
Kickstarter will not voluntarily recognize its employee union - moate
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/18627052/kickstarter-union-nlrb-election
======
burntoutcase
If Kickstarter will not voluntarily recognize the union, then the union should
go on strike and _remain on strike_ until Kickstarter recognizes them.

~~~
glerk
Kickstarter could give a bonus to everyone who does not join the strike, then
fire everyone else and replace them. Sure, it could end up being more costly,
but there are options.

~~~
moate
I have a feeling that a company like Kickstarter making a move like that isn't
just "costly". Seems more like mutually assured destruction. The PR fallout of
a move like that is going to cause some serious hiring problems going forward.
Plus the loss of domain experience alone would be massive.

------
duxup
It would be interesting exactly what sort of union some tech worker groups are
planning on working on / how they think it would operate.

My experience with US unions is that they're largely just another layer of
bureaucracy that can be as unresponsive as any management structure, and in
many cases you can't quit the union in the sense that you still work in the
system / rules they negotiate. The reliance on seniority in US unions (granted
not all do) tend to result in limited prospects for new people and protections
for older workers who often see little value in expanding skills since time
alone provides all the protection / advancement they need.

Also the exact protections you get from a union are negotiated and not
necessarily what you want / expect ...

~~~
gamblor956
Not sure why FUD like this keeps popping up every time a tech company
workforce wants to unionize.

There are many different types of unions. The types of unions that organize
low-wage workers aren't the same unions that organize high-wage workers or
workers in talent-based fields like Hollywood, music, etc.

Workers choose what they want the union to be, and how it is organized, as
part of unionizing.

~~~
duxup
As someone with experience the idea that the workers choose is a bit
laughable.

Once established the union is largely inflexible and not likely or able
renegotiate the structure... that is just how it works historically.

Folks mentioning it isn't just FUD because you don't agree, for some of us
it's experience.

~~~
gamblor956
I've been on both sides of the table for multiple union negotiations,
including several unsuccessful ones that failed due to management
interference.

Some of the unions were for low-skilled laborers. Others were for highly-
skilled talent-based workers. And two were government unions. Each union was
differently organized to meet the needs of its specific set of workers.

You can't make blanket statements like "once a union is established its
largely inflexible" since the history of American unions is expressly opposite
of that statement. Every major union has undergone massive structural changes
multiple times. Unions have merged, split up, merged again, died, resurrected,
etc. A history of American unions would be as complex as Game of Thrones, with
even more violence and only a bit less sex.

------
867567838694
The sad part is that someone thinks that starting a union is going to make
anything better. If they unionize it's just an early death rattle for
Kickstarter. I know they've got some shit going on, but this just adds gas to
the fire.

~~~
moate
I think we're seeing the start of a push for Unionization in the tech sector.
The old concepts of what a Union is supposed to be are starting to change, and
the whole "power to the individual" culture in the industry is starting to
lose some of its shine.

I don't see how labor organizing, in either this specific case or generally in
the industry, is a bad thing. Yes, it makes it harder for kickstarter
management, but that doesn't mean they'll crumble.

~~~
CryptoPunk
Labor organizing is a bad thing because laws as they stand allow unions to
over-ride the contract liberty of companies. This gives them enormous power
that lets them engage in rent-seeking behaviour. There is plenty of economic
scholarship on the efficiency hit companies take from unionization, and plenty
of anecdotal examples of major American industries crumbling after coming
under the thumb of powerful unions.

~~~
moate
You lost me at "labor organizing is a bad thing"...

There are some flaws in the labor laws in the US, and the first thing that
comes to mind is the fact the "Union Monopoly", ie once a Union is established
there's no competition. If you allowed for competitive union practices, then
you no longer allow for rent seeking by that union because someone can always
just organize a different, "better" union. I don't really care which happens
first (union formations or reform to labor organization laws) but both would
be my goal for a long term solution.

~~~
CryptoPunk
If contract liberty were guaranteed, unions would lose any utility they have
to their members. Before labor laws were crafted, unions used their numerical
advantage to intimidate companies and other workers into respecting their
monopoly on a workforce. With labor laws, that monopoly is guaranteed by the
law. Either way, unions only work with a force-backed monopoly. If a company
can fire workers when they unionize or strike, they will.

A potentially viable free market alternative to unions is worker coops. They
have the resource-pooling and sharing of unions, but without the coercion and
rent-seeking.

~~~
moate
You: Labor organizing is bad.

Also you: a free market alternative to <organized labor> is <organized labor>.

You hate the word union. You seem to have a problem with how unions function
in the US. I agree! Having all carpenters represented by a single union isn't
necessarily as good an answer as having all carpenters represented by several
unions. It creates other problems (unions competing against each other leading
to race to the bottom rating, mass firings, etc) but it's really no different
than companies just hiring non-union laborers now and would hopefully lead to
a larger percentage of labor represented by orgs and not individuals.

There absolutely should be laws in place preventing retaliation and allowing
organizations, I just don't think the US model has done well.

~~~
CryptoPunk
I don't see any moral justification for violating someone's contact liberty.
If someone does not want to employ unionized workers, or workers who go on
strike, they should not be forced to. Freedom is a two-way road. You have a
right to do whatever you want including organize and strike but you do not
have a right to force other people employ while you do these things.

I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea that it is morally permissible to
restrict freedom-of-association/contract-liberty in this way.

