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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I have reserved judgement. I'm not crucifying Kickstarter for firing some people, and I'm also not attacking the people that were fired. I'm leaving room on both sides due to the fact that these people were fired and I've only heard one side. I'm just mentioning that it would be completely reasonable for Kickstarter to have fired three people that were low performers and they also happened to be involved in the union effort. Two of the three were on performance improvement plans and one was told that they should have been on a plan. I did mention that it wouldn't be unusual if the fired people were making excuses, but I didn't say that they definitely were just making excuses.
The people that haven't reserved judgement are the ones saying that "I hope Kickstarter really gets it."
