> The company told staff that Moore had been on a performance improvement plan
He'd apparently been at Kickstarter for six years. Being on a PIP after that long seems unusual.
> But current and former employees with knowledge of the firing told me that management didn’t establish a “performance improvement plan” for Redwine, despite her being told she would have one.
Not quite sure how to read the second. Was it being used as a formality so the firing looks genuine, or was she actually under-performing, and they just ripped the bandaid off?
Every one of them got a PIP. The PIP was pretty much always pro forma, but I've never heard of a company letting someone go without a PIP, unless there's active malfeasance involved.
Rookie move on Kickstarter's part, regardless. Even if Redwine had basically decided to stop working, it's probably less costly in reputational damage and legal risks to go through the usual process and give them a couple months pay. I'm pretty sure if Kickstarter had a relationship with a good union busting firm, they would have handled this in a much less damaging way.
But I've been at a place that fired without PIPs, so it does happen.
There's a lot of flexibility with at will employers, but even for clear firings with just cause, it's often less risky to eat the cost of that grace period. Aside from the risk of (frivolous) legal costs, there are reputational and morale risks from departures that aren't adequately "managed." No one is ever walked into an office and fired on a Friday morning for performance reasons without lots of warnings, including a PIP.
I have no idea if this is actually the case. It certainly makes it hard to sort out what's actually going on, here.
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.
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.
My dad was always a hard worker, and he had a nice company car starting from the 80's, one of the first carphones, we got a computer from his work etc. So yeah, an employer does his best to keep the good workers, because if not, they will go somewhere where they are appreciated.
Last week another member of the organizing committee,
was also fired, and today a third prominent member of the union was told there is no place for him at the company. I stand firm in solidarity with my friends and colleagues.
Do they need to?
Many employers would rather publicize it: we don't tolerate a union.
The company gets to have it both ways. Send a message that unionization isn't tolerated, while saying in court that unionization had nothing to do with the firings.
There was an episode of the U.S. version of The Office where an exec said they'd all be fired if they got "even a whiff" of unionization. And really openly to dozens of people, not in any sort of wink-wink way.
I figured this was a legit threat in the U.S.
So not advocating that we use The Office (a sitcom) as a reference for American labor law, but I think Jan’s statements might be permissible. As long as her reasoning is that the increased cost of the workers being in a union will lead to the branch closing, not that the branch would be closed in retaliation, it would be fine.
Companies can and often do complain that if workers are in a union, the company’s operating costs will increase, which will consequently have adverse effects on the workers like layoffs, plant closings and so on.
To be clear, this is my understanding of legal issues in a sitcom. I am not necessarily advocating Jan’s point of view, our labor laws as they stand, or anything else.
"Due to increased costs (read: unions), we're reducing/eliminating employment."
"Due to decreased productivity (read: FMLA), we're reducing/eliminating employment."
I guess it works. I don't really understand this stuff.
"We don't think you fit in with our culture" - Legal.
I think this is why any crime where the intention is part of it is so hard to prove, like discrimination, hate crimes, etc.
As they say: The devil is in the details.
Firing the individuals who are trying to start the union - illegal.
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.
And it's not somehow magically different now; the woman responsible for the Panama Papers got car bombed and it was just swept under the rug. Capital is more than willing to use extralegal lethal force to protect itself, to this day.
But it seems like with this sort of reaction, it's the companies who are feeding an adversarial relationship.
Companies responding to labor organization in the US have had crazy, even violent reactions. Perhaps rather than justifying why American companies are so afraid of unions, it would be enlightening to ask why American workers feel so positively about employers?
* People that see the use of H1Bs as suppressing wages for American tech workers. This camp is often broadly against immigration in general, and is more closely aligned with the right. You won't encounter many of these in the Bay Area, but they do exist and are more prevalent in other parts of the country.
* People who want to make tech companies even more progressive, often wanting more aggressive diversity representation OKRs and abolishing interviews. Some good ideas are present here (like ending forced arbitration) but this camp is often adverse to meritocracy which runs contrary to the ethics of many, if not most, tech workers.
Really, software development and tech are fantastic jobs that pay well and have effectively zero risk of injury. Hours can be difficult in specific segments (e.g. Game Dev) but compensation as a function of work life balance is far better than the overwhelming majority of other industries.
That's an interesting theory, but no, that is not Unionization's primary purpose. The primary purpose of Unionization is to make it possible for employees to collectively bargain about whatever subjects they see fit through a horizontal link between all employees in order re-balance the vastly asymmetric employer-employee relationship.
Saying that unionization is about collective bargaining is a more long-winded way of saying the same thing.
Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond:
So in the end, you don't actually disagree that constricting the supply of labor is the primary purpose of unions. I agree that this discussion has been non-productive, so why did you bother kicking it off by trying to claim that this isn't how unions operate in your first reply?
Because collective bargaining means that the party with the largest resources and the power, in this case the company, will have to at least take into account their ability to operate.
> Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met.
Exactly. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that when that power is used appropriately. As evidenced by a very long history that turned out to be an extremely good thing.
Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement.
This whole discussion is right along the lines of 'what have the Romans ever done for us' from Monty Python.
Those things always get brought up but that's history from 50-75+ years ago. Got any more recent examples?
It's a bit like marketing: if you stop doing it your marketshare will dwindle, even if you're top dog.
Parental leave, workplace conditions, scheduling are other common things that are still very much up to unions to negotiate for, on behalf of their members.
Unions in America have been both conservative (e.g. AFL) and radical (e.g. IWW). The radicals were crushed by big business and the US government, while the conservatives are still around, but haven’t fought back enough against the continuing assault on American workers because of this inherently conservative nature. Their strategy has always been to make the labor movement in America part of the establishment, but the corporate grip on America won’t let gains for employees last without a continuous fight. It’s greed by companies, not workers, that makes labor relations so adversarial.
What you perceive as “greed” by workers is workers asking for basic rights on the job. Why is it wrong for employees to ask for their share but right for companies to ask for as much as they can? I see this far too often on HN and I believe it’s a symptom of how corporatized our society has become.
Unions don’t just fight for higher wages, they fight for dignity and respect on the job. That means workers get a say in their conditions. That’s a good thing for both workers and companies—even if companies are too blinded by greed to see it.
And they also fight for as much as they can get, sometimes to the detriment of the company. And they also fight to do what is best for the company because it's best for them. And they also fight for a wide variety of other things depending on the time and the place and the people. And sometimes they just fight; and threaten people.
Sometimes unions are good and sometimes unions are bad. There have been places where people would be in a much worse state had it not been for a union. There are other places where people are in a much worse state _because_ of a union.
It seems like most times people present an opinion on unions, they highlight either only the good or only the bad. Balanced discussion seems very rare.
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.
But I guess the numerous benefits you enjoy today because of unions don't matter all.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
Reality is... that's obviously not true.
These descriptors cover most human organizations. Churches, clubs, businesses.
You choose to go to church, clubs or spend money at businesses.
If you're part of a union... chances are you don't have a choice.
The difference is that with the "churches, clubs, businesses" - when they do wrong... people go elsewhere (IE: Ask the Catholic Church).
With Unions? You're forced to stay with the Union if you want to keep the job.
IF the union is "mandatory" or the Church is - I think both of those situations are wrong.
If a union is truly worth the fee... it shouldn't be a the end of a gun (Government/Corporate/etc mandate, forced fees, etc).
Non-union employees get the same pay raises union employees do, a rational actor in a non-compulsory union shop would not join the union because they don't want to pay dues. That is why joining a union is compulsory.
The technical term for this is the noncentral fallacy.
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.
And just as an observation, the comparison of the way that Kickstarter treats their employees and MLK is... stretched.
Was submitted to HN here, but didn't get much attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962696
The conflict going on in the background seems to be average office fare; a mix of common problems compounded by the fact that there's a power struggle.
Seems like it's possible someone retaliated; but who knows? I bet even people who work there are having trouble piecing together the bits and pieces.
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.
I know a handful of people at Kickstarter, including some of the union backers. A fair number of employees have concerns about how the folks trying to organize the union have acted. Seems they deliberately have gone to the press as leverage against the company rather than work to get employees to back their cause.
It's a 140 person company and they only have the public support of 20% of the staff.
Of course they would go to the press, if retaliation is imminent that is one of the last ways in which an employee might defend themselves. It wouldn't be the first time that the press served to right a wrong, and it certainly won't be the last.
If 20% of the company supported unionization that makes it 150/5 = 30 people at most, 3 of which have been fired in a very short window of time. That's going to help a lot in the inevitable court case.
All I said was that 28 people in the company publicly stated their support for a union (there's 42 needed to establish one).
15 of those 28 people were eligible for a promotion or raise. 14 of those 15 received their promotion or raise.
Doesn't look like union busting at all to me, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
My comment about the press was because the pro-union group is having a hard time getting those 14 additional people they needed to support them and in the meantime have created a ton of bad press for the company, which does impact the assets of the very employees they're supposed to be supporting the interests of.
This is how power operates, you can see exactly the same dynamics at work in countries that have been through a military coup.
It is not unreasonable to suspect that if 28 people are openly in support that there are 42 in total.
> Doesn't look like union busting at all to me, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
You'd have to show that in the 'control' group of 120 other employees 12 or more got fired; not that 14 of the people in the group that supported unionization got a raise. They are - presumably - not the organizers, which is what matters here.
> My comment about the press was because the pro-union group is having a hard time getting those 14 additional people they needed to support them and in the meantime have created a ton of bad press for the company, which does impact the assets of the very employees they're supposed to be supporting the interests of.
And my point is that if you fire the organizers and get away with it that there won't be any union regardless of how many people would have supported it. If they took a vote and lost then that's that and business as usual, no need to fire anybody.
The union organizers don't want a vote, they want Kickstarter to voluntarily recognize them.
This is in the articles, man...
Note the subject of the post: "Kickstarter employees fired for trying to unionize". That's either true or it is not and so far you have not brought anything to the table that suggests it isn't retaliation for exactly that, and in fact substantiated numerically that the chances that it is not retaliation are vanishingly small.
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.
Besides, there may be many people who think having a union is always a good idea, so they would sign without thinking about it much.
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').
In this case, the employees coming out with this knowledge have everything to lose because they could easily be blacklisted from further jobs. Kickstarter has no reason to not deny their accusations and has everything to gain from it.
If someone is risking a their livelihood to say something like that, then perhaps we should take what they're saying with a larger grain of truth. Otherwise we'd be saying that whistleblowers and the PR arm of a company have exactly the same weight.
If a few months from now, I read an article about what just happened now and it turns out that the company ends up being fined or something because the motivations behind firing him are actually what he claims, then it's the moment we can start being outraged, not before.
Sounds to me like they saw the writing on the wall.
I think some people will always be in favor of a union, no matter what. It's also an ideological thing.
The odds can't be calculated but I see no need for that, on a company the size of Kickstarter the chances of the three people who just happen to be busy trying to get a union organized after many years of otherwise uneventful employment are nil.
In theory pigs can fly, in practice, if you see a pig flying it is usually good practice to check which airborne vehicle they were tossed out of.
There is absolutely zero chance that 'all the information' will ever come out. The people directly affected will have nothing to lose, the remainder will be afraid for their jobs and will not talk or will only talk off the record. The company will claim it was nothing of the sort. And yet, magically, no union will ever be formed.
I don't know. What are the chances? Did anyone verify their stories?
I’m saying thus not theoretically, but a buddy just the other day was joking-not-joking about doing that at his job.
So who knows?
And then there is that other article linked in this thread which provides a ton more circumstantial evidence.
With that perspective I think its highly probable of such firings happening in a short time span
Are the numbers here 'Kickstarter fired 435 people and 3 of them claimed they were trying to unionize'?
Pretty good. The type of person looking to form a union in software dev where there isn't one is usually someone very unhappy at the company which as a very high correlation with not performing well (at least in the eyes of their manager).
I think you are crossing a sea of assumptions to get to "pretty good".
Very little in this world is proven, but this is certainly substantiated.
First off, an on the record first person accusation from an involved party is by itself compelling evidence, secondly, the story has in fact been supported by credible journalistic outlets with multiple sources.
Seems to me both sides would rather plant their flags and signal allegiance to the outside world than come up with a real solution.
Kickstarter is on its way out.
And truly it is more fun to work together solving hard problems rather than screaming past each other. We've been so isolated, our whole lives, only now are we realizing what it means to be in the public. Vulnerable yet strong (I may be projecting here).
Of course denies this. I stand with the workers.
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.
. Due to network effects, websites sites tend towards monopolies.
. Due to human tribalism, websites tend towards bias.
Even given some sort of publishing rules, I can't imagine how you veer away from this. The quest for wealth might keep you from choosing up sides, but not always.
That is a radically different use of Unionization compared to the typical "Fair pay and safe working conditions" demands. I'm struggling to see why unionization is an appropriate way to secure this kind of power, and why workers deserve to have any more say besides voting with their feet individually.
Unlike compensation, which is on a continuous scale and has multiple axis (comp, profit share, benefits, PTO), these kinds of decisions are fairly binary and therefor have very little room for negotiation.
Is this something where workers deserve the power to collectively bargain? To me, whether or not to support "Always Punch Nazis" is a truly nuanced and difficult choice and I'm not sure going one way or the other qualifies for "exploitation" of the workforce.
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.
“All of us organizing with KSRU are committed to the mission of Kickstarter, and will continue to support creators currently on the platform and in our alumni network. We are not calling on creators who rely on Kickstarter to abandon live or planned projects.”
“That said, we deeply appreciate the support from our community. The work we are doing is not only in service of employees, but the artists, makers, and backers throughout the Kickstarter ecosystem. We’re all in this together.”
If you want higher wages and more holidays, create more demand for workers, by creating jobs. That's the proper way to do it. Unions only benefit some workers at the expense of others - the ones who don't get a job because of minimum wages or because of bankrupt companies don't benefit from unions anymore.
Do you seriously believe people wouldn't get weekends off if it weren't for unions?
I wonder if unions also introduced the 20% time at Google?
Of course if masses of unskilled workers face a bad labor market, they'll have trouble earning good wages and good work conditions. They can unionize, that is, try to form a monopoly, to drive prices up. I think the same people who praise unions usually hate monopolies, which doesn't really make sense. All the issues with monopolies also apply to unions.
The proper way out of it is to increase demand and increase skills.
Unions may help some people at face value, but at the same time they hurt others. Minimum wages prevent some people from getting jobs - many of whom don't even show up in statistics as they are people earning just a few extra bucks. Maximum work hours hurt people who for whatever reason need more money and would like to work more. And other things.
(Edit: that quote is of a Slate article)
I do not think any of those goals for their employees are evil, or the exact opposite of what a content creator wants out of a fundraising platform. I am all for shrinking the gap between what the company heads and the lowest employee make; I am all for it not being nothing but straight white dudes (I’m not one myself), and I have no problem with their employees having a voice in how the place is run. Especially with KS having restructured itself as a Public Benefit Corporation rather than a pure-profit affair; there is a certain sort of “put your money where your mouth is, guys” thing going on once you’ve made that decision IMHO, and firing union organizers is really not a good look.
If a software union only existed to deal with the following:
. Health insurance
I can see the point.
There are other benefits too. Elimating crunch without overtime.
Edit: Also, compile times. Get your C++ devs a goddamn build server or else even I'd join the union.
The union negotiates minimum benefits, such as working hours, overtime rules, vacation time, pension contributions, and so on. The companies are free to offer more.
They also collect salary statistics (which you can slice by industry, age, experience, area, and a bunch of other stuff), to help you decide whether or not an offer is competitive.
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?
The union I'm part of in the UK regularly arranges on-site events for all employees and pushes for improvements on environmental issues as well as working conditions.
“The Trade Union Movement and the Redistribution of Power in Postwar Germany”
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Vol. 68, No. 4 (Nov., 1954), pp. 535-564
Unions are responsible for some of the benefits we tend to take for granted - weekends, 8 hours workdays, corporate healthcare, retirement plans, etc. At the same time, any organization with power can become corrupt, or at least have its interests diverge.
Some examples that come to mind are the myriad of stories my mom tells me about working as a teacher.
One thing that annoyed her to no end was the IT labor union at her school. Teachers, even ones with technical skills, were forbid from touching any of the computers (even so much as plugging keyboards back in if students unplugged them). When computer Labs were being set up, one worker would put in all the computers, but a separate worker would come in the plug them in. Seriously, they'd come in for two hours to attach power cables.
However, when the school started 'not renewing contracts' after 3 years of continuous employment but then 'rehiring' after a month, so that teachers wouldn't get tenure, the union got the school to stop.
The union's power base came mainly from holding the school hostage - you 'couldn't' work there without joining the teachers union, else the union would have the teachers strike...
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.
In my opinion, unionizing teachers has created a perverse incentive to fuck around and do nothing once tenured and to screw over the newest members of the union when forced to downsize, regardless of performance for teachers.
For police officers, it’s incentivized understaffing to reward members with overtime as well as an unreasonable amount of legal protection for cops who do horrible things like kill innocent people due to “feeling threatened.”
For public transportation, we also have workers who somehow accrue all of the OT as it’s offered in tenure order. This ensures that remunerative benefits is only a function of time and not skill, and also somehow prevents the most reasonable solution such as hiring another worker.
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.
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.
I don’t have much else other than anecdotes to add about the benefits of unions for both sides. What I would like to point out is that if you flip your post and replace union with company, it still holds 100% true. Just food for thought.
You can't 'be' a company. You can run one, at best.
And if unionized employees terrify you in a country where unionization is legal then maybe simply do not start a company?
> can someone more knowledgeable in this area explain how a unionized workforce benefits both employees and the business hiring them
In theory - not always in practice - unions create a more level playing field in the asymmetrical relationship between employer and employee, it restores some of the balance of power. Collective bargaining means that employers can no longer reduce negotiations by serially negotiating with one employee at the time, but have the negotiate with all employees at once. This has had a remarkable effect on the division of the value created by those employees over the years that we have had unions.
Now, in practice, of course not everything is quite that simple and unions can be co-opted by the company, and there are plenty of examples of unions that ended up being self serving power structures in their own right but we - collectively, the voters - still believe in most countries that unions are such a big net effect that retaliation against employees for wanting to unionize is illegal under the law.
Now I understand why my original comment is the most down voted comment I ever made on HN in about 5 years.
Based on what you wrote it sounds like union vs non-union seems very much related to a political topic of socialism vs capitalism which is usually a good idea to avoid talking about on public forums.
With that said, I'm bowing out on this conversation!
In other countries union bosses are found dead with alarming regularity.
To add to that. Said employee described the lack of product leadership (constant changing vision, wasted efforts, etc.). At this point I would not bet or invest in KS.
FBN/DBA says otherwise.
Steven Greenhouse, author of "Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor." Reporter at The New York Times for 31 years, who covered labor and the workplace for 19 years.
I'm from the US and myself along with almost everyone i know tend to associate unions with the reason they have a decent standard of living. I'm sorry you had to see some construction workers being lazy. I hope you're able to recover someday.
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.
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?
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.
If you want to limit unionization only to jobs that are "bad" by some metric, fine - but then also limit the size of corporations unless they are struggling. Why should they be free to merge and consolidate and organize, but workers shouldn't?
Are they? What do you consider high?
But that's besides the point - regardless of how high their profits are, they try to increase them further. Unlike labor, they're not asked to justify this by showing that their board members and shareholders live in poverty.