse your shitty behavior. Also tired of the “other people in poverty are exploited even worse! You asking for basic labor protections shows your lack of empathy for them!” I’m seriously having a hard time imagining any of this was written in good faith. The real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining. These VCs aren’t going to make sure you have healthcare. They could give it to you directly, or they could use their wealth and power to make sure the government gives it to you. People ask “what can a union do? My office already has free kombucha”. Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare (it would have been in the initial employment contract). The money for this stuff would magically materialize. It doesn’t materialize because there’s no organization to advocate for it, it’s that simple.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> tired of companies that raise hundreds of millions from some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world trying to pull the “we’re a startup” card But they are one! If those wealthy people were getting perks in this failure, the way e.g. workers at Good got screwed, I'd agree with you. But if you're running with massive fixed costs and volatile revenue, knowing whether you're weeks or months from shutdown is difficult. And again, people are assuming if he shut down six months ago everyone could have gotten severance. Convoy is $100+ million in debt. Wages are privileged; new severance obligations are not. > real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining The closer solution is civic participation. How many people in Silicon Valley have written to their state elected to raise unemployment benefits? (Note: I'm not saying anyone deserves what's happening. But union participation in America is stubborn and dropping. We need another drum to beat.)
cma 3y ago
> Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare (it would have been in the initial employment contract). Congress made secondary strikes illegal a long time ago. Maybe it would still be OK since that wouldn't technically be cross-industry; I'm not sure.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  Ok, so it's illegal. Now what? Strike anyway.
- vidarh 3y ago
  There was a time when US unions striked despite being met by a risk of people getting outright murdered. Without hyperbole, the 8 hour working day was won with blood. The question needs to be whether you think a strike is right and morally justified, and worth the potential consequences, not whether it is legal.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 3y ago
    Leisure and comforts like the eight hour workday are what economists call a 'normal good'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good > In economics, a normal good is a type of a good which experiences an increase in demand due to an increase in income, unlike inferior goods, for which the opposite is observed. When there is an increase in a person's income, for example due to a wage rise, a good for which the demand rises due to the wage increase, is referred as a normal good. Conversely, the demand for normal goods declines when the income decreases, for example due to a wage decrease or layoffs. It's entirely expected that people will want to consume more comfort and safety at their income increases. If you compare different countries, you will find that these kinds of things track with income much more than with history of union activism. For a striking example see https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ which is an article on the divergence between Japan and India. Japan has a long history of labour repression, especially compared to India. But by and large Japanese workers have a it a lot better today than workers in India, especially if you go by what's happening in reality and not just by what's promised on paper. And that difference tracks with the difference in incomes between the two countries, but stands in stark contrast to what we would expect from your sketched theory of union activism driving these things.
    - 3y ago
slt2021 3y ago
I was with you until you mentioned unions. tech is fundamentally incompatible with unions for several reasons: 1. it will drive down the wages and give power to just another bureacracy 2. Union participation does not differentiate between highly skilled (and sought after) tech worker, from mediocre tech worker who gets by using copilot and chatgpt 3. I dont need union to negotiate with company on my behalf - I can negotiate by myself just fine 4. If startup goes bust - I can easily find a job at another startup, probably will even get a pay raise - just because my skills are highly sought after and in demand. There is literally zero upside for me that union can do 5. I dont want to share my specialist employee's power with faceless union burearacy I know what it means to be a union worker - and trust me, it will never gonna work in software engineering
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Here's a point by point rebuttal: 1. Hollywood unions disprove this 2. Hollywood unions (SAG, DGA) disprove this 3. Unions don't mean you can no longer negotiate. DiCaprio still does 4. One upside: Unions represent members who are no longer able to work 5. Hollywood unions have some pretty specialized folk and it works well for them As an individual - you only bargaining chip is your ability to do work. If you lose capacity to work - temporarily or otherwise - you lose the ability to negotiate. Unions don't suffer from that weakness. The things you can negotiate for are capped at the value of your work. You can't forbid your employer from replacing you/your teammates with AI foe instance, but unions can, because the collective value of their output is beyond what the employers may gain from ML models. Not so on the individual level.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    SAG really is a gold-standard union. Critically, it has a monopoly to multiple buyers of its talent. (Sort of like the UAW.) Single-employer unions are more constrained.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    You skipped the downsides of hollywood unionization: Cost of hiring increases and there are fewer gigs around. Unionisation adds nontrivial transaction costs, so there will be fewer opportunities for new entrants, and fierce competition among existing workers for shrinking number of gigs. For example look at how women actors get their cast roles with harvey weinstein studio - did union protect them from sexual predators? Look at average unionized actor - very few are making big bucks, most are just surviving and have other day jobs. UAW workers are still at the mercy of their employers, and are only dragging their companies down, while non-unionized automakers are taking over market share. I am totally fine that my bargaining chip is my ability to work - it is the only austainable way. Otherwise there will be a lot of useless dead weights who dont contribute to the topline, and leech off of bottomline. (There is already unemployment for this use case). Look at NYC MTA - all unionized and completely inefficient, unionisation can only work in monopoly situation. Tech in the other hand is high growth particularly because all monopolies are being attacked by more flexible and lean startups. Hollywood is not growing at all, while big tech is carrying the whole world
eru 3y ago
> The real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining. As long as I can opt-out of your collective bargaining (both as a worker and as a founder), I don't care what you bargain for.
kortilla 3y ago
Raising lots of money doesn’t mean it’s a sustainable business. I don’t think you know the colloquial definition of startup in Silicon Valley. Raising millions doesn’t mean making millions either. If you took a bunch of investor money and just paid it all out to your employees and closed up shop that’s a misappropriation of funds. > Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare Why would they do that? I’m not going to go on strike because other employees are incapable of understanding the risks of joining an unprofitable company that is default dead. If you want 6 months of paid healthcare, quote it and demand it as a signing bonus before you start. Startups blow up. It’s your responsibility to prepare for it. Established companies blow up too. Sometimes you even just get fired because you suck. SWEs have zero excuse to not have saved enough money to pay for cobra for six months if things fall apart.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> tired of companies that raise hundreds of millions from some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world trying to pull the “we’re a startup” card But they are one! If those wealthy people were getting perks in this failure, the way e.g. workers at Good got screwed, I'd agree with you. But if you're running with massive fixed costs and volatile revenue, knowing whether you're weeks or months from shutdown is difficult. And again, people are assuming if he shut down six months ago everyone could have gotten severance. Convoy is $100+ million in debt. Wages are privileged; new severance obligations are not. > real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining The closer solution is civic participation. How many people in Silicon Valley have written to their state elected to raise unemployment benefits? (Note: I'm not saying anyone deserves what's happening. But union participation in America is stubborn and dropping. We need another drum to beat.)

cma 3y ago

> Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare (it would have been in the initial employment contract). Congress made secondary strikes illegal a long time ago. Maybe it would still be OK since that wouldn't technically be cross-industry; I'm not sure.

idiotsecant 3y ago
Ok, so it's illegal. Now what? Strike anyway.
vidarh 3y ago
There was a time when US unions striked despite being met by a risk of people getting outright murdered. Without hyperbole, the 8 hour working day was won with blood. The question needs to be whether you think a strike is right and morally justified, and worth the potential consequences, not whether it is legal.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 3y ago
  Leisure and comforts like the eight hour workday are what economists call a 'normal good'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good > In economics, a normal good is a type of a good which experiences an increase in demand due to an increase in income, unlike inferior goods, for which the opposite is observed. When there is an increase in a person's income, for example due to a wage rise, a good for which the demand rises due to the wage increase, is referred as a normal good. Conversely, the demand for normal goods declines when the income decreases, for example due to a wage decrease or layoffs. It's entirely expected that people will want to consume more comfort and safety at their income increases. If you compare different countries, you will find that these kinds of things track with income much more than with history of union activism. For a striking example see https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ which is an article on the divergence between Japan and India. Japan has a long history of labour repression, especially compared to India. But by and large Japanese workers have a it a lot better today than workers in India, especially if you go by what's happening in reality and not just by what's promised on paper. And that difference tracks with the difference in incomes between the two countries, but stands in stark contrast to what we would expect from your sketched theory of union activism driving these things.
  - 3y ago

slt2021 3y ago

I was with you until you mentioned unions. tech is fundamentally incompatible with unions for several reasons: 1. it will drive down the wages and give power to just another bureacracy 2. Union participation does not differentiate between highly skilled (and sought after) tech worker, from mediocre tech worker who gets by using copilot and chatgpt 3. I dont need union to negotiate with company on my behalf - I can negotiate by myself just fine 4. If startup goes bust - I can easily find a job at another startup, probably will even get a pay raise - just because my skills are highly sought after and in demand. There is literally zero upside for me that union can do 5. I dont want to share my specialist employee's power with faceless union burearacy I know what it means to be a union worker - and trust me, it will never gonna work in software engineering

sangnoir 3y ago
Here's a point by point rebuttal: 1. Hollywood unions disprove this 2. Hollywood unions (SAG, DGA) disprove this 3. Unions don't mean you can no longer negotiate. DiCaprio still does 4. One upside: Unions represent members who are no longer able to work 5. Hollywood unions have some pretty specialized folk and it works well for them As an individual - you only bargaining chip is your ability to do work. If you lose capacity to work - temporarily or otherwise - you lose the ability to negotiate. Unions don't suffer from that weakness. The things you can negotiate for are capped at the value of your work. You can't forbid your employer from replacing you/your teammates with AI foe instance, but unions can, because the collective value of their output is beyond what the employers may gain from ML models. Not so on the individual level.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  SAG really is a gold-standard union. Critically, it has a monopoly to multiple buyers of its talent. (Sort of like the UAW.) Single-employer unions are more constrained.
- slt2021 3y ago
  You skipped the downsides of hollywood unionization: Cost of hiring increases and there are fewer gigs around. Unionisation adds nontrivial transaction costs, so there will be fewer opportunities for new entrants, and fierce competition among existing workers for shrinking number of gigs. For example look at how women actors get their cast roles with harvey weinstein studio - did union protect them from sexual predators? Look at average unionized actor - very few are making big bucks, most are just surviving and have other day jobs. UAW workers are still at the mercy of their employers, and are only dragging their companies down, while non-unionized automakers are taking over market share. I am totally fine that my bargaining chip is my ability to work - it is the only austainable way. Otherwise there will be a lot of useless dead weights who dont contribute to the topline, and leech off of bottomline. (There is already unemployment for this use case). Look at NYC MTA - all unionized and completely inefficient, unionisation can only work in monopoly situation. Tech in the other hand is high growth particularly because all monopolies are being attacked by more flexible and lean startups. Hollywood is not growing at all, while big tech is carrying the whole world

eru 3y ago

> The real solution is, and always will be, collective bargaining. As long as I can opt-out of your collective bargaining (both as a worker and as a founder), I don't care what you bargain for.

kortilla 3y ago

Raising lots of money doesn’t mean it’s a sustainable business. I don’t think you know the colloquial definition of startup in Silicon Valley. Raising millions doesn’t mean making millions either. If you took a bunch of investor money and just paid it all out to your employees and closed up shop that’s a misappropriation of funds. > Imagine if all the SWEs at all these VCs backed companies went on strike unless the laid off Convoy employees got six months of healthcare Why would they do that? I’m not going to go on strike because other employees are incapable of understanding the risks of joining an unprofitable company that is default dead. If you want 6 months of paid healthcare, quote it and demand it as a signing bonus before you start. Startups blow up. It’s your responsibility to prepare for it. Established companies blow up too. Sometimes you even just get fired because you suck. SWEs have zero excuse to not have saved enough money to pay for cobra for six months if things fall apart.