Here is the same story again. Sorry to hear about the inevitable ending, but glad they got to experience a good work culture for a time. At some point I hope we can shift the union discussion from just benefits and wages (which are not the biggest problems for SWE), to workers having a say in how a company operates. The idea that investing money garners complete control of a company is not healthy for the company or society at large. Workers risk more for the company and know more about what makes it succeed.
I’ve gotta be honest here, I really don’t know what you’re trying to say. Workers having a say at their workplace is a burden? Working at a big company somehow solves this? Having a say at your workplace and working at a startup is too much entitlement, you can only have one?
Employees do not have a say, that’s the discussion. It seems like you are arguing that a startup has to have worse working conditions for employees than other companies.
Yes I am saying that. They need more flexibility. Imagine a startup that cannot make employees work longer than 8 hours a day. It’s just detached from reality.
There are benefits that come from being early stage startup employee. More ownership, equity, etc.
Employees can chose if they want that and if they don’t.
My measure is if someone else wants to do your job for less pay with same conditions then they should have a chance at that job. Existing employees shouldn’t gate keep by inflating their wages and conditions.
Unions only seem to care about existing employees to the exclusion of those who are looking for work and would work for less pay or conditions.
Lots of union and coop workers work more than 8 hours a day.
I think you mis-understand that unions and coops are about employees having a say. If the employees want to work more for less in exchange for equity they can. All unions are not the same, because the union is the workers.
You say working at a startup should be worse, but really it’s trading things. You get to learn and experience more. More equity instead of higher wages, and greater access to leadership. I work at one right now, I get it. I think this is what your saying, and workers know this. A union does not preclude this arrangement. Also the people that are willing to work at a startup tend to be more invested and want more of a say in the company. If the company succeeds I argue they deserve a seat at the table as they built it along with the founders more than any investor.
So many comments in this post setup imaginary straw men for what a union would do, then argue against that. The union is the employees, and employees at startups are not trying to kill a company and gate keep jobs.
Why do you assume that unions, or some other form of labor power, would burden startups? In fact, why do you assume that they might not lead to fewer startups failing?
Different incentives. If a company fails, employees would be disappointed but can go get another job pretty easy. For investors they lose a lot of money. Employees have less to gain+lose.
A collective of employees is not going to make better decisions than management. And if there are some who would, then they should be moved into management.
I only see the impact a union could have on improving morale and staff retention and therefore productivity if management/owners didn’t value it enough. These are things management are measuring and factoring in to their decisions. If management/owners are this bad then there isn’t much hope for the company.
And without a union management could simply provide autonomy to have the same effect. If Union force needs to be used to get mgmt to do the right thing for maximizing profits, it’s not really worth it.
