
Kickstarter’s Year of Turmoil - jacquesm
https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-union-drive-historic-tech-industry.html
======
SamReidHughes
Well that is gangsta. It's an unlikely coincidence that these three people had
poor performance with such timing that led to firing in the same week or two.
You gotta space out the firings to give the cover story more plausibility.

~~~
dehrmann
Critics of unions would point out that under-performing employees are more
likely to benefit from unions, so they're more likely to try to organize them.

I have no idea if this is actually the case. It certainly makes it hard to
sort out what's actually going on, here.

~~~
koonsolo
I remember a story my father told me when he started working (in Belgium). It
was a bit before 9am, and everyone was standing in front of their workbench.
My dad, a farmers son, thought it was weird and started working on his task. A
colleague came up to him and said "we only start working at 9". Since then he,
like all the others, stood there doing nothing until it was 9 o'clock.

Unions have a "us vs them" mentality, where the boss tries to pay you as
little and try to get as much work out of you, and you do the least amount of
work for the most pay.

I myself like to see a cooperation more as a win-win situation, where you do
something for me and I for you. The more we do for each other, the better for
both of us.

~~~
iron0013
Would the workers have gotten paid more if they started before 9am? If not, it
wasn't a "the more we do for each other" scenario, it was a "the more the
workers do for their employer, with no additional compensation" scenario.

~~~
joelx
When you are trying to build a friendship with someone, do you only pay for
coffee if they did it for you before? Or do you out out a good faith effort
and buy them coffee or lunch a couple of times? Companies and employees are
the same way. Companies will sometimes overpay someone in the hope for extra
effort, or an employee may put in extra time in the hope for future rewards.

A win win approach is much better than a zero sum mindset to relationships and
employment.

My employees who have a win win approach have been massively rewarded over
time, those with zero sum mindsets don't last long here or anywhere else and
never get beyond entry level.

------
baron816
Why are American companies so afraid of their employees unionizing? Because
American unions have a history of creating an adversarial relationship between
managers and employees. They’re self serving and have a zero sum game outlook
where they try to grab as much as they can from a company. The unions were a
major contributor towards the collapse of the American auto industry.

European unions differ in that they are more focused on building a
collaborative relationship with managers and aim to ensure stability and
sustainability for the business. To achieve this, you need a certain level of
societal trust and unity, which just isn’t realistic at the moment in America.

~~~
wernercd
> Why don't American's like unions?

Unions are a layer of bureaucracy, red tape and an entity that cares more
about the Union than anything else.

Add to that, as a conservative and right leaning individual, the last thing I
want is be forced to donate to left leaning organizations that go against my
best interests.

Color it for what you will... I think there are cases where Unions do
important things. But most of those cases are long in the past and most unions
today are Yet Another Bureaucratic Mess that is useless and leaches off of
society as a whole.

~~~
matchbok
Well, great. Exactly 0 people are "forced" to pay into a union they don't want
to be a part of! If you don't want a union job the solution is simple: don't
take that job.

But I guess the numerous benefits you enjoy today because of unions don't
matter all.

~~~
wernercd
As of today... that may be true. It wasn't this way a few short years ago.

[https://reason.com/2019/04/09/janus-211000-workers-fled-
seiu...](https://reason.com/2019/04/09/janus-211000-workers-fled-seiu-afscme/)

And, as expected... those who aren't forced to pay - don't. Because the fees
aren't worth it in most cases.

> I guess the numerous benefits don't matter

As I said... in some cases and at one point most unions did "Good Things
(tm)".

But like most "Good Things (tm)" that time has ended - for most unions - and
we are in a point where the unions are largely useless and extra baggage that
causes more harm than good.

And again - your "Unions don't matter? /tear" doesn't approach what is
personally my main problem: My inability to decide where union dues go to.

~~~
matchbok
You aren't following.

Before that law if a worker saw a company that was unionized they had every
right to not take that job. If the job decided to unionize while he/she was
employed, that worker also had the right to leave. There is no "force" at
play, at all, no matter what reason.com or breitbart tells you.

That lawsuit was about enabling free riders with the ultimate goal of
kneecapping unions. Arguing otherwise is silly.

~~~
wernercd
You say kneecapping unions... I say not being a slave to an institution that
doesn't represent me.

You say "they have every right not to take the job"... I say "if Unions were
worth the price, they wouldn't have to force membership"

I'm not following? I know what unions are and what they aren't.

------
anovikov
I might be missing something, but that's a plain out crime to do it right?

~~~
freeone3000
So's operating a taxi without a license or running a hotel in a residential
area. If you can get enough investor money to ignore the consequences, laws
don't stop this.

~~~
chroma
You are smuggling a connotation in with your denotation. When most people
think of "crime", they think of robbery, assault, and other violent acts. They
don't think of disregarding various business laws or (to use an example I
think you'd agree with) possessing and using certain drugs. To give another
example: By the technical definition, Martin Luther King committed crime by
violating the racist laws of the south. Yet one should immediately become
suspicious of anyone who says, "MLK was a criminal."

The technical term for this is the noncentral fallacy.[1]

1\. [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-
noncen...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-
fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world)

~~~
freeone3000
Nestlé straight up murdered a worker for unionizing, but sure, the problem is
that the flagrant lawbreaking is not representative of corporate conduct,
because only unpopular laws are publically broken.

~~~
chroma
I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you think I want union
organizers to be fired from their jobs or murdered? I was simply pointing out
that your argument is a cheap dig that could also be applied to pot smokers
and MLK. People who disagree with you will see it as such and remain
unconvinced by your arguments.

If you want to convince people, you have to figure out what would change their
minds, not just hector them. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

~~~
freeone3000
Maybe by presenting examples of hidden and public corporate disregard for law
in their pursuit of profit. If you don't like the idea of a law as an
absolute, maybe the same examples, framed as being against the public good. I
want sunion organizers negotiated with, not fired OR murdered. If you're
willing to overlook hidden events as "improbable" and public events as "not
that bad" I don't really know what would convince such a person.

------
Deimorz
Slate published an article about this on Thursday that has a lot more
information and background: [https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-
turmoil-uni...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-
union-drive-historic-tech-industry.html)

Was submitted to HN here, but didn't get much attention:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962696](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962696)

~~~
jacquesm
Much better link, suggest replacing mine with this article.

~~~
Deimorz
The tweets are a good follow-up too, since the article only said that sources
had told them that Taylor Moore had been fired, so it's good to see his
confirmation and additional info from him personally as well.

------
djrogers
Not a big fan of this headline - it's inflammatory and incomplete. This is one
(unproven and completely unsubstantiated) accusation from one side of the
story, made in a handful of tweets. Kickstarter also tweeted, and of course
denies this:

[https://twitter.com/kickstarter/status/1172230162588536833](https://twitter.com/kickstarter/status/1172230162588536833)

The problem with this type of link on HN is that it's not a 'story' \- there's
no investigative reporting - heck there's no reporting at all. Unfortunately
this is a story is that most people will look at it and believe whichever side
lines up with their personal belief system, in spite of a complete absence of
facts.

The pro-union people will believe this is union busting no matter what is said
or proven, and the pro-corporate people will believe that this individual
deserved to be fired for other reasons.

~~~
jacquesm
What are the chances of _three_ people trying to unionize in a company being
fired in a very short span of time for 'performance' reasons? Are you holding
out until the company says 'Ok, caught, yes, we did fire them for trying to
unionize'?

~~~
bsamuels
I could definitely a envision a theoretical situation where three poorly
performing employees decide to unionize to protect themselves, then eventually
get fired for poor performance.

Is that what happened? I don't know, but I'm not going to trust two tweets
from two parties whose interests are against one another.

~~~
namirez
You need to back up your claim with evidence. In order to establish a union,
you'll need at least 30% of the workers signing a petition. Would you sign
such a petition if your incompetent colleague put it forward to you in the
hope of protecting their job? Honestly, your scenario is far-fetched.

~~~
jodrellblank
_In order to establish a union, you 'll need at least 30% of the workers
signing a petition_

Why do you, what's the reasoning behind that kind of law? And to whom do they
petition - does the company have to agree, or rather, does the employer have
the right to forbid employees from forming agreements between themselves? It
sounds counterintuitive when you only need 1 person to start a company, or 2
people to have a contract, and when employers have no other control over who
employees meet with and little control over how employees spend money (e.g.
'work dress code').

~~~
namirez
I don't know the answer to your questions, but it is simply the law unless the
employer voluntarily recognizes the union. Obviously employers don't have much
incentive for doing so.

source: [https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-
law/employees/i...](https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-
law/employees/i-am-not-represented-union/your-right-form-union)

------
manfredo
This article was posted to HN yesterday or maybe the day before:
[https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-
uni...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-union-drive-
historic-tech-industry.html)

It looks like unionization wasn't the only point of contention. In particular,
a segment of Kickstarter's workforce conflicted with company leadership over
an "Always Punch Nazis" comic book kickstarter project apparently made in
reference to violence against Richard Spencer. Employees pressured leadership
to reverse this decision.

The Slate article mentions that some employees saw a union as a means to exert
more pressure over leadership on these sorts of decisions:

> Afraid that they would be dismissed next—and that they didn’t have enough
> leverage to pressure Kickstarter over ethical issues the next time there was
> a disagreement—employees started discussing a union. Since March, the
> organizers haven’t requested recognition from the company nor have they held
> a staff vote through the National Labor Relations Board. But the topic has
> been ever-present.

My guess is that the company leadership doesn't want to be associated with
this sort of promotion of violence against purported "Nazis" and took note of
which employees were most vocal in drumming up support for keeping the
project. While there is a far left segment that likes this kind of content,
most people are adverse to promotions of violence - even against purported
"Nazis", given how liberally that term is applied these days. Kickstarter
probably doesn't want to have to go through employee drama every time this
sort of content gets taken down.

Reply to PorterDuff, HN isn't letting me reply to your comment:

The solution is to push back against tribalism, which is exactly what
Kickstarter is doing here.

~~~
fzeroracer
Alternately, doesn't this mean Kickstarter censored satirical content due to a
far-right hit piece?

Shouldn't people be decrying censorship at every turn? Because that's exactly
what happened in this case when leadership decided to veto the decision and
take it down.

~~~
manfredo
Sure, but on the flip side this sets the precedent that promotion of violence
is okay as long as it's "satirical". What happens when a far right group sets
up a "satirical" comic about violently repelling illegal immigrants along the
southern border? I'd hazard the guess that these same people would not want
Kickstarter to host that content, and would pressure leadership to take it
down - and the result is that Kickstarter is perceived as biased. Kickstarter
probably doesn't want to get pushed into this corner.

------
ezoe
The moment I read the title, I came up a very satirical comment which I
believe everybody came up so I don't bother to write it.

~~~
benj111
Was it a comment about running a kickstarter for these guys? Cos that's why I
checked the comments, and was sorely disappointed :(

~~~
mieseratte
Wouldn't it be "start a GoFundMe" \- I thought KickStarter was for projects,
not causes?

------
PorterDuff
re: Unions

If a software union only existed to deal with the following:

. Pensions . Health insurance

I can see the point.

~~~
holy_city
It could use the Hollywood unions as a model, at least partly. The Screen
Actors Guild for example doesn't limit actors' ability to negotiate salaries
independently but does allow for freelancers to get health insurance paid
through employment in a larger network.

There are other benefits too. Elimating crunch without overtime.

~~~
PorterDuff
That's an interesting point. I have friends in the movie makin' business and
should ask how their unions work in terms of benefits, negotations, etc. The
jobs all seems to be split into individual films as independent businesses so
to a software contractor there would be a lot of similarities.

------
madengr
Kickstarter is not a damned tech company. This whole stinking “tech” economy
can’t crash fast enough. A 2000’ish reset is needed to get rid of the
dogfood.coms.

------
nickjj
I know close to nothing about unions or the KS story but I am from the US and
myself along with almost everyone I know tend to associate unions with extreme
wasting of resources. This is coming at it from a spectator's point of view
(ie. not a union worker / not a unionized business owner).

For example, I've witnessed an overpass taking over 2 years to finish (it was
blocked off / limited access / under construction the whole time) which
involved fixing about 30 feet of road from a unionized crew. Every time
workers were on the site it looked really inefficient. Over a dozen people
there, but half of them were standing around on their phones, etc.. I've seen
countless examples of this over my life time living in the US.

If I were a company I would be terrified that such inefficiencies are
protected by a union. Personally I wouldn't fire anyone due to trying to
organize one but can someone more knowledgeable in this area explain how a
unionized workforce benefits both employees and the business hiring them?

~~~
shakezula
That type of inefficiency isn’t exclusive to unions, you realize that right?

You realize that maybe there were other factors involved that caused the
bridge to take that long?

You realize that construction is often a very sequential process that can
block other steps from being completed until the first is done?

Every part of your comment is completely anecdotal and could be due to myriad
other factors.

> associate unions with extreme wasting of resources

sounds like 30+ years of anti-union propaganda working its charm.

~~~
nickjj
> Sounds like 30+ years of anti-union propaganda working its charm.

I dunno. I see it all over the place.

Look at the US government. Most of the govt. run customer facing services are
abysmal when it comes to efficiency (DMV, etc.). From my quick Googling the
DMV is unionized. It doesn't end at the DMV either.

I know some types of construction jobs are usually sequential but I don't
understand how in any circumstance it can take 2 years to fix 30 feet of road
while it disrupted traffic the whole time. This isn't an isolated case either,
I see similar things all the time.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Yeah because Comcast, EA, Verizon, and there are numerous private today
constructions crews that aren't unionized and they are all known for great
service. Unions have zero impact on quality or speed of work. All unions do is
create a group of individuals to balance the power that corporations have. If
unions had any real power in the United States, then wages wouldn't have
failed to rise with the rate of efficiency for the last 50 years. Since Reagan
went union busting wages have barely increased for the average worker against
inflation. You know who has been getting more money? The corporate owners who
have devalued all the public stocks while keeping the private stock for
themselves. We don't live in a republic in the US anymore, we live in an
oligarchy.

You know the single most efficient medical insurance? Medicare. Government
doesn't need to be a bureaucratic mess, but when half of government is
literally platformed on making government fail to prove government is broken,
it's not really difficult to see why we're in the mess we're in. All I want is
us to pay down our deficit instead of kicking the can down the road.

------
unions23143
Aren't Kickstarter salaries quite high already?

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kickstarter-
Salaries-E49199...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kickstarter-
Salaries-E491996.htm)

~~~
deogeo
Ignoring for the moment the non-salary benefits of a union: Look at it this
way - aren't corporate profits quite high already? Yet they still merge and
consolidate and cut costs and try to increase them further.

Why should labor not do the same?

Also, this seems like a reasonable question (with source for the claim!), that
no doubt many others would share. I don't think the downvotes are warranted.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> " _Ignoring for the moment the non-salary benefits of a union: Look at it
> this way - aren 't corporate profits quite high already? Yet they still
> merge and consolidate and cut costs and try to increase them further._"

Imagine your waiter at a restaurant found out that you are a well paid
programmer and tried to charge you extra on the bill for your meal because
"aren't programmer salaries quite high already". Does that sound reasonable to
you?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It sounds like a ridiculous and misleading analogy.

I don't employ my waiter. The restaurant employs my waiter.

I would be perfectly fine with a restaurant paying a waiter slightly more in
return for happier waiters - especially if it meant that I didn't need to feel
that my tips were keeping food on the waiter's table, instead of the
restaurant's pay.

But imagine this - suppose a waiter at a restaurant discovered the restaurant
was making millions for the owners, while their pay was so low they could
barely cover rent and other basics?

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That is _exactly_ the situation many workers in the US and UK are in today.

Essentially there are two kinds of people - those who understand that this is
a real problem, and those who don't.

The economy is run by those who don't - and it's much the worse for it.

