
Kickstarter doubles down on its anti-union stance - kaboro
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/kickstarter-to-workers-and-project-creators-drop-dead
======
pmikesell
I worry that tech workers may be under-informed about what a union may mean. A
union can be in many ways similar to a corporation with its own power
structure and demands.

Just 4 examples from my time in a union shop:

    
    
      1) Pay raise and promotion via seniority only
    
      2) Being warned by the shop steward that I was "working too fast"
    
      3) Heavy coercion to contribute to specific political candidates
    
      4) Going on strike for reasons I didn't agree with
    
    

Maybe a tech union would turn out better somehow. I for one would not want to
go back to that situation.

~~~
unreal37
Unions have their own goals that are more than just "the interests of
Kickstarter employees". So in fact, there will be times when issues are
important to Kickstarter employees but are not important to their union. Or
important to the union but not very many employees. And then what?

~~~
theamk
I thought the whole point of unions was to represent interests of employees?
If the Kickstarter employees' issues are not important to their union, why
would they unionize?

~~~
finnthehuman
>Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
organization there will be two kinds of people":

>First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.
Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many
of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some
agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective
farming administration.

>Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples
are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of
education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff,
etc.

>The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep
control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions
within the organization.

------
wolco
Pro or con of the union idea, I hope get they nailed for firing those two
organizers. Firing someone and claiming poor performance makes me not want to
support them anymore. I won't give them a cent.

~~~
parsimo2010
I’ve not met either the Kickstarter management nor the people that were fired,
but isn’t it possible that these folks knew they were poor performers and were
on borrowed time with the company? They may have wanted to start a union that
could bargain on their behalf with a lot more power.

I’m not saying that unions created in good faith are bad, but there are union
leaders that give off a vibe of self-enrichment. Kind of like political
lobbies- some are good, some are bad.

I don’t know if we should take the fired employees’ word for why they were
fired. I’ve seen too many “bottom 5%ers” make up excuses why they were fired
when the reality is that they plain couldn’t hack it. I’ll reserve judgement
until there is a court case or a settlement. If it really is a slam-dunk case
like the Twitter-verse makes it out to be, there are lawyers that are begging
to help these poor souls.

~~~
unreal37
I hadn't thought of it until I read your comment, but when I worked for the
government, the people who were MOST familiar with the contract, the rules,
the exact things that I could ask them to do and the things they were allowed
to refuse... were the worst teammates.

There was a lot of really good people at the government. And they never talked
about their contract. But then the two worst employees on the team were very,
very familiar with their rights down to the letter.

There's some type of correlation there. The more you know the exact wording of
the union contract, the more you talk about it, the less interested you are in
serving the end customers to the best of your abilities.

If someone asks you to do something, and your default answer is that it's not
in your contract, you're not approaching things in the right way.

~~~
danShumway
> the people who were MOST familiar with the contract, the rules, the exact
> things that I could ask them to do and the things they were allowed to
> refuse... were the worst teammates.

Apply this comment to workers and employers and it sound reasonable. Rephrase
this comment to apply to civilians and police officers and it sounds horrible,
even though in both cases we can argue that the goal is to not have
adversarial, competitive relationships, and instead to trust each other.

I am somewhat skeptical about unions, and I don't think they're the silver
bullet that people claim they are. I sympathize with people who worry about
adding additional layers to management. There is no such thing as an
incorruptible organization.

But, I'm opposed to any insinuation that knowing your rights and exercising
them is something to be ashamed of, in any context.

> If someone asks you to do something, and your default answer is that it's
> not in your contract, you're not approaching things in the right way.

Again, this sounds reasonable. But it makes me feel really weird, and I think
its the implication (intended or not) that being a good employee means not
thinking about whether or not you're being taken advantage of. It is very
difficult for me to imagine any employer I've ever worked for arguing the same
thing in the opposite direction. Employers know their contracts, they hire
entire legal teams who are entirely dedicated to knowing the contract.
Shouldn't the employee also know the contract?

Mutual respect means not going out of your way to have power over another
person; it means viewing them as an equal. If only one side of a business
relationship is paying attention to and enforcing a contract, then that's not
respectful; it's an unhealthy power dynamic.

~~~
unreal37
There are two sides to every story perhaps. Not saying people don't need to
know "their rights" and not saying it's ok to take advantage of people.

But I'm not talking about "unpaid overtime" or "working in unsafe conditions"
here. I'm talking about wanting to do something to help the end user, and
having people actively refuse to help because it's not in their job
description.

And that stems from them knowing that they cannot ever be required to do
anything that is not covered by their job description.

"So you want 10 minutes of my help to figure out why this program crashes and
to make it better for the end user? Sorry, I need that request to come in
writing from my boss."

People who help each other if they can is a much better environment than
people who only help each other if they are absolutely required to do so.

------
SomeOtherThrow
The lack of unions in the industry is making me leave. It’s going to leave out
many of its current employees to dry: I want something better than the word of
an entrepreneur.

~~~
baron816
If a tech company I worked for unionized, I would leave. I’m not in a single
company town where everyone has worked at the same place their entire lives.
Tech companies face fierce competition for talent, and it has worked out quite
nicely for the employees.

I wouldn’t want some outside organization coming in and forcing me to pay
dues, demanding changes to the structure of the company, devaluing my equity,
and making it impossible to fire poor performers that make my job harder.

~~~
CPLX
You’re aware that the major professional sports in the US are unionized right?

Do you think the competition for talent for them is more or less fierce than
it is for you?

~~~
baron816
That’s the worst example you could’ve used. Pro sports leagues are monopolies
with a large percentage of potential players/workers being left out of the
market.

~~~
eropple
Only MLB is a monopoly.

~~~
parsimo2010
Can you expand on that? It seems like the NFL and NBA are also monopolies. I
can't think of any organization, even worldwide, that could compete in their
sports. There is arena football, but that is a laughable alternative to the
NFL. The top foreign pros play in the NBA, they do not stay in their home
leagues. It seems a lot like there is no choice of where to play for top pros
in these sports, which makes them a monopoly.

An alternative that doesn't seem quite like a monopoly is the UFC with mixed
martial arts. Bellator MMA is a viable (but less prestigious) alternative for
someone that doesn't want to work with the UFC.

~~~
eropple
I mean that MLB is a legally-granted monopoly in the United States. They
literally have an antitrust exemption.

The NBA is the biggest game in town, but that's a question of money and I see
some movement on that front. I expect to see the Chinese leagues start
spending a lot more money in the near future, and Euroleague is starting to
pay some players salaries that are significant even compared to the NBA (this
year, Mirotic basically got what the Jazz would have offered him, after you
take into account lifestyle perks and the like that come from Euroleague--and
nobody in the NBA is giving Alexey Shved $4mil). The NFL is arguably closer to
a monopoly but they're having a competitor to it launched next year in the re-
launched XFL. Salary numbers aren't out there AFAIK, but there it's a
billionaires-being-billionaires game of "what's your pain tolerance?".

------
mimikatz
It is interesting that they didn't stop their active KickStarter campaign and
pushed people to not pull their donations. It would be nice for them to walk
the walk, they did create a petition in response... If I were the CEO I would
feel pretty safe about moving forward with the same policies.

~~~
jolux
Did you read the whole article? They _are_ pulling their campaign, after KS
doubled down.

~~~
mimikatz
Did you read it? They just stopped promoting it. It is literally still up
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/help-
current-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/help-current-
affairs-expand-in-2020?ref=user_menu) . They claim they won't be back... but
we will see about that

"We were unable to continue promoting our campaign, because every time we did,
people criticized us for partnering with an anti-union company, which you have
now admitted you are. As a result of our inability to promote the campaign in
good conscience, our fundraiser has made far less money than it otherwise
could have. "

------
chriselles
Open Collective is an alternative to 501(3)(c) for some orgs.

I wonder if an Open Collective -esque model could work for employees as an
alternative to unions?

I applaud the benefits that early unions brought to workers, but what have
they done lately(as in decades) I. Terms of creating/capturing value?

My experience with unions was an an employee of Amazon.com in the 90’s and
witnessing the horrible things WashTech and it’s supporters did to my staff in
a failed attempt to gain access to Amazon distribution centers.

It would be cool if there was a very light digital network model by which
employees could collectively engage with company management/leadership.

As well as far less adversarial, more akin to collaborative labour/leadership
relationship as found in Germany.

------
thinkingkong
Are there any fields similar to software development where there _are_ unions?
And if so how is that actually working?

~~~
barry-cotter
It works great for the Screen Actor’s Guild and the rest of the film industry.
They set minimum wages and use their market power to radically restrict entry
so that there’s less competition from outsiders, by not working with firms
that employ non-members and expelling members that do.

Any Software Professionals Guild could do the same, reduce the supply of
competitors and punish people who employed any entry level workers who didn’t
have the connections to get in.

One benefit, for current members, is that you can increase the cost of
membership for new members. So you start off letting boot camp graduates work,
then restrict it to Bachelor’s holders, (who must be taught by members of
course), then to a Master’s.

You see the ever increasing credentialism in physiotherapy in the US, where
you’re now required to have a “professional doctorate”. Pure waste given that
it’s an apprenticeship in Germany and a Bachelor’s everywhere else.

~~~
laurencerowe
"According to the most recent SAG statistics, the average member earns $52,000
a year, while the vast majority take home less than $1,000 a year from acting
jobs." \- [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-salaries-
re...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-salaries-revealed-
movie-stars-737321) [2014]

This doesn't sound very similar to the market for Software Engineers where
there is a shortage of skilled labour.

~~~
barry-cotter
Indeed. A successful US Programmers Guild would probably look more like the
American Medical Association. It would restrict training places and increase
entrance standards over time, doing everything in its power to prevent people
who do the same job in other countries from having their qualifications
recognized in the US. US physicians earn well over double the average of their
UK counterparts, never mind Malaysian or Indian ones. If the AMA didn’t do its
best to stop doctors from these countries practicing that kind of differential
would be untenable.

You’d also probably get some kind of “not a programmer, honest” like nurses in
the medical field. In the current climate you can move from being the one who
knows pivot table to business intelligence to data analyst to data scientist
but with licensing and “professional ethics” there’s always an attempt to
maintain a bright line between professionals and “the help”, whether they be
paralegals, nurses or draftsmen, compared to lawyers, doctors or engineers.

------
lonelappde
The most interesting twist here is how it shows that "public benefit
corporation" is an empty concept.

------
theamk
I don't understand:

Nathan: "Would not voluntarily recognize a union even if the vast majority of
workers signed in support of one."

The CEO's statement he referenced: " If a majority of the staff in an
appropriate bargaining unit votes in favor of a union in an NLRB election, we
will fully respect that choice and negotiate in good faith toward a collective
bargaining agreement."

Those statements seem to be opposite of each other?

~~~
Mathnerd314
NLRB elections have a lot of requirements. E.g. the NRLB has been back and
forth on whether graduate students can form a union:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/20/nlrb-
rev...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/09/20/nlrb-reverses-
course-graduate-students-right-organize-employees/) If everything goes
smoothly it takes a month or two:
[https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/coll...](https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/collective-
bargaining/nlrb-quickie-election-rule-accelerates-the-union-organizing-
process/)

NRLB elections are legally binding, so the CEO statement there is basically
"we will follow the law".

The process Nathan is referring to is something a lot less formal where they
pass around a petition to form a union and it gets a bunch of signatures. Not
recognizing such a petition is consistent with Kickstarter's stance of not
supporting unions.

Apparently there's also a 50% rule where if 50% sign authorization cards for
the union then they can ask to be recognized directly
([https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/authorization-
card/](https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/authorization-card/)), but nobody
seems to be discussing that, probably because actual support for the union is
low and getting even the 30% for an election will be difficult. In May there
were 28 public supporters ([https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/evjb47/workers-
accuse-kic...](https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/evjb47/workers-accuse-
kickstarter-of-union-busting-in-federal-complaint)), but KS has 152 employees
so they'd need 18 more employees just for an election.

------
throwawaysea
What are the obligations of a US corporation when a vote for unionization is
successful? Do all employees get opted in? Is it always required to be hiring
exclusive to the union? What makes unions different (needing specialized
legislation) from corporations - why can’t employees wanting to unionize just
go form their own corporation and try to sell their services on their own
terms that way.

------
fzeroracer
I find it interesting that Kickstarter decided to go this route. It debunks
the claims in the earlier HN thread [1] that the employees were fired due to
performance reasons or somehow, conspiracy against Kickstarter.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972901](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972901)

------
danShumway
Regardless of whether anyone is pro or anti union, it's been obvious for a
while now that Kickstarter isn't arguing in good faith about this. They are
going to war with their own employees. There's just no justification for that,
even if you think unions are bad.

Kickstarter keeps digging themselves deeper and deeper into this hole,
claiming that they're doing it because unions will alter the relationship they
have with employees.

Even if that's true -- you know what _really_ alters the relationship you have
with employees? Firing them whenever they try to exercise their rights. It's
pretty hard to believe an employer has your back when they are actively
threatening you and telling you they won't acknowledge any of the decisions
you make.

Kickstarter's owners and managers have proven that they're able to build a
hostile work environment just fine on their own, without anybody else's help.
I don't see any way for them to save face at this point beyond just sitting
down and saying, "we were wrong, we treated you like children, and you have
the right to decide how you want to negotiate with us."

~~~
unreal37
Doesn't seem that you have the facts, but you're convinced that one side is
right.

~~~
danShumway
I'm open to hearing additional facts, but it's difficult for me to imagine
what new information could come out that would change this situation.

Regardless of whether or not the employees were _actually_ fired for purely
performance reasons, multiple workers have come forward and said that they
believe the firings were related to union organization. It doesn't really
matter what the intentions were, that's going to end up creating a hostile
environment between workers and managers.

Let's assume for a sec that Kickstarter is completely acting in good faith --
well, there's being right and there's being smart, and the smart choice would
have been to recognize that they're in a very volatile situation, and to
temporarily hold off on making moves that could be misinterpreted as
adversarial by their workforce.

Maybe that doesn't sound fair, but it's Kickstarter's job to maintain a
functional work environment, not to be fair, and all evidence I've seen
suggests that the current work environment is suffering.

In regards to other facts -- that Kickstarter won't voluntarily recognize
employees decisions until required to through a legal vote, or that
Kickstarter is openly campaigning against the union efforts -- again, I'm open
to hearing another side to this, but this is first-hand information coming
from press releases from Kickstarter itself.

Again, you don't have to be pro or anti union to think it's crappy for a
company to insert itself into its employees' conversations about bargaining
decisions, and then to claim that it won't recognize those decisions because
doing so would somehow corrupt the neutrality of the process.

I'm not sure what facts could come up in the future that would make that turn
into a good faith argument?

------
turtlecloud
On one hand you have good companies. On the other hand you have terrible
companies. Same thing with unions - some of them are good and some of them are
bad.

------
panpanna
Just as I was about to back Jeri Ellsworths project :(

Damn you conscious!

------
tptacek
Current Affairs can be a fun read (Nathan Robinson, who is an extremely weird
dude, writes long-long-long-form takedowns of right-wing figures). But it's
also an outlet with a very clear political perspective ("workers should own
the means of production" would be a reasonable first approximation; "Elizabeth
Warren is dangerously conservative" is an illustrative claim), so bear that in
mind as you read.

~~~
ohashi
The author even writes "As a left publication," which makes their stance
incredibly clear. It's not hidden by them at all.

~~~
tptacek
I wouldn't want to have suggested that Robinson is unclear about this, and I
think even a glance at the front page of Current Affairs makes it clear.

