
Why I’m Against Unions at Businesses I Create - kelukelugames
http://blog.joericketts.com/?p=557
======
unchocked
What sheer drivel.

>But, I’m neither a historian nor an economist. I’m an entrepreneur, so I’m
not going to wax on about the historical imperative of unions and why they do
or don’t serve a role in our modern economy. I will, however, tell you what I
know, and I know about starting and growing businesses.

I don't think we need much explanation on why an entrepreneur would prefer to
dictate terms rather than negotiate with an organized workforce.

>I believe unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys
the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.

Might you be mistaking the thrill of total obesiance for esprit de corps? You
wouldn't be the first to...

>That’s why the type of company that interests me is one where ownership and
the employees are truly in it together, without interference from a third-
party union that has its own agenda and priorities.

Um, that nefarious third party agenda is the organized voice of your
employees. Heck, we all appreciate being able to dictate terms, but not all of
us are intellectually dishonest enough to come up with spin like that.

>It is my observation that unions exert efforts that tend to destroy the Free
Enterprise system.

You haven't mentioned a single observation, just breathless, self-serving
opinion. Were the shoe on the other foot, I'd expect to see you writing for
Pravda.

*edit: I'm beside myself with that Pravda comment. JR posted this literally today: "Attacks on President Trump Show the Political Class Has Learned Nothing" [http://blog.joericketts.com/?p=581](http://blog.joericketts.com/?p=581)

~~~
TAForObvReasons
I'm genuinely amazed that this drivel made the front page of HN. It's not well
articulated, not substantiated by any evidence, and succumbs to common
fallacies like appeal to authority.

~~~
mercer
I think many articles make the front page not because they're good, nor
because they represent a 'HN consensus', but because the discussion is
interesting. I at least often find myself upvoting a link because I thought
the discussion was worth upvoting.

Judging by the predominantly negative comments in this thread, I think that's
the case here.

~~~
kelukelugames
For the record, I didn't submit this because I agree with him.

------
khazhou
> That’s why the type of company that interests me is one where ownership and
> the employees are truly in it together,

> Everyone at a company – owners and employees alike – need to be sitting on
> the same end of the seesaw

Never mind that the founders or CEO will have 1000X more equity than you,
employee (if you have equity at all). You're in it together!

~~~
aspenmayer
That just gave me an idea. What if it were the norm to be paid in cryptocoins
linked to the value of the company you worked for? So instead of making 100K a
year, you made 100 AnyCorpCoins, which the company's internal payroll exchange
or any compatible cryptoexchange will change for dollars happily? The company
could peg the coins at their own employee-only values to prevent major market
fluctuations from devaluing your salary, and it allows employees and non-
employees to earn stake in the company simply by holding the coins. Thoughts?

~~~
eropple
What if it were the norm to be _paid in company scrip_ with no meaningful
value to anybody outside the company?

Why is it that engineering types don't pay the least attention to history...?
Why is it that engineering types think that _sprinkling crypto on it_ solves a
single meaningful social ill? Hiding the scrip behind "crypto" does nothing.
Who's going to take your FacebookForCatsCoin when they could have actual money
instead? A random speculator? Meanwhile, _who 's gonna take dollars_?

Jeez.

~~~
aspenmayer
I'm not advocating for this, but it is an interesting thought experiment. I do
share your concerns, but I feel that this kind of thing is likely inevitable
with the rise of ICOs and cryptocurrency futures trading. Capital flows will
make a market of it somehow, even if it's only quants and AIs who are able to
operate such a market in meaningful, value-adding ways.

~~~
eropple
I'm gonna be straight with you: it's an interesting thought experiment if you
ignore the entirety of the history of the industrialized world. If you _don
't_ ignore it, it's not even novel.

ICOs are valueless trash in ninety-nine-point-nine-nine percent of all cases.
This will only change, maybe-if-you're-lucky, if they are securitized and
regulated, at which point it's the new "oh but stock!", and it's _still_ not
going to be a sane deal for a worker because the worker has no real way to
deal with either counterparty risk of exchanges (meanwhile, _dollars involve
no such risk_ ) short of paying a _vig_ \--you know, like how companies pay
poor employees on debit cards with fees, how's that reality sound for
_everybody_?--or safety of exchange rate, because LOL your company has a bad
quarter and now you can't pay your rent because FacebookForCatsCoin no longer
makes the speculators, the only people who are paying attention to it,
sufficiently money-horny.

Sprinkling crypto on company scrip doesn't make it anything other than company
scrip. And it's a bad idea for _companies_ , too, because a mere, what,
ninety-nine percent of companies have no public stock and would very much like
to keep it that way?

~~~
aspenmayer
They are not any more or less valueless trash than most fiat currencies, which
are stand-ins for the value of assets held and traded in said fiat currency.
If the tokens you were paid in have excess utility generated with their
production like filecoin for example, I would be more likely to consider it as
a means of payment, but not necessarily as a store of value. I don't think
you're wrong to frame it as company scrip, but if your company scrip was
traded on Coinbase, you might not be so dismissive of the mere concept. Not
saying I'd choose to be paid in it, either.

------
ChuckMcM
Apparently Joe has never experienced being in a group suffering systemic abuse
by their supervisors in ways that are not only barely legal but generally
cruel. I have sometimes wondered what would happen if the only H1B visas that
were issued were issued to union shops. Sort of a pre-built defense against
some of the abuses.

I have also seen union abuse, I was a member of the Culinary Union in Las
Vegas as a busboy (everyone had to be) and they did not make it easy on the
restaurateurs.

The bottom line seemed to be that without some oversight ability somewhere,
the more powerful group (unions or management) seems to have a tendency to
abuse the other group.

EDIT: I was reminded by an old friend that it was the _Culinary_ union not the
_Catering_ union. Corrected.

~~~
thisisit
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is always an apt question when someone argues
against or for unions. There are no easy answers though.

------
cortic
In short; 'JR' has better success in business when he can under-pay his
workers and ignore their health and safety needs and human rights. As an
unrelated side note; All my businesses would be successful if i could just use
slave-labor.

~~~
iAMAGuest
> In short; 'JR' has better success in business when he can under-pay his
> workers and ignore their health and safety needs and human rights.

Being anti-union doesn't mean favoring slave labor or breaking laws. Many
rights of workers are protected by legislation (depending where in the world
you live), and unionism doesn't mean higher wages.

~~~
jadell
There's an entire holiday in the US, Labor Day, that specifically marks the
struggle (including deaths!) of members of labor unions literally putting
their lives on the line to secure those rights.

~~~
iAMAGuest
> There's an entire holiday in the US, Labor Day

For those of us whom are not American, there is a similar day strangely called
Labour Day, which is celebrated world wide for similar reasons, Small world
hey :)

But in context what the unions did was important, it doesn't mean that they
are needed, relevant, or beneficial in current day. We celebrate Xmas, but
that doesn't mean that we have a guy wearing a Santa (non-christian) uniform
everyday.

~~~
jadell
> We celebrate Xmas, but that doesn't mean that we have a guy wearing a Santa
> (non-christian) uniform everyday.

But everyday we enjoy things like child labor laws, paid time off, safe
working conditions, limits on shift-lengths, overtime pay, maternity/paternity
leave, and myriad others.

~~~
cannonedhamster
We do in the US? Really? Salaried workers in tech routinely have 24-hour
shifts without notice or compensation, especially when tied up in equity. I'd
say if anything, worker rights have gotten further eroded with the loss of
union power, add to that pay in most fields hasn't kept up with inflation,
there's no paternity leave, more jobs being created are pushing education,
retirement, healthcare, etc onto the worker, further eroding their wages just
to keep their current job. Add to that the number of jobs being lost to
automation, and workers really are not in a great spot, especially going
forward, there's no way the current employment force can outstrip what a robot
can do. It makes little sense to hire anything but contract employees at a
certain point. Pretty soon you'll see micro-contracts to repair the bots, with
a race to the bottom on price. I think that there's a massive market
correction due to the employee-employer relationship.

------
arma26
Why not just operate a company in such a way where unions don't feel like they
need to exist? Unions are a self defense mechanism and a symptom of a failure
in trust between employee and employer. Unions aren't about logic, I don't see
the point in reasoning why unions should or should not exist or trying to sway
opinions before/after the fact.

> "I believe unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic"

Unions are a blunt instrument people feel forced to use to correct a
"corrosive us-against-them" culture. Unfortunately unions create as many
problems as they solve, but at least they won't have to worry about putting
food on the table, everything else is tolerable.

~~~
cratermoon
> Why not just operate a company in such a way where unions don't feel like
> they need to exist?

And watch as investors and the rest of the financial community trash your
company for not putting profits first.

1 [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-airlines-
rais...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-airlines-
raises-20170427-story.html)

2 [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/chipotle-downgraded-
employee...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/chipotle-downgraded-employee-
pay.html)

------
redleggedfrog
"I believe owners and management promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic
that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed."

There, I fixed that for you.

------
jordanb
> And yet, 2017 looks a lot different than 1917.

Yeah inequality is worse in 2017 than it was in 1917.

[http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e20120a57377...](http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e20120a573774a970c-pi)

------
jadell
There's only two effective ways to prevent your employees from unionizing: 1)
get government and law enforcement on your side and use force, or 2) treat
them like human beings with their own desires and goals and make sure your
business supports them in those desires and goals.

I guess a third way might be to find a bunch of employees who don't know any
better, or enjoy being taken advantage of...

------
pikma
I'm glad to see many people defending unions in this thread.

If you are interested in learning more about unions, I recommend reading
Confessions of a Union Buster, by Marty Levy. Any other book recommendation
about the topic?

------
tarboreus
What a shock, someone who creates companies doesn't like unions. And usually
CEOs LOVE when their employees unionize!

------
jackvalentine
> But, I’m neither a historian nor an economist.

Go to his bio:

> After graduating Creighton University with a B.A. in economics in 1968

He on at least some level an economist.

------
mark-r
I've always felt that unions are the wrong solution to the unchecked imbalance
of power between management and employees. Two wrongs don't make a right - the
antagonistic atmosphere created is absolutely poisonous. Unfortunately I don't
have a better answer.

------
skanga
Should we also BAN the ability of Management to fire their workers?

Because layoffs also promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys
the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.

~~~
lokedhs
A lot of countries do that already, in particular in Europe. Having worked in
such environment, it has both benefits and drawbacks. My personal opinion is
that it should be difficult but not impossible for companies to fire
employees.

------
ldiota
I believe this guy is the owner of Gothamist, whose staff recently voted to
unionize. He closed the company today.

------
kapauldo
Kids who don't read history become confident in poorly supported contentions.

------
elevenchars
Why I’m against taxes in countries that I live in

