
Kickstarter employees vote to unionize - danso
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8pp5/kickstarter-employees-win-historic-union-election
======
elicash
1\. Why do tech workers need a union?

If you want to improve your workplace, you have additional leverage to fight
for changes if you're in a union. There's often very little you can do alone.
This might be things like pay, or it might be something else entirely.

2\. But aren't tech workers elite coddled rich kids who are lucky to make what
they receive?

I mean, no. But even if so, high pay doesn't stop athletes from joining a
union. Folks who run these companies are even more elite than the person who
codes. Why not negotiate for a better workplace? Why be a weak negotiator?
Isn't that especially important to do when you have flexibility to go
somewhere else?

3\. Why don't they just leave their job?

Some issues are systemic across an industry. Additionally, some people like to
improve their jobs rather than just leave. People are wired differently.
Creating lasting change at a company can be rewarding. Some also care about
the mission of the company they work for.

~~~
yibg
Just in terms of salary isn’t an union somewhat contradictory to the
engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we’d like to think that the good
ideas win and impact and outcome matters. We hold up the 10x engineers and
those that make an outsized contribution to the industry / company / product
right? Shouldn’t they get higher compensation compared to the rest of the work
force? How do we square that with collective bargaining that has set salaries
and annual increases?

~~~
Seenso
> Just in terms of salary isn’t an union somewhat contradictory to the
> engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we’d like to think that the good
> ideas win and impact and outcome matters. We hold up the 10x engineers and
> those that make an outsized contribution to the industry / company / product
> right?

Not necessarily. I'd imagine that a union could negotiate its pay-scales any
way it likes, which could take into account "meritocracy" in many different
ways. That could include ideas that are totally foreign to existing for-profit
company practices, such as a peer-controlled meritocratic bonus implemented
via the union itself.

> Shouldn’t they get higher compensation compared to the rest of the work
> force? How do we square that with collective bargaining that has set
> salaries and annual increases?

Here's a hypothetical: In a non-union shop, regular engineers get paid $100k,
while 10x engineers get paid 120k. In a union shop all engineers get paid
$150k. Should the engineers reject a union so the 10x engineers can get paid
more than regular engineers, even though that means everyone makes less?

Also: Are the 10x engineers the people management chooses to pay more? Is
management good at recognizing merit? When they recognize it, do they choose
to compensate it accordingly? Or do they make the good business decision, and
pay the meritorious employees the minimum amount of money they'll be happy
with. For some 10x engineers, that could be 2x salary. For other 10x
engineers, that could be 1.05x salary. For some 10x engineers, that could be
_0.75x_ salary.

~~~
Bedon292
While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for
everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask
them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150? I think people will
have a hard time with that. I feel people will always want more money for
performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of
that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this.
Is there some desire that most people have to be that stellar performer and
get that extra compensation, which might make them not want to Unionize so
they can try? Would also be curious as to how the breakdown in these votes go.
Are the people already better off (well above mean compensation) less likely
to vote for Unionization?

~~~
Seenso
> While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for
> everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask
> them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150?

I think that one key aspect of your comment is that you're taking about _a_
10x. Which can be generalized into a question: should a solution be rejected
if it leaves a well-off minority less well-off than they are now, regardless
of how much good it may do otherwise?

I, personally, think the answer to that general question is no. That answer
may be hard to swallow if you're part of that well-off minority, but I don't
think that changes the truth of the matter.

However, that doesn't mean that a union would or should force that guy to take
a pay cut.

> I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get
> incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and
> not more. I am curious what other people think on this.

I feel that people will always want more money regardless. I also feel that
compensation is actually a poor motivator for performance. I think the real
motivators for performance are internal factors (such as a desire to improve
oneself, to avoid annoyance with badly made things, or to be challenged rather
than bored).

Personally, I think once you make enough money, the extra compensation is more
a form of recognition than anything else. Recognition doesn't _have_ to be in
the form of money, it's just that a souless corporation only cares about
money, so money is the only way you can extract recognition from it.

~~~
Bedon292
Generally I think I agree. The well-off minority should not hold back changes
for the betterment of the majority. I just wonder how that gets executed
cleanly.

And you are right, compensation is definitely a form of recognition, and
perhaps there are better ways to do it. Just not sure how you bestow that
recognition in some reasonable way. So what other form of recognition conveys
your actual value to a company? What else can be done here?

------
calderarrow
Coming from a public accounting background, I’ve seen a variety of businesses.
Somewhat obviously, I’ve seen some be successful with unions and others be
successful without, which makes sense, as unions are neither inherently good
nor bad. They are a tool which can change the power dynamic and incentive
structure of workers and employers throughout an organization, but there is
nothing inherent about having a union that guarantees ineffective operations,
just as the absence of a union does not indicate that employees are getting
shafted.

Generally speaking for well run, ethical companies, whose management actively
try to do the right thing, unions add unnecessary redundancy and bureaucracy.
When there is a sense of trust between employer and employee, communication
flows between employees and managers, employee working conditions are safe and
healthy, and compensation is reasonably fair. For companies that are shady and
treat employees poorly, unions help enforce structured communication and
transparency between managers and employees.

Usually I look for symptoms of bad management when hearing about employees who
want to unionize. In tech, we can generally assume reasonable working
conditions and pay, so Kickstarter unionizing screams “toxic management” for
me, personally. I haven’t heard management’s defense, but ultimately the
burden is on management to convince a majority of its employees that they
don’t need a union. Clearly they haven’t, and given how easy it is to appease
developers, this is particularly damning.

~~~
zpallin
> Generally speaking for well run, ethical companies, whose management
> actively try to do the right thing, unions add unnecessary redundancy and
> bureaucracy.

The only type of "well run, ethical companies" where unions are redundant are
_worker-owned cooperatives_. Otherwise, an employer, regardless of how ethical
they are, can never replicate the most critical aspect of unions: __collective
bargaining rights __. Sure, an employer can essentially just implement the
kind of benefits that would be negotiated by a union, but it does not replace
the fact that until a union exists employees have essentially no means to
collectively demand changes to compensation and working conditions unless they
_unionize_.

~~~
proc0
Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are
the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two
masters.

~~~
arrosenberg
That's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a
high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord. In well-run
unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. With a
good union you are serving yourself in a far more significant way than without
the union.

~~~
luckylion
> In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way
> around.

Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the
people" etc? That's certainly true _in theory_...

I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very
well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels.
The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as
cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for
the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on
political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to
see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we
have to be paid as well as upper management".

Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're
starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap.
It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job.
Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job,
they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they
will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your
life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.

~~~
arrosenberg
> Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves
> the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory...

Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude.

> I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job,
> very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple
> levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are
> run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large
> salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly
> based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say
> "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly
> translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management".

I have no first-hand experience with German unions, so I won't comment beyond
observing that in either case, the issue comes down to a lack of a
meritocratic reward structure. Unions are neutral on that front, it all comes
down to the laws and culture. American unions were born out of capitalist
greed run amok, so they tend to be pretty antagonistic and confrontational. I
get the impressions that German unions are more of a cooperative with capital
to ensure work stoppages are minimized.

> Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're
> starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap.
> It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your
> job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a
> job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union,
> they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make
> your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.

I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological, and I don't
personally feel an ideological bent toward unions. I wouldn't personally join
one because I don't need it, but a union would benefit most of the developers
I know from a practical standpoint. Getting on the bad side of the union is no
different than getting on the bad side of an executive - at least with a union
you have 2 centers of gravity to pull on instead of one.

~~~
jariel
"certainty of servitude" -> "I didn't think my statement was particularly
ideological"

Have the self-awareness to concede that describing 'a job' particularly in
high tech which can pay quite well and has great conditions, is tantamount to
servitude is effectively ideological.

~~~
arrosenberg
Why do the salary and conditions matter? Either you are ownership or you serve
their interests in exchange for money. There is nothing ideological about
calling a thing what it is.

------
Pfhreak
Congrats to the Kickstarter folks. Here's hoping this is the turn towards
increased workers rights in the tech sector.

Yes, this sector tends to pay fairly well, but that doesn't mean there aren't
other areas to improve. From IP restrictions to overtime, oncall to
transparency in promotions, there are countless workplace conditions I hear
about needing to improve constantly.

~~~
ancarda
transparency in promotions?

~~~
Pfhreak
In a lot of companies there's a sense that the promotion process is secret,
unfair, or doesn't evaluate everyone equally. Especially at big tech companies
(at Amazon, for instance, I often heard a sense that it was 'impossible' to
get to L6. Additional transparency can help people understand why they are/are
not moving to the next level.)

------
nimbius
Speaking as an IAM union member, congratulations! now comes the hard part.

You're probably (still) going to hear a lot of FUD from your employer but dont
worry, things really do only get better from here. Once you get a union youll
get more quarterly insight into your companies profits, losses, and a MUCH
better picture of what the company intends to do in the next six to twelve
months. Youll also get a direct say in almost anything you think will help the
business. Im not just talking about a suggestion box for the snack-o-matic,
but real input to people with actual power.

the hard part is the election period. Kickstarter is going to pull out ALL the
stops to change your mind. youll get harassing phone calls at night, weird
letters in email, meetings intended for one thing but that end up as an anti-
union rant (EX: Safety meetings that turn into anti-union propaganda
immediately) and of course lots, and lots, of direct mail from people and
organizations no ones heard of outside a union busters office. Youll also get
invited to a ton of after-work "pow wow" or "support" groups that sound like
they are union related, but arent. Keep your eyes on the prize, ignore the
fliers on your windshield, and vote.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
I just formed a company back in December. Super easy to set up an LLC, C or S
Corp. But I wanted it to be a worker co-op like Mondragon. And there's no real
guidance or help.

Democracy is cool, until we look at companies. Then it's dictatorships as the
norm. And trying to do it right from the ground up is high impossible.

As a obligatory comment: are there any other in the HN-sphere that focuses on
worker cooperatives?

~~~
umvi
> Democracy is cool, until we look at companies. Then it's dictatorships as
> the norm.

Democracy is a horribly inefficient system of government. Its only redeeming
quality is that it seems effective at (so far) deterring tyranny and abuse of
power.

However, like I said, it's horribly inefficient. Changes that are easy to make
under a dictatorship can be extremely hard to make under a democracy. Not
exactly a quality you would want for a project or company, especially if you
(the founder) have a vision.

IMO, part of the reason Linux and Python were so successful was that they had
a "benevolent dictator" with a strong vision. Imagine the gridlock that would
occur with Linux development if we had a 2-party system that polarized on
controversial issues and got mired at every vote.

~~~
mempko
Democracy is also a system that produces BETTER decisions. Sure tyranny can
make decisions "efficiently" but that's not that great when those decisions
are terrible.

Democracy: Fewer macro, more micro, better decisions

Command-Control: More macro, fewer micro, terrible decisions.

EDIT: Another way to think of democracy is "distributed decision making" vs
command-control which is "centralized decision making". When I talk about
democracy, I mean distributed decision making.

~~~
sonofhans
I expect you're being downvoted because your statement is so obviously wrong.
Democracies have consistently made horrifying decisions. Take a read through
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)

~~~
ilikehurdles
As have monarchies and dictatorships. So where does that leave us? The
conclusions that all forms of government make horrifying decisions?

~~~
chillacy
I like to think that a democracy and good decision making are not particularly
correlated. But democracy is technology for preventing violent revolution
because power change is built into the system.

------
_sbrk
I worked in a union shop once, as a summer intern.

Every day, we were told to be in the break room at 7:59am to begin promptly at
the 8am bell. By 4:30 or 4:45pm, everyone was back in there, waiting for the
clock to hit 5pm.

One day, I needed to connect two PCs together, which was approved by boss as
they would be isolated from the network. So, being the diligent type, I went
off and found some network cards and a cable to do this.

About the time I had one PC opened up and was installing the NIC, one of the
local IT guys dropped by and told me "You can't do that." 'Why not?', I asked.
"That's not your job.", he replies.

Not "you're not qualified", not "you're not taking the proper ESD protection
steps" (was wearing a grounding tape strap), etc. This boiled down to the
union job classification, which said that I couldn't open up a PC to put in a
network card.

Unions, in my experience, exist to help keep mediocre, unmotivated employees
employed. One has no incentive to excel, as promotions are based on years
"served", much like prison.

I got my degree, went to work for a start-up where ambition and taking on
responsibility are appreciated and rewarded. I never looked back...

~~~
nradov
A friend of mine worked as a developer at defense contractor with mostly union
employees. One time they moved him to a different cubicle. Due to union work
rules he literally had to wait two days for a union electrician to come by and
plug his desktop computer into the wall socket. Just ridiculous.

~~~
zipwitch
Was that "union rules" or "the way the company had agreed to comply with their
agreement with the union"? Because 'work to rule' can be a double-edged sword,
and in my experience companies just _love_ to blame their own chosen behavior
on the union. "We have to fire you if you're late five times this quarter,
because the union" really means "after we frequently and arbitrarily abused
employees under the excuse of 'attendance' the union insisted we have a
uniform attendance standards and this is what we came up with".

~~~
pathseeker
That's still "union rules". If the union chose to be pedantic and insisted
upon these rules in negotiation, then it's really the union's fault.

~~~
ska
This is really a problem of unintended consequences. And it's not "union
rules", it's a collective agreement that both the union and management sign
off on. Union shop or not, we can all point at absurdities in work life - just
as many come from management in my experience (which doesn't include much work
with unions).

It's a bit like the tax code or some complicated piece of bureaucracy. Some of
the stuff in there sure seems stupid but you can bet it was put in for a
reason that, at the time at least, looked sensible. In the case of things like
"only an electrician is allowed to do that", it's a pretty safe bet that at
some point in the past management tried to do an end run around the agreement
and have cheaper labor do something they weren't trained or compensated for.
In the US at least the system is so adversarial you end up with hard lines
being drawn on both sides.

------
ughitsaaron
Congratulations to everyone at Kickstarter!

All workers deserve a voice in their workplace and that's exactly what the
solidarity of a union provides.

------
dangus
> That dynamic doesn’t reflect who we are as a company, how we interact, how
> we make decisions, or where we need to go. We believe that in many ways it
> would set us back, and that the us vs. them binary already has.

What a shameful statement.

Kickstarter has a so-so 3.6 on Glassdoor, and a sub-50% CEO approval rating. A
lot of reviews talk about a secretive, insulated management group.

You don’t see companies with 4.5+ stars on Glassdoor unionizing.

So I’d have to ask their leadership: who made this an “us versus them”
situation? Perhaps your local superstore sells handheld mirrors.

You don’t want your employees to unionize? Offer highly competitive salaries,
benefits, and opportunities to grow. Treat employees like real people you care
about and avoid turning the C-level suite into a force of secrecy,
discrimination, and exclusion.

~~~
Nuzzerino
> Kickstarter has a so-so 3.6 on Glassdoor

Glassdoor's ratings are not terribly reliable. Here's something I wrote
previously about my own experience with using it:

\-----

I left a poor review for an employer only one time in the 10 years or so I've
been on Glassdoor (there were only a couple other reviews). And almost
immediately after, there were about 20 or 30 5 star reviews posted in a short
amount of time. The company only had about that many employees, which proves
that the CEO (or someone at the top) either told everyone to write a good
review, or some of them were fake, both clearly 'incentivized' by any sane
definition of the term. I reported this to Glassdoor and they refused to do
anything about it, and I even had the report escalated and re-reviewed,
without any effect.

~~~
driverdan
One of my past employers did something like this. We had some negative reviews
from job candidates that weren't hired. At an all hands our CEO encouraged
everyone to leave _honest_ feedback on Glassdoor. A lot of employees did,
bumping our score up. It wasn't dishonest or misleading, all of the reviews
were real.

~~~
Nuzzerino
Reviews are supposed to be from people who worked at the company, so if they
were from rejected candidates they are fake reviews. If the company wouldn't
remove the fake reviews, that further proves my point that the Glassdoor
ratings are not reliable.

------
danharaj
As a contractor, I'm happy for them. One day we will have one big union.

~~~
whalesalad
As a contractor, I am happy to have absolutely nothing to do with unions.

~~~
erik998
You can be a contractor with your own S-corp and still get the same benefits
as union members if you are in an industry that has union workers like SAG.

[https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out-
company/](https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out-company/)

~~~
whalesalad
> same benefits as union members if you are in an industry that has union
> workers like SAG

I have an LLC operating for tax purposes as an s-corp. I can't think of any
benefits a union would give me that I couldn't otherwise get for myself.

------
logfromblammo
> " _inherently adversarial_ "

Given that the employer-employee relationship--or indeed any vendor-customer
relationship--is already inherently adversarial, _and_ its power balance is
skewed in favor of the employer for everyone but the most highly-skilled of
laborers, one might naturally expect that laborers might cartelize to improve
their bargaining position.

The "us versus them" binary arises as a consequence of typical corporation
management structure. One of the best ways to avoid it is by giving the
employees an actual stake in the success of the company as a whole. Pay them
in stock, or give bonuses based on meeting the company goals. Employees with
zero stake are more likely to find any lever they can use to pry more of the
value that they provide to the company out of its owners.

------
jaredtn
I would love to understand the dynamic better, so please correct me here or
chime in.

Tech is has one of the best combinations of (lucrative + meritocratic) I've
seen. Fields that pay similarly or better (law, medicine, investment banking)
require either significant time-consuming credentials or significant time
investment as an underlying (like IB analyst).

The interview process does require intensive preparation to land a top spot.
However, your compensation package increases proportionately to the
preparatory time. From the mind of a top performer, wouldn't you want to seek
out the best of the best, rather than settling for median wage? It seems like
unionizing will encourage the top workers to leave while the below-average to
stay, dragging down the overall talent pool.

~~~
lyrr
I don't know how you can fail to see how an organised and unified workforce
will always benefit all workers in a firm. Pitting 'top performers' against
the rest, scaremongering about 'lazy workers' etc. just divides the workforce
and allows management/owners to exploit/underpay workers as a whole. The
company would not be able to function/make as good a profit as it does without
ALL workers contributing. If a worker truly is lazy/not pulling their weight,
they get fired. A union doesn't stop that. A union is a unified voice for
workers that can demand rightfully, better working conditions, better pay,
better benefits.

This fiction that somehow tech workers should avoid unions because their pay
is so well is utter corporate propaganda. The money won't always be this good
people, especially as more and more are told to enter the industry. I know
HackerNews is an entrepreneurial haven but it's funny to me how people here,
with all their technical wisdom, are so blind to any benefits to workers and
aversion to anything seen as 'socialist'.

~~~
pathseeker
>I don't know how you can fail to see how an organised and unified workforce
will always benefit all workers in a firm.

Because historically it hasn't in the US. Unions end up implementing a
seniority-based compensation/benefits scheme and there is nothing given to
employees who outperform everyone else. This even fosters an environment where
top performers are discouraged by their peers for "making everyone else look
bad".

~~~
majormajor
> This even fosters an environment where top performers are discouraged by
> their peers for "making everyone else look bad".

You don't need a union for this. Most large companies that do software (not
the FAANGs, but the non-tech-first ones) generally don't know what to do with
top performers, because consistency and predictability is more valuable to
them. Especially a top performer who's bad at politics so they come off as
attacking whole other departments or teams.

A union won't fix it, but probably won't make it worse, in those places.

~~~
chillacy
Someone who comes off as attacking other departments or teams is probably a
toxic individual to work with. Even if they crank out good code quickly, at
some point senior engineers are expected to influence others, and attacking
others is not conducive to that.

As for rewarding top performers, most places have annual or biannual reviews
where people are given bonuses based on individual and company performance.
The difference between underperforming and overperforming can be a lot of
cash.

------
Waterluvian
I'm excited by this. I hope they utilize this as an opportunity to improve
employee well-being and force the employer to treat issues like climate change
as an actual hard requirement and not a "nice to have."

I think the only concern I have, which I've seen with a lot of unions, is that
they can evolve to become an us vs. them mentality, which enables absolutely
mediocre people to keep their jobs at the cost of everyone.

------
echelon
I really don't understand this. A career in software is one of the most
pampered and lucrative ones I can think of. Due to the shortage of software
engineers, we can go anywhere and get a job instantly.

The only downside I can think of is ageism, but then again, I have colleagues
in their 50s and 60s where I work. But I suppose this isn't universal. (I'm in
Atlanta and we have a lot of older workers. Age doesn't seem to be a thing
here.)

Yes, we're underpaid for the value we provide, but we're paid a hell of a lot
more than most people. We have the flexibility to find new work or create our
own businesses.

Why introduce a new level of politics and collective bargaining? I don't want
to pay union dues. If I don't like where I'm working, I'll go somewhere else.

Can someone explain why I should want this? (Or why I should empathize with
those who do?) I don't understand it at all.

~~~
dangus
Just look at their employee reviews. The management there seems toxic.

I implore you to also think twice about the way in which you are demonizing
unions. Sure, some unions aren’t the best, but what you’re saying is 100%
discounting the benefits that a union can bring to employees. Union dues can
more than pay for themselves in wage negotiation. They can restrict overwork,
unpaid overtime (see the special salaried overtime exemptions that IT
employees and teachers get enshrined into US law), and unsafe working
conditions.

Sure, unions have bureaucracy, but they have bureaucracy that is incentivized
to increase outcomes for the employee and not the employer. You are directly
paying the union to represent and fight for you.

The “go work somewhere else” solution isn’t an equitable or realistic solution
for many employees. That often equates to “I can go work somewhere else that’s
just as shitty.”

Sure, life is nice for many tech employees right now, but what happens when
the supply/demand situation inverts?

Tech employees often also have a very bad habit of pretending that more poorly
compensated areas of their own company are enjoying the success in the same
way. Ask someone in support or a junior graphic designer about what they think
about the prospects of “working somewhere else.”

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
>junior graphic designer

I don't think anyone says tech employee and is referring to graphic
designers/anyone in that area.

99% sure anyone who hears tech employee is thinking software development.

EDIT: How on Earth can anyone downvote this statement? If you ask 10 people to
name 10 tech companies, not one of them is going to pick a game studio.

~~~
jkaplowitz
Graphic designers work at most tech companies I've worked at, and I've never
worked at a game studio. They definitely can be classified quite reasonably as
tech employees.

Also, here in Montreal, most people's list of well-known local tech employers
would absolutely include at least one or two of the many game studios here.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
Be honest here.

What percentage of employees at Google/Apple/Microsoft do you think are
"graphic designers", and what percentage are "software developers"?

Your argument to create a union is that the 1% of employees need protection.
Honestly I agree video game industries could use a union. But the presence of
a graphics designer at Google does not mean every employee needs to unionize.

~~~
jkaplowitz
Google has more software developers, no doubt, but still far more graphic
designers than you seem to expect.

No, every employee at Google does not need to unionize. CEO Sundar Pichai
certainly doesn't. But lots of Googlers have long wanted a union for good
reason, including software developers. I would have happily voted yes in a
union election when I was there, despite being a software developer myself.

I know of plenty of examples of misbehaviour and other harmful actions by
Google toward software development employees, a number of which have been
publicly reported. And the situation seems to have gotten worse since I left.

To be clear, Google is far from unique in this regard, and it's still probably
a better employer than many of its peer companies. That just underscores how
severe and widespread the problem is.

------
pensatoio
Perhaps I’m jaded by my experience working for employers that support change
and transparency, but I, for one, would immediately pack up and leave if any
part of my firm’s white collar workforce unionized. I have zero interest in
participating in collective bargaining. I work hard to stand out, and I
capitalize on that influence to negotiate raises and promote change on my own.

While I’m sure there are situations that merit such a decision, might I
suggest that unionizing < finding another employer that meets your needs. The
inability or lack of desire to do so indicates to me either fear of change or
aversion to risk, both of which are unwarranted from anyone who is continually
working to improve themself.

------
aty268
Absolutely pathetic for both sides. If you don't like your white collar tech
job, go somewhere else. It's not factory work where you're paid way less to do
the same thing wherever you go. You make yourselves and your company look weak
in doing this.

This is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of
entitled pricks.

~~~
fogetti
I on the other hand think that the comment as yours is why the rest of the
United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of entitled pricks.

------
zchrykng
Is Kickstarter in a right-to-work state? Because if not, 46 people are forcing
37 to support a union that they might not agree with, which is distasteful in
the extreme.

~~~
ughitsaaron
Thankfully, New York is not a right-to-work state.

~~~
zchrykng
So you are fine with the majority forcing the minority to support something
they don't want to support? Never going to get behind that notion myself.

~~~
Willson50
This is literally how democracies work.

~~~
michaelt
Most democracies include, at the very least, a bunch of hand-wringing about
oppression of minorities, though.

It would be unusual in the extreme for a modern western democracy that was 75%
christian to force the 25% minority to convert.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
Being in a union that protects your rights as a worker is more like insurance
(which the majority indeed mandates the minority to get) than religion.

~~~
pathseeker
It's not insurance. It actively changes how you can be compensated and takes
very hands-on interference with the operations of the company (in US unions at
least).

~~~
Jweb_Guru
As opposed to insurance, which has a huge influence on who you can go to and
what your options are if you get sick, to the point that your choice of
insurance may end up becoming a turning point in your life? I don't think I
ever heard of someone's life turning on joining the wrong union.

So no, I don't really see the distinction. But my point was more that
sometimes we are "forced" to do things for the benefit of the people around
us, even if we don't really want to and don't personally think we need it.
Unionizing is one of those things.

------
tempsy
How do unions operate in organizations where voluntary turnover is relatively
high? A small % of people in tech stay at one company for more than a couple
of years. I guess there's nothing about a union that stops you from
voluntarily quitting for something else in that case, other than paying
whatever fee you pay for the time you do stay?

~~~
erik998
The model you are asking about is similar to SAG-AFTRA. This how actors work.
This is the preferred model. Kickstarter employees should have used this as an
opportunity to push for something like that.

The reason SAG started was because production companies made an agreement
amongst themselves not to bid competitively for talent. (Remember that just
ocurred in tech...)

------
erik998
Will they publish the union agreement? Wow... we will go from job/salary
comparison sites to sites comparing transparent union agreements.... That is a
step up!

------
thulecitizen
I see a beautiful symphony here. The fact that this is discussed is to me a
sign that enough people are feeling pressured and stressed, and sharing how
the current systems don't work for them.

Through sharing we can reveal our hopes and frustrations.

Dialogue is step 1. It's a brave, difficult first step.

Bravo Hackernews community.

What ever pains people have, I'd like to ask them to try and see it as
temporary growing pains. That maybe those who disagree with this development
can see that others are sharing their unmet needs, as a request to help get
help in getting those needs met. Exploring new strategies.

I believe we will make it through and come out stronger.

------
legohead
good luck to them. I was part of a union and joined the negotiations board.
come bargaining time, I was probably the most stressed I have ever been at a
company ever. you learn just how little the company actually cares about you
and everyone else.

------
quotemstr
Well, now we have a natural experiment on the effect of unionization on a tech
company. I look forward to monitoring the results over the next few months and
years.

------
notSupplied
Folks should really read this article to get more context on Kickstarter's
history with unionization, it is truly bananas and not what you think:

[https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-
uni...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-union-drive-
historic-tech-industry.html)

\- The first thing that jumped out at me was that the primary spark of
conflict was NOT compensation or working conditions.

\- The main conflict was around a Kickstarter project "Always Punch Nazis", a
project that gathered a few laughs among Kickstarter's largely liberal staff +
management. When they faced right-wing political pressure to de-platform this
project, since it technically violates their "do not incite violence" ToS, it
triggered a ideological schism within the company.

\- Unionization seems to be largely about placing this kind of decision in the
hands of the employees. This is somewhat consistent with Kickstarter's history
of activism.

\- However, it's pretty uncharted territory here: Unionization that is not
primarily motivated by distribution of wealth, but for the political soul of
the company.

~~~
ksred
This is exactly it. After scrolling through so many of the comments it's crazy
to see the _actual_ reason for unionising so far down the list.

------
cmod
Somewhat tangential but perhaps of interest to anyone here curious about
unions — the documentary American Factory [0] chronicles Fuyao Glass' creation
of a factory in the US, and the subsequent attempts (and ultimate failure) of
those workers to unionize.

[0]:
[https://www.netflix.com/title/81090071](https://www.netflix.com/title/81090071)

~~~
chillacy
It was interesting to see the lengths management went through to prevent a
union from forming. The show ends with management getting excited about their
now robotic arms. Robots don't unionize and complain about healthcare.

------
vitalus
Is it normal for unionization votes to have this kind of opposition? 56.6%
doesn't seem like an overwhelming majority, so I'm curious to see how it plays
out for all of the employees there.

It would be interesting as well to know how/if the vote was drastically
different based on role - it sounds like this was a company-wide vote, which
would necessarily include many more roles than just software engineers.

------
L-four
I never understood why employees in America need to vote to join a union. In
Australia employees can join/leave unions at will.

------
eximius
Professional guilds for maintaining industry-wide standards of competence and
unions for corporate bargaining power.

Still waiting on the first one.

------
mc32
I wonder if they’ll be able to do anything about outsourcing jobs?

If they gain some advantage by being in a union but practically lose out due
to outsourcing, what good would it be?

Do they have any options to protect against that scenario?

I recall a few years ago one of unis in SF outsourced many of their IT ops
overseas. That is a progressive city also ships off jobs.

Is there any way to attenuate that?

------
chairmanwow1
I don’t see this playing out well for Kickstarter in the long-term.

------
Ajedi32
Anyone else think the phrasing in the title is a bit weird? Were there other
people voting in this election who were _not_ Kickstarter employees? How can a
group which makes up 100% of the electorate _not_ "win" an election? The
outcome reflects the majority opinion, by definition.

~~~
zchrykng
Only 46 employees voted for the union, 37 against.

~~~
Ajedi32
That's kinda my point. A significant percentage of employees were against
unionization, so it seems rather odd to treat "Kickerstarter Employees" as a
monolithic group who "won" the election. It'd be like announcing the results
of a political election with the headline: "U.S. Voters Win Historic
Presidential Election."

~~~
Nuzzerino
It seems odd to imply that the mainstream media is the gold standard on
accurate reporting of national political news.

------
username90
> a historic win for unionization efforts at tech companies.

Kickstarter is a small company which isn't representative at all for other
tech companies, so I doubt this will mean much for efforts at other companies.
For example, a majority of their staff at every level are women (a quick
glance at their linkedin shows that this is likely true for engineering roles
as well) but that doesn't say anything about gender equality of the tech
industry as a whole. It is very easy to make wins like this at small companies
just by having random (or sometimes not so random) perturbations.

[https://qz.com/923957/kickstarter-is-teaching-the-tech-
world...](https://qz.com/923957/kickstarter-is-teaching-the-tech-world-how-to-
get-real-about-gender-equity-and-fair-pay/)

~~~
Jweb_Guru
The fact that Kickstarter is unusual for a tech company does not make the fact
that it was able to unionize any less historic. Keep in mind that it is far
from the first tech company (small or not) to attempt to unionize.

------
ksr_throwaway
For those who are curious this union drive was really started by extreme
incompetence from upper management. The former CEO hired ineffective status-
seekers (including the current CEO) into many positions of power which created
a super toxic environment. Accountability for internal problems has been
extremely low. The "Always Punch Nazis" controversy was just the straw that
broke the camel's back.

People in the bay area may not understand that most people working at
Kickstarter truly believe in the company's mission. The money is not great and
we've been willing to accept that to feel like we're making a positive change
in the world. Unfortunately upper management has used this (as well as
Kickstarter's reputation) as a bargaining chip to treat employees poorly.

Source: I work at Kickstarter

~~~
password1
But didn't the same management also decided to make the company a PBC instead
of becoming billionaires by going public? That always felt to me like a signal
that the management believed the mission too.

------
mech1234
Kickstarter prints money, so I don't think they'll be hurt too much by this.

I think that Kickstarter as a company could exist in its current form with
little change for a long time. I wonder how the culture works around there.

------
matrix737
From my work at a major consulting company the way to fix this is to rebuild
the offices over ~150miles away (the exact miles is NY law). Rehire all the
positions and then let go of the employees in NY.

------
vasco
I'm not going to express my opinion on unions because to be honest I don't
know where I stand, but it's certainly interesting that the most talked about
tech companies seem to be investing heavily in diversity and we hear from
boards getting behind the idea that bringing different ideas to the table is
positive, but when the new diverse crowd chooses to unionize this is taken as
a bad surprise. Insert a surprised pikachu picture here, I guess.

------
mc32
I want to know if their union contract does anything from preventing parent co
from shipping jobs to places with less regulation and cheaper labor...

~~~
coldpie
That will kill your company way, way faster than any union will.

~~~
uerobert
How? In my country for example there is a surge of US companies setting shop
here just to hire local devs, and a lot more hiring remote, when their
products have presence only in the US. Each year the number keep increasing.

------
sjg007
Hospital doctors are unionized. Professors are unionized. Plumbers are
unionized Dirt movers are unionized Police are unionized Figherfighters are
unionized Public employees are unionized Teachers are unionized Actors are
unionized the NBA is unionized the NFL is unionized the MLB is unionized the
NHL is unionized And yet, software engineers should not be ?

~~~
pro-duct
It being a common practice isn't relevant to whether it is best for this
industry and its workers. I'm not saying I disagree, but your reasoning just
doesn't support your argument

~~~
sjg007
What makes software engineering different?

~~~
chillacy
Many of us make more money writing software today than we could working one of
those unionized jobs while having less credentialing (or not being in the top
1% like the sports players). Nothing on that list looks enviable to me.

~~~
sjg007
You should actually look into those union careees and see how much they make.
You’d be surprised.

~~~
chillacy
There's no question that limiting the supply of labor in a job market
increases its price. I just don't think it's worth the price. For unions
there's an extra layer of overhead and union dues. For professional societies
(like the AMA) there's an extra layer of credentialing and suspiciously low
innovation.

But that's my assessment and I'm probably abnormal in my situation. I'm happy
to be wrong though. If more companies form unions and these companies pay
better, reward good performance more fairly, have less intrinsic bias, etc,
then I'll be the first to jump ship.

------
baybal2
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft had something akin to a union at least a decade
ago. Any Microsofters here?

~~~
DenisM
I was there a decade ago, nothing of the kind was transpiring within my
earshot. I also have plenty of friends there and never heard anything like
this.

------
cynusx
I can't help but think that unions are very similar to code smells, it's when
the management of the company isn't able to maintain cooperation and trust
with their employees. I would never work for a company with a union

------
sergiotapia
What's up with the satanic jacket in the picture?

[https://teespring.com/shop/satanic-no-
masters?pid=2&cid=2397](https://teespring.com/shop/satanic-no-
masters?pid=2&cid=2397)

------
busterarm
I guess they didn't think they could win their vote when there were ~110
employees but they did when there were 86.

I guess things were so tense between the two camps that many people moved on.

------
Miniso
The same ol'shite that is ruining most of the workplaces nowadays. Wtf you
want? A job right? You've got it now do it properly and earn your money the
right way..

------
exabrial
They'd be wise to learn from history: There are many people willing do your
job for cheaper, most of them in other countries working for smaller wages.

~~~
pcwalton
There wouldn't be any programmers in the Bay Area—or, for that matter, the
US—if price were the only relevant factor in hiring developers.

~~~
notyourday
That's what Detroit thought.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
Sorry, so you're saying that Detroit's auto industry went away _because they
unionized?_ The thing they did many decades before that?

~~~
notyourday
SV has the same kind of attitude towards competition Detroit had in 20th
century.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
I agree with you, but that has zero bearing on whether unionizing is a good
idea. If anything it makes it more urgent.

------
qwerty456127
How many are there? Kickstater looks like something quite a small team can do
and I always imagined a union to mean thousands of employees.

------
rpiguy
The most fascinating thing to me about tech worker unionization is that it is
less about working conditions and more about input on moral decisions made by
company management.

At Kickstarter the moral divide started with the Punch a Nazi incident. You
see this at other technology companies as well, as employees agonize over free
speech, what to censor, whether or not to work for China, whether or not to
deploy surveillance tech, etc.

This is a new era for union organizers. Ideology has become a "workplace
condition" that people are organizing to change. It is an interesting concept.

I am not for it or against it, I need to think about it more.

~~~
lasky
agree, this is by far the most interesting part of all this. it’s not about
“my working conditions” but about whether or not my employer “agrees with my
views.”

I think this is partly because people understand the power and influence their
organizations have in the world.

When many migrant restaurant workers are working 80 hour weeks or don’t keep
their tips, it makes it easier to see the radical privilege of tech workers,
and their unawareness.

~~~
rpiguy
I think it is also generational. We now have in the workplace a few
generations of workers who grew up being told their opinions mattered and that
speaking up is a virtue. I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing.

Us old-timers were taught the opposite, your opinions don't matter much, no
one will listen to you until you prove yourself, etc.

So I think the generational shift has something to do with it.

I also think labor organizers are exuberant because they finally have a way to
build a wedge between highly-paid employees who were formerly resistant to
unionizing and their management.

------
tarr11
Does this union cover a global workforce?

------
MuffinFlavored
What are the cons of unionizing? All of the benefits always seem "too good to
be true" to be.

~~~
manfredo
In a non right-to-work state like NY, it means you have to pay dues to a union
that negotiates on your behalf. It can very well end up negotiating for things
you don't want, or are even actively against. For instance, a teacher may be
in favor of merit-based promotion and compensation while they are obligated to
pay dues to a union that pushes for seniority based pay.

------
alec2dabreen
I'm all for it. Congrats to them!

------
arrogantidiot
Sounds like Kickstarter will sell their assets and close soon.

------
marcell
I'm trying to understand what the employees hope to get out of this. The only
substantial issue mentioned in the article is a dispute over whether "Always
Punch Nazis" should be allowed on the site.

Does anyone have insight into what's motivating the Kickstarter employees
here?

------
allsystemsgo
Kickstarter employees vote to be unemployed.

------
bobloblaw45
So Kickstarter will be hiring more contractors then?

------
B008L355
Where's my Coolest Cooler?

------
jdkee
“ I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does
absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions
of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their
lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”

-Eugene Debs

~~~
exabrial
Nobody at kickstarter is living a wretched existence.

~~~
PaulHoule
That is some of the reason they can unionize. Kickstarter produces enough
surplus that the workers can get a better deal than they would otherwise.

What's much more interesting is the labor status of the people who work on the
Kickstarted projects.

~~~
jamiequint
> Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal
> than they would otherwise.

Not really. It may be short-term better for the workers, but not likely long
term as they are effectively constraining the growth of the business relative
to what it would be if the union did not exist.

~~~
PaulHoule
Depends.

The whole entertainment industry is unionized in L.A.

I know an actor from Las Vegas who moved to L.A. and got a role in a TV
commercial and was surprised to see somebody else standing in front of the
cameras and was surprised to find that every actor has a "stand-in" who is
there so they can set up the equipment, then the real actor is fresh when he
does his scene.

These costs add up, but there are many specialists who are highly productive.
For instance, setting up and tearing down sets is a special form of carpentry
which the average carpenter would take a change of mindset.

Union labor helps maintain a productive and talented workforce that gives L.A.
a comparative advantage. Being at times the the documentarian who travels
light and feels it is extravagant to have a sidekick that sets up lights it
heavyweight but it maintains a world-beating quality standard.

------
justlexi93
These workers are setting an example for the entire industry. Tech employees
deserve job security, strong wages and benefits, and a voice in their
companies.

------
codingmess
Condolences

------
rolltiide
more shares for everyone! immediate monthly vesting, no 1-year cliffs,
refreshers 6 months in woooo! I hear some companies are already like this, but
then you have other companies with like only 5% vesting on the first year and
no refreshers.

~~~
busterarm
Kickstarter has had no intention of going public and doesn't issue shares like
that to employees at all.

------
rolltiide
Opinions aside, you have to see the writing is on the wall.

~~~
commandlinefan
However you feel about unions (and I personally have many reservations), if
tech workers unionize, management will have nobody to blame but themselves.
They've had decades to listen to us, and they've responded with open offices,
JIRA (or the equivalent) ticket quotas, unpaid overtime, whiteboard coding
interviews and zero training. We're well paid but besides that, I'd be hard-
pressed to think of a way we could collectively be treated with any more
contempt than we already are.

~~~
codingmess
You can always start your own company if you are unhappy about other
companies' conduct.

~~~
erik998
Yes you can be part of a union and create your own loan out company.

[https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out-
company/](https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out-company/)

~~~
codingmess
For example.

------
knee-cartilage
nearly half of them voted against it? americans are so amazingly propagandized
against anything vaguely construed as 'socialism' it's honestly impressive

------
cartercole
there goes the neighborhood

------
angel_j
Hipster Local 153

~~~
lasky
We hereby declare the following as Scabbing:

\- drinking starbucks coffee \- wearing new clothes that’s not patagonia \-
owning a car. renting ok. \- eating animal products that aren’t wrapped in
expensive paper and rope packaging \- discussing any views that aren’t first
endorsed by a jezebel staff writer or hollywood star.

------
aty268
Absolutely pathetic for both sides. If you don't like your white collar tech
job, go somewhere else. It's not factory work where you're paid way less to do
the same thing wherever you go. You make yourselves and your company look weak
in doing this.

This is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of
entitled pricks.

~~~
dang
Please follow the HN guidelines when posting here. Lashing out like this not
only damages the commons, it discredits what you're saying, so it's neither in
your interest as a community member nor as an individual.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
aty268
I understand. I apologize. You may want to remove my comment on the other
thread then (exactly the same), although interestingly it is upvoted there.

------
matrix737
Test

------
oh_sigh
So what happens now? Do the 37 nay voters need to join the union or be fired?

------
shmerl
What exactly does it give the workers, better ways of dealing with management?

~~~
advisedwang
Leverage.

Without a union, you can ask management for stuff, but they can just say no.
Your only recourse then is to quit, which wouldn't change anything when it's
just one person.

With a union, a work stoppage is a possibility. Suddenly management have a
reason to come to the negotiation table and make concessions.

~~~
chrisco255
First of all "asking for stuff" implies a negotiation between two parties. A
negotiation implies that either party can walk away from a deal. You're
implying management shouldn't be able to say no. Management is not necessarily
out to get employees and excessive compensation or regulation around hiring
and firing leads to either insolvency or stagnation. It's a balancing act.

A union can be just as exploitative as a company can. It's not all sunshine
and rainbows.

The software industry has been regulated by demand over the last few decades.
Demand is still extremely high for software devs. Managers know that employees
can make moves because unemployment in our sector is something like 2%. I've
worked in many industries in my life and I've never been chased down or
marketed to move jobs as much as I have in software development.

~~~
WarChortle
A negotiation is also done in good faith with both parties willing to listen
and discuss options. An individual almost never has the advantage when
negotiating with a company.

For 99% of employees out their quitting isn't the threat you make it seem to
be. As easy you make it sound to get a new job, its that easy for them to
replace you. Then that new employee gets to deal with the same shit you left
over. It never gets fixed.

Leaving and going somewhere new doesn't solve anything. for most people job
hunting is just looking at piles of shit and finding which one stinks less.

Insurance at my current job is not great. I can't go to my boss and say I want
better health insurance he would laugh me out of his office, but even if he
could, why would he not just give me the better insurance from the start? If a
Union went to management and said we demand better health care that carries
weight. That would get something done.

~~~
chrisco255
Yes they do, when you are in a high demand industry with low supply of skilled
workers, you are in the driver's seat of a negotiation. You have options.
You're the one being bid on by multiple employers. You absolutely have the
leverage there. This is similar to the real estate market, by the way. There
are so-called "buyers markets" and "seller markets" where one trend or another
is dominant at any given time depending on if there are more buyers than
sellers or more sellers than buyers.

It's not easy to replace tech employees at all. Even if there was an abundant
supply of expert software engineers (there's not), it takes many months to
ramp up on a new code base to optimal productivity and to learn the
organization and domain requirements of a software product. That will never
change.

An average tech company will spend tens of thousands of dollars to fill a
position, not even counting initial salary and bonuses.

Leaving for somewhere better often does solve quite a bit. On my last job move
my pay increased by 50%. If I had stayed at my previous company I'd be skating
by with 4% raises.

On the whole the aggregate effect of employees moving around in a dynamic
market creates the cush benefits and pay we see in this industry.

The reason they wouldn't give you specifically better insurance is because
they have to negotiate a plan for everyone in the company. What is that
costing them on paper? I don't know how many employees your company has or
what their margins are or any details really, but it can be as much as
$700-$1000 a month per employee for health insurance. If you've got 100
employees that's $100K a year.

No boss should "laugh you out of the office" for requesting that. But really,
its an HR and Corporate leadership issue so you should take your grievances to
those with the power to make the change and not your boss (unless you work
directly for the CEO).

------
gok
Kickstarter is essentially a microcap stock fraud platform with a slick UI, so
this is a good fit.

------
kirstenbirgit
What's the benefit of being in a union for highly specialized tech workers
that are very in demand?

~~~
Someone1234
The same things as any other union? Improved working conditions (e.g. hours),
protecting employees from abuses, and maintaining fair pay & benefits.

Unions as only a working class institution is mostly a US historic artifact.
Other countries have unions in highly specialized and in-demand industries
too.

~~~
jamiequint
How are extremely in-demand tech workers not "maintaining fair pay &
benefits"? Surely if they were not being paid "fairly" (not sure what that
means anyways, if not market price) they could just leave, as there are plenty
of tech jobs in NYC where Kickstarter is based.

~~~
Someone1234
You're misquoting. I was explaining a union's purpose, I didn't claim tech
workers were underpaid. Plus "fairness" could also refer to inter-employee
compensation at the same company (e.g. men and women).

Additionally if the union expands beyond highly compensated tech' workers
(e.g. Customer Service, QA, janitorial, etc) it could help them negotiate
better pay and benefits.

~~~
jamiequint
Re: enforcing fairness, that argument is still asinine, if women were
underpaid relative to men at the same company surely they could find many
other companies willing to pay them a fair wage (and hopefully they would sue
their former employer as well)

~~~
Jweb_Guru
It might behoove you to read a bit more about the well-documented nature of
employment discrimination in the tech industry. Women are systematically
underpaid and denied raises and promotions compared to men, which tends to
make their cases weaker when going to a new company as well.

~~~
jamiequint
It might behoove you to not make baseless assumptions about other people's
knowledge.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
If the question about why women just don't go work at another company when
they're given unequal pay was legitimate, then I think it's fair to assume
there was a knowledge gap. If it was a bad faith question, of course, there's
not much I can do about that!

~~~
jamiequint
Unless you're wrong about the mechanics of the pay gap, which you are.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
There is still a pay gap after you adjust for pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure
is what you're thinking of.

~~~
manfredo
It's harder to account for things like the price of benefits and measuring the
amount of time spent on things like oncall.

As a concrete example, when Google analyzed their wages they actually noticed
that they were underpaying men.

~~~
Jweb_Guru
It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so
whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like
saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter
nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled
to reduce the risk.

Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on
whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied
to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point.

Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call
hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime.
The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this
way they can pay both women _and_ men less.

Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment
structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we
investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been
_repeatedly_ found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role
when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies
doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career
advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.

~~~
manfredo
> It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so
> whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is
> like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--
> utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be
> pooled to reduce the risk.

> Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on
> whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be
> tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my
> point.

You are misinterpreting my comment. It had been well documented that in job
searches women prioritize benefits at a higher rate than men. So women might
on average be getting $10,000 less in salary but also ~$10,000 less in
benefits. This is not about utilitzation of the same benefits. This is about
differences in men's and women's job preferences that result in unequal salary
but equal overall compensation.

> Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-
> call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for
> overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this,
> because this way they can pay both women and men less

Equal pay for equal work can also be violated by giving workers equal pay
while allocating unequal work.

> Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment
> structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we
> investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been
> repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role
> when employees release their salaries (something the company officially
> denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's
> career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.

Google's analysis is conducted over all of their employees, for one. By
comparison people typing their salaries into spreadsheets is 1) subject to
people falsifying or misremembering their compensation, and 2) has a selection
bias towards people who feel they are not compensated fairly. Furthermore,
Google has the data to know the stock prices at the time equity packages are
awarded, which affects compensation results (e.g. someone who started right
before a rise in stock gets more money than someone after even though their
original equity packages had the same dollar value).

~~~
Jweb_Guru
Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired, so
this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the same
role at the company.

I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated
responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an excuse
for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal pay for
equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they should have
different titles.

Is there _any_ evidence that would convince you that Google is not being
honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there isn't,
this is kind of a pointless conversation to have.

Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up
with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises
much more than men:

[https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html](https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html)

[https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-
pr...](https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-promotion-
gap)

[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-
harder-...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-harder-
gender-pay-gap-intl/index.html)

Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career. This
is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see people
trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really
uncontroversial fact.

~~~
manfredo
> Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired,
> so this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the
> same role at the company.

Yet again, you continue to misinterpret the role of benefits that I explained
in my comments. Women's prioritization of benefits over compensation does not
mean they are receiving different benefits than men at the same company. It
means they apply to different companies than men. Pointing out that Google
does not negotiate benefits is not a valid line of criticism.

> I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated
> responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an
> excuse for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal
> pay for equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they
> should have different titles.

You assume that this is the company refusing to allocate more work to women.
Typically, this is the opposite: the company is more than happy to give women
24 hour oncalls but a lower rate of women are willing to do so than men.

> Is there any evidence that would convince you that Google is not being
> honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there
> isn't, this is kind of a pointless conversation to have.

The onus is on you to provide proof of your allegations that Google is not
being honest in its pay analysis. What proof do you have that they are lying?
Like I said, employee compiled spreadsheets are rife with selection bias, and
there's no guarantee that employees are even telling the truth. Why would we
believe the latter over studies compiled by people who actually have the real
salary data?

> Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up
> with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises
> much more than men:

This is not what the research you linked claims. There is a promotion gap, in
the same way that there is a wage gap: the average woman is less likely to be
promoted than the average man. The existence of a gap is not the same as the
existence of discrimination. Much like the wage gap, when normalizing for role
and experience the disparity mostly disappears:

> The additional controls slightly reduce the gender difference in promotion
> rates but, controlling for all variables, including worker performance
> ratings, men's promotion rates were still 2.2 percentage points higher than
> women's.

And furthermore, your own study says that there is no wage gap once these
factors are accounted for:

> However, in marked contrast, the authors find that after controlling for
> measured characteristics, promotions and expected promotions continued to
> yield comparable wage increases for both men and women. And, there were
> essentially no gender differences in overall wage growth at the
> establishment, with or without promotion

So this difference in promotion drops to 2% when accounting for differences in
role and experience, and there is no wage difference with or without promotion
between men and women. I'm not sure how you think this study supports your
point.

Not to mention, there's plenty of evidence of discrimination against men:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/)

> Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career.
> This is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see
> people trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really
> uncontroversial fact.

I have. Many do note instances where they believed there were discriminated
against on the basis of their sex. Most of them also detailed explicitly
discriminatory policies aimed at allocating more opportunity to men. I'm more
than happy to give you the details if you so desire. They want to be treated
equal to men, not have the red carpet rolled out for them because they're
"diverse". Since you're seeing many people disagreeing with your claims around
these supposedly uncontroversial facts, it would be prudent to rethink whether
your assertions really are as universal and uncontroversial as you claim.

------
2019-nCoV
The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions
are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are
for politicians.

------
lawnchair_larry
What an awful decision by those employees. They’re in for a rude awakening.

------
claudeganon
I hope we can look back on this day as the first in a series of victories in
which tech workers rest back control from their workplaces from their
executives that have driven them off course. From sex abuse scandals to wage
fixing to collaboration with authoritarian regimes, it’s clear that many of
these companies have become unmoored from the vision, talent, and ideals of
the labor makes that makes them possible.

------
wellthisisgreat
Is there a list of demands and laws anywhere they want to impose?

There is only this:
[https://kickstarterunited.org/](https://kickstarterunited.org/)

Not a word about the standards of performance or expectations from employees
who would want to be part of union. A short list of some fairly handwavy
statements and a one-page website "join-join-join".

Also what kind of positions do people who pushed this occupied? How many
engineers have signed this?

Are they actually technical workers or ex political studies majors, who lucked
out to get a job at Kickstarter and not Starbucks.

~~~
lexs
Literally taken from your link.

> Is there a list of demands and laws anywhere they want to impose?

"02) What are the workplace improvements Kickstarter United is seeking?"

> Not a word about the standards of performance or expectations from employees
> who would want to be part of union.

"Kickstarter United will be made up of all employees in the bargaining unit."

~~~
wellthisisgreat
> "Kickstarter United will be made up of all employees in the bargaining
> unit."

So no standards of training etc. for the workers? Just you know, show up for
the work, punch in and punch out?

Also there is no specific requirement in the list. The only one that is not a
blanket statement and has actually some case in it is "when disciplinary
action is taken"

the rest is just a list of what KS is already doing and has been doing better
than many companies.

------
bluedays
Yeah this discussion appears to have been hijacked by thinly veiled anti-union
astroturfing. I would be highly skeptical of all posts in this thread. Many of
the posts literally using the exact phrases commonly repeated by anti-union
propagandists.

This makes me wonder if Silicon Valley is starting to see the writing on the
wall and pay for disinformation campaigns in places where engineers regularly
read and post. I know that there are people who share similar views to Peter
Thiel within the software engineering community, but they are not the majority
as you see in this thread. This is pretty shameful that this is what the
Internet has become, a new medium to misinform the public. I wouldn't expect
any productive conversation here.

~~~
erik998
I would not be surprised if there is some low level effort amongst some of the
larger companies in silicon valley.... especially after the whole issue of not
bidding up talent or stealing talent from each other...

~~~
bluedays
Yeah all of the language here feels very contrived.

------
wellthisisgreat
Wow this really sad, provided Kickstarter is one of the nicest places to work
at and their public benefit corporation was not empty words.

These people ruined a really nice NYC company for everyone around. Anyone
running their company who thought of making the workplace a bit different will
expect the kind of crowd from this photo to show up and implode it.

One thing is if the conditions were bad, there was insane overtime, the pay
was low etc etc., but no, none of that applies to the people on the photo.

This is why we cannot have nice things.

~~~
mempko
Why do you hate people making Kickstarter what it is? The people actually
doing the work want a union, how is that ruining the company?

~~~
wellthisisgreat
The whole thing started as political stunt sort of due to the neo-nazis'
outcry over some anti-fascist project. It was a mess (of course not
sympathizing with Breitbart at all for the record).

And now they just added a whole new overhead of dealing with their initiative.
Look at that one-pager of extremely poorly formulated demands. Obviously the
company will have to spend resources sorting this out, through lawyers,
through hiring MORE managers to deal with these managers. KS is NOT a bad
place to work at by large margin it's a GOOD place to work at.

I am hearing already around here in NYC that no I don't want to go work there
next to these folks, I am a developer not a polit-sci wannabe etc.

The spectacular outcome would be if KS fails to raise more funds because of
this which is quite a possibility.

