[jenny91]

I'm saddened by what happened to Mapbox. It's such a recurring pattern of organizational transformation: from a small "mission-driven" group building cool shit that starts taking money (and pressure from investors) and slowly erodes their past core values, changing into a faceless money-making machine subservient to some huge market or industry. In that process most of the original opinionated crowd will slowly rotate out and the more "career"/bureaucratic types will prevail and take over.

Maybe unions and workers having more control could curb it? But in such a late stage it sounds almost impossible to achieve.

Cars are certainly a problem, but technology has by and far been a great thing, and I would question whether the gaming is really such a positive industry in the end either.

[NelsonMinar]

Unions and Mapbox is a very sore topic and now the subject of a NLRB lawsuit for firing the union organizers. https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/mapbox-sued-firing-union-...

But the union drive came far too late to help the larger problem. The big change happened in 2017 when Softbank invested $164M into MapBox. In retrospect it was far too much money with too many expectations. And with the ugly side effect of salting the earth for any other map startups. It only got worse in 2021 when MapBox's attempt to go public via a SPAC failed. They're plodding along now but it's hard to see what a good final outcome is going to be.

[Doctor_Fegg]

> And with the ugly side effect of salting the earth for any other map startups

I'm unsure on that. Mapbox built a bunch of good tech (mostly around vector tiles), open-sourced it, and then lost interest in smaller customers in their rush for the petrodollar.

This has been genuinely great for bootstrapped map businesses. You can easily list a dozen who are using .mvt tech right now and making a good living out of it.

True, it wasn't good for Mapzen. But I can't weep too many tears for something funded with Samsung Accelerator magic money, much though they did hire one of the smartest teams in the business - Softbank vs Samsung is not a battle I can bring myself to care about.

I 100% agree with you that Mapbox went too far, too fast. But on balance I think their trajectory has (unintentionally) been good for wider mapping tech.

[chx]

This is not the first time I see Softbank as a net negative. Too much money loosely controlled. Is there an example of Softbank doing good?

[erlich]

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

[groby_b]

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]

”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]

> They can leave and find another job easily.

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]

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.

[Tostino]

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

[xvedejas]

This sounds like a case for different corporate governance, yeah?

[Apocryphon]

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]

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.

[mch82]

> 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]

> 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]

Perhaps the employees who are actually executing a faulty business strategy can see its first errors up front.

[simondotau]

I’m sure that’s true some of the time. I wouldn’t say it’s true most of the time.

[andrewmutz]

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.

[kevin_thibedeau]

A union can't fix that scenario. You need a coop with employee ownership to have any influence over the business.

[Apocryphon]

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-bo...

Still, having a union would provide a stronger bargaining position than individuals voicing concerns during all-hands.

[jenny91]

Thank you, that was the concept I was referring to in another comment but didn't know the name of!

[int_19h]

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.

[bruce511]

This process reoccurs for a reason. Understanding that helps mitigate the loss, and possibly also helps new companies avoid the problem.

Basically it happens when people start needing money for life, and that need becomes more pressing than idealism.

Consider the start of your career, maybe you came from school or college, probably you had _very_ low money needs. You may have had subsidised living (living with parents, student loans etc.). You live in a world where money isn't as important, you have no obligations, you are as idealistic as you'll ever be.

At this point your world is "open source" - everything should be free, make the world a better place. It's not hard to find like-minded people, join companies with like-minded founders.

But life happens. You have expenses. Relationships, kids, obligations. If you have employees you have to make payroll. Some might call it "growth" - some might call it "growing up" - really its just discovering (and losing) some of those subsidies you took for granted.

Crucially it happens at different rates for different people. So inevitably there's friction - this isn't the company I joined - and so on.

It's hard for employees to understand the pressures that come with being an employer. Pressures that lead to decisions an employer would rather not have to make. Pressure to make payroll. Pressure to somehow make it work. Seeing the car park and realise the number of people dependant on making that work.

To an employee every decision looks like maximising profit. And in some companies that is true. In others its about maximising income, income to pay everyone, income to keep the lights on, income to build reserves to weather the storms.

Employees have the luxury of quietly looking elsewhere. Once they're set then can simply leave. Employers don't have that luxury.

Unions, especially unions belonging to one specific business, not industry wide, are not a bad thing. But a seat at the table means understanding the responsibility of that table - and the need to satisfy the needs of all, not just your own. I've seen unions be a huge asset, I've seen them destroy factories and industries.

Yes companies pivot from open source all the time, because yes they need to "capture" value - because at some point costs, and life, catch up and unfortunately "giving it away for free" doesn't really pay the bills.