[tiffanyh]

> A company like Mapbox hadn’t ever unionized before, so it seemed like an exciting experiment

Call me crazy, but taking such a drastic move as unionizing shouldn’t be trivialized into just being an “experiment”.

EDIT: why the downvotes? Why not simply reply with your thoughts so that we can have a thoughtful discourse.

[roguecoder]

Unionizing isn't "drastic": it is the norm for most trades in the United States. Any individual union is basically just you & your coworkers crowd sourcing employment lawyers you wouldn't afford individually.

Until Boeing got taken over by finance people, the Boeing engineering guild had spent decades being a book club. It is only when things go wrong that unionization significantly changes how we work.

[tiffanyh]

> “crowd sourcing employment lawyers”

How is that not drastic?

You’re own words are saying unionizing is to bring in lawyers to be used against your employer.

EDIT: to answer your question below since I can’t reply.

No, it’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers. A company needs to ensure they are staying regulatory compliant, not breaking laws and de-risking company … that’s what the lawyers are doing.

[roguecoder]

They "de-risk" the company by making sure employees have as little power as possible, as few protections as possible, are as open to exploitation as possible, are paid as little as possible, have as little job mobility as possible, and have as little claim to their independent intellectual property as they can legally enforce.

That's what "derisk" means: it means the company is protected from your interests.

[chipotle_coyote]

“It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers” is probably the point that was being made. It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers; it shouldn’t be drastic for a union—or in this case, a union organizing effort—to have lawyers as well.

[tiffanyh]

If you feel like you have lawyer-up just to go to work, that’s probably a signal you shouldn’t be working there.

[roguecoder]

If one party doesn't have a lawyer look over legal contracts they are signing and the other party does, all they are doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage in a business relationship.

I see why that is advantageous for companies that get to employ workers at a disadvantage. I don't understand why it would be good for workers.

[jacobolus]

So in other words companies should pay teams of legal experts to fight against workers’ interests, but if workers want to hire an expert of their own to prevent themselves from being exploited they “shouldn’t be working there”?

[skybrian]

It depends what you mean by "lawyer up." Having a lawyer look at any contracts you sign isn't a bad idea.

(Not that I've done it.)

[roguecoder]

The company has lawyers: is that drastic?

[legohead]

I was on a union bargaining team once. Made me hate my job, hate management, and hate unions. I was fine being in the union before that. Once you try bargaining and see what people really think of each other, it sucks. I wont join a union again.