[tarkin2]

It sounded like unionisation was an attempt at pushing back the ills of VC funding, especially taking back some control of the company’s direction, rather than concentrating on fairer pay and working conditions. I support unions but I’m not sure I support them controlling the direction of the company: most of the time the business people, frankly, know best about profitability.

The whole story reinforced the idea that if you build a company with value but no profits eventually you either abandon it as a business or give control to VCs, and if you had any emotional or political investment in the company you will be disappointed.

[jenny91]

Maybe there is a middle ground? Surely VCs will fight tooth-and-nail against it since it's clearly taking away control (and some ability to extract profit) from them.

For instance in some countries with stronger unions and better labor conditions the union often has a board seat and so can advocate and don't have by any means control over the directio of the company.

[tarkin2]

Yeah definitely. My comment came from my understanding of what the author wanted the union to do rather than how unions could operate.

As an aside, I’m slightly skeptical about unions in the US. The US’s economic model seems to be based around innovation and unions arguably make making decisions slower and more difficult.

If you look at Germany’s economic model, one with very strong employee protection, it seems largely based on pre existing industries. Yet the US’s seems more based on innovation and failing fast. And German political culture seems more consensual compared to US political culture.

Of course, this doesn’t mean I don’t think unions are possible or a good idea in the US—for certain industries I think they could alleviate the US’s problems—but I just doubt they’ll readily get government backing, support or favorable legislation in the short term.

[pm90]

Im not sure that “Unions slow innovation” is true.

As a counter: in tech, its the workers that generate a significant amount of value by writing software and building products. Giving them more control and a seat at the table can be useful in encouraging long term investments in lieu of extreme short term thinking that VCs typically promote.

[erlich]

Google tried putting devs in charge and it didn’t work. It’s obvious too. Devs have such different incentives to owners. They want a nice place to work and play with fun tech and pad their CVs. They can leave at any moment too with zero concern for what happens when they’re gone.

Employee equity is usually not enough to be worth fighting for. It’s just the ability to pay less salary or get good people.

[pm90]

If you’re gonna go with anecdotes, its been going pretty well as Valve with having no hierarchies (aka “devs in charge”).

But that sort of conversation isn’t really useful. Study after study has shown employees’ job satisfaction doesn’t scale infinitely with compensation, other things start to matter after a certain income is reached. With many highly paid software devs, I would wager they are at or beyond that point.

[erlich]

Smart companies will provide conditions that attract and retain talent. Companies can compete on culture. The market will discover the necessary incentives to bring on employees. This has already happened. Look at all the perks companies offer without any union involvement.

If management sucks and cannot listen to their employees then it’s better that they don’t get more capital/talent and their competitors suck up all their talent.

[M2Ys4U]

>Google tried putting devs in charge and it didn’t work.

Putting devs in charge is not the same thing as giving them structured and respected input.

It's a massive jump from "give devs a seat at the table" to "putting devs in charge", and one I frankly find hard to believe is made in good faith.

[erlich]

What has a union got to do with „give devs a seat at the table“?

By „seat at the table“ you mean a way to get what they want by force or against the will of the owners.

You don’t need a union to collect employee feedback. Smart management will do this and if they don’t then employees can jump ship to a competitor that does.

[jenny91]

I agree, too strict labor regulations around e.g. firing/letting employess go certainly would hinder some of the innovation hapening in the US and especially tech. Though maybe there is a flavor of unions that recognizes this and pushes for other things e.g. proper treatment of contractors, or osme slight input in direction, etc?

I think the US is screwed for unions mostly because to unionize you basically have to join one of the existing huge unions none of which are run very democratically or transparently; as well as the huge anti-union sentiment and misrepresentation of what unions could be. But those things are nigh impossible to change...

[jcims]

If everyone promoting unions in the US would have your very pragmatic take on the current situation, it might actually change. Admitting it's a risk to the business and developing a strategy to try to align as many incentives as possible and iterate where its not working might help create the success stories required to fix their reputation in the states.

As it stands right now, the most vocal advocates I see for unionization can't seem to help but slather their speech with the collectivist twang that turns so many off.

[sclv]

I don't think any of this is impossible to change. There was just a Labor Notes conference this weekend where thousands of people pushing for more democratic and rank and file run unions showed up. And examples like the ALU show that going through existing unions isn't the only way possible. And beyond that, even organizing with a major union can still give you a local you have power over - workers at the the times tech guild, amazon, kickstarter, etc have all organized with existing larger unions, and are starting to see more control over their conditions, more rights, and more respect already.

And I disagree that job protections would "hinder some of the innovation" happening -- if anything, more comfortable and safe employees are more free to innovate. I think it would just hinder employers giving us impossible deadlines to do underspecified or ill-specified things to tick some useless checkbox, or to deliver a feature they already sold without it having been written yet.

[jenny91]

You're kind of right: I'm generally pretty pessimistic about systemic change in big systems where I'm merely a pawn. Though it definitely happens regularly! So hopefully the existing unions change and things move forward!

I am not saying that job protections hinder all innovation. But the "liquidity" of labor most certainly gives companies more control and an easier time making changes in many ways. I think that has an undeniable upside for instance with startups who want to push growth to the max without worrying much about possible troubles later.

And I think safety and comfort in tech doesn't come from the particular employer but rather how sought after tech employees currently are.

Anyway, I'm talking specifically about tech and tech innovation here: for other industries things are again slightly different. And I do really think that job protections definitely drive innovation in established and stable organizations!

[nraynaud]

there is this deeply unsettling thing about innovation: it's historically been driven by people who did not need to work and had free time to explore.

That means that innovators probably come with slackers, because they are secure in their standing.

[erlich]

VCs are looking for a big exit. They have targets for the investment to have been worthwhile. The founders agreed to this. They are not interested in a great company just breaking even and chugging along which is what the employees want.

I wonder how much additional stock the employees are buying with their paychecks…