Why I’m Against Unions at Businesses I Create(blog.joericketts.com)
blog.joericketts.com
Why I’m Against Unions at Businesses I Create
http://blog.joericketts.com/?p=557
77 comments
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.
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.
Judging by the predominantly negative comments in this thread, I think that's the case here.
For the record, I didn't submit this because I agree with him.
Perhaps made it to highlight said drivel? I upvoted for that reason.
The context here is super important - Joe Ricketts, who owns DNAInfo and Gothamist, just shut them down today entirely, firing everyone and taking all their content offline. Worth noting that this happened after employees voted to unionize. I think that's why this is getting upvoted now.
Huh I missed that (on day 4 of a road trip atm), thanks, that makes this even more interesting.
I'm generally in favor of unions as private associations (i.e. without government-enshrined powers, or the ability to mandate participation) ... BUT I think we have to accept that there's a Principal-Agent problem with unions that is inherent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
The Union is just another hierarchy. That's partly what makes it effective in negotiating with management and capital. It gains its power initially by persuading workers that it represents their interests, but it is easily corrupted over time by people who benefit from institutional positions within the union -- just like every other hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
The Union is just another hierarchy. That's partly what makes it effective in negotiating with management and capital. It gains its power initially by persuading workers that it represents their interests, but it is easily corrupted over time by people who benefit from institutional positions within the union -- just like every other hierarchy.
> 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!
> 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!
We're all in it together to make the founders rich.
> 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!
It's a falsehood to think that every company is a profit machine, many employers are small business so 1000x more equity is not really much.
It's a falsehood to think that every company is a profit machine, many employers are small business so 1000x more equity is not really much.
If it's not all that much, why not share it equally among all employees. You want everybody to be sitting in the same end of the seesaw, right?
> If it's not all that much, why not share it equally among all employees. You want everybody to be sitting in the same end of the seesaw, right?
Ok, but remember you take the good with the bad. Statistically more business fail than survive, so if you want to take that risk then why not. But even easier you could start your own business and share the utopian form of employment with your staff.
Ok, but remember you take the good with the bad. Statistically more business fail than survive, so if you want to take that risk then why not. But even easier you could start your own business and share the utopian form of employment with your staff.
[deleted]
Founders have the courage to sit on the risky and stressful side of the seesaw.
Haven't you heard? Founders are not free to just walk away! The horror.
</s>
Haven't you heard? Founders are not free to just walk away! The horror.
</s>
Great, we'll ignore them and focus on companies like the author's: Ameritrade. Also, every Silicon Valley company. And the point isn't whether a company exits or not -- the point is that the potential rewards are so lopsided, any notion of "we're in it together" is just idiotic.
"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!"
Okay, I'll bite: why shouldn't the founders and investors have a lot more equity than the employees? If the business goes belly-up, they lose everything they've put into it, while an employee just goes out and finds another job.
Risk and reward need to be related somehow, surely?
Okay, I'll bite: why shouldn't the founders and investors have a lot more equity than the employees? If the business goes belly-up, they lose everything they've put into it, while an employee just goes out and finds another job.
Risk and reward need to be related somehow, surely?
Employment is not a happy-go-lucky partnership.
At the end of the day people have jobs because they need to eat, the point was not that founders shouldn't have more equity it was that their incentives are not aligned. Lower wages is good for the employer and bad for the employee, it is adversarial and sugar coating it as if it's not is bullshit.
(Not that I think companies can't have good relations with their employees, just at the very least wages are adversarial)
At the end of the day people have jobs because they need to eat, the point was not that founders shouldn't have more equity it was that their incentives are not aligned. Lower wages is good for the employer and bad for the employee, it is adversarial and sugar coating it as if it's not is bullshit.
(Not that I think companies can't have good relations with their employees, just at the very least wages are adversarial)
"Lower wages is good for the employer"
Not if the wages become so low that qualified employees refuse to work there, it isn't. There's nothing more deadly to a business than crappy, unmotivated employees.
Not if the wages become so low that qualified employees refuse to work there, it isn't. There's nothing more deadly to a business than crappy, unmotivated employees.
What is stopping the founders from “just finding another job”?
Losing “everything they’ve put into it” suggests that the founders will actually lose money if the business fails, where in most cases the business goes bankrupt and the founders only lose whatever seed capital they put into the venture before incorporating as a limited liability venture (specifically to limit their personal liability).
The employees also lose eveything they put into it, which is however many months or years of their life they contributed to the venture.
Losing “everything they’ve put into it” suggests that the founders will actually lose money if the business fails, where in most cases the business goes bankrupt and the founders only lose whatever seed capital they put into the venture before incorporating as a limited liability venture (specifically to limit their personal liability).
The employees also lose eveything they put into it, which is however many months or years of their life they contributed to the venture.
"What is stopping the founders from “just finding another job”?"
Do you really not understand the concept of equity?
"suggests that the founders will actually lose money if the business fails, where in most cases the business goes bankrupt and the founders only lose whatever seed capital"
Oh, they only lose their "seed capital" (plus all the --usually unpaid -- work they've put into starting and growing the business).
That makes it okay, then!
"The employees also lose eveything they put into it"
The employees got paid every week, dude.
Do you really not understand the concept of equity?
"suggests that the founders will actually lose money if the business fails, where in most cases the business goes bankrupt and the founders only lose whatever seed capital"
Oh, they only lose their "seed capital" (plus all the --usually unpaid -- work they've put into starting and growing the business).
That makes it okay, then!
"The employees also lose eveything they put into it"
The employees got paid every week, dude.
The founders were just gambling with 'their "seed capital" (plus all the --usually unpaid -- work they've put into starting and growing the business)' - they knew as well as you and I what percentage of businesses fail, and what percentage exit at tiny returns.
It's a tempting gamble - hoping for a 100x or 1000x payoff on that bet, especially since most people who take that bet believe they can "make the difference" - but if they're unhappy with the prospect of "losing it all", they perhaps should "just find another job".
It's a tempting gamble - hoping for a 100x or 1000x payoff on that bet, especially since most people who take that bet believe they can "make the difference" - but if they're unhappy with the prospect of "losing it all", they perhaps should "just find another job".
"hey knew as well as you and I what percentage of businesses fail, and what percentage exit at tiny returns."
Yes, they did. And they chose to forgo a regular paycheck.
Why don't the employees take advantage of this "tempting gamble", then? According to you, there's really no downside at all, right?
Yes, they did. And they chose to forgo a regular paycheck.
Why don't the employees take advantage of this "tempting gamble", then? According to you, there's really no downside at all, right?
Some of them do. At least some of the gambling type.
I have twice, neither time particularly successfully - in fact one time quite spectacularly unsuccessfully if measured purely by how much money I put in my bank account for that 18 months of full time work. And I'm seriously considering an offer to ride that ride again right now...
The downside is the consequences of failure usually include losing money - either real invested money, or in opportunity cost of the gap between market-rate-salary and what you're able to pay yourself for the time you spend working on your own business. This is often not a problem for early twenties tech dudes, it's not a realistic gamble for someone with a family or other responsibilities for which foregoing a reliable regular income isn't really a sensible/ethical option.
I have twice, neither time particularly successfully - in fact one time quite spectacularly unsuccessfully if measured purely by how much money I put in my bank account for that 18 months of full time work. And I'm seriously considering an offer to ride that ride again right now...
The downside is the consequences of failure usually include losing money - either real invested money, or in opportunity cost of the gap between market-rate-salary and what you're able to pay yourself for the time you spend working on your own business. This is often not a problem for early twenties tech dudes, it's not a realistic gamble for someone with a family or other responsibilities for which foregoing a reliable regular income isn't really a sensible/ethical option.
The main downside is social. Many founders are ruining their personal lives.
(Also in consequence ruining lives of others.)
The gamble is not free at all.
(Also in consequence ruining lives of others.)
The gamble is not free at all.
Can you clarify whether you're talking about Silicon Valley companies? Because here, founders don't usually put in any money themselves. Yes, they go unpaid while raising.
You are missing the point the grandparent was trying to make: it's not about the founder/CEO having more ownership, that's fine, but let's not pretend that "everyone sitting at the same table" means everyone has the same voice.
In Silicon Valley companies at least, founders are not pouring their life savings into companies, paying for employees out of pocket until they reach revenue. No, the only real difference between founders and early employees is:
- The founders had the original idea / area to work in (usually not very well-defined yet).
- The founders raised capital. Yes, this takes some number of unpaid weeks or months, toiling deep in the mines of Palo Alto coffee shops.
And yes, they do a bit more than that, but that's the essence. Then you hire your first few people and off you go.
Founders believe that effort is worth 10-100X more than early employees' contribution, and at least 1000X more than the later ones. Employees, often unaware of how lopsided their equity is, go into it believing they're "in it together!" with the founders.
- The founders had the original idea / area to work in (usually not very well-defined yet).
- The founders raised capital. Yes, this takes some number of unpaid weeks or months, toiling deep in the mines of Palo Alto coffee shops.
And yes, they do a bit more than that, but that's the essence. Then you hire your first few people and off you go.
Founders believe that effort is worth 10-100X more than early employees' contribution, and at least 1000X more than the later ones. Employees, often unaware of how lopsided their equity is, go into it believing they're "in it together!" with the founders.
"Founders believe that effort is worth 10-100X more than early employees' contribution"
Maybe the "early employees" should become founders, then. There's nothing to it, right? Just hang around some coffee shops!
Maybe the "early employees" should become founders, then. There's nothing to it, right? Just hang around some coffee shops!
Every time, that's the argument. "Well everyone should become a founder if they care so much!" Ad absurdum.
The right answer is for employees to start calling bullshit on the standard Silicon Valley equity agreement, where Emp#1 signs up for 1% (imagine having 1% of Google!!), Emp#2 takes .6%, Emp #10 goes with .05%, and so on... often unaware the founders hold 60%+ between the 2-3 of them.
It's appropriate for there to be a falloff in equity, but it's just too lopsided today. Emp#1 should ask how much the minority founder holds, and ask for (say) 80% of that. You spent 6 weeks without pay? Great, you get more reward. But not 50X more than #1. After all, the payoff is only if the company is successful, many years later... when those unpaid weeks are minor relative to the collective sacrifices of the company in whole.
The right answer is for employees to start calling bullshit on the standard Silicon Valley equity agreement, where Emp#1 signs up for 1% (imagine having 1% of Google!!), Emp#2 takes .6%, Emp #10 goes with .05%, and so on... often unaware the founders hold 60%+ between the 2-3 of them.
It's appropriate for there to be a falloff in equity, but it's just too lopsided today. Emp#1 should ask how much the minority founder holds, and ask for (say) 80% of that. You spent 6 weeks without pay? Great, you get more reward. But not 50X more than #1. After all, the payoff is only if the company is successful, many years later... when those unpaid weeks are minor relative to the collective sacrifices of the company in whole.
Every time, that's the argument. "Well everyone should become a founder if they care so much!"
Because it's an excellent argument.
"often unaware the founders hold 60%+ between the 2-3 of them."
Everyone who goes to work for a company knows that it's owned by someone else, dude. The vast majority of employees in this world get no equity at all. Ever.
the collective sacrifices of the company in whole.
As an employee, you are being offered a certain salary in exchange for performing a certain duty. You decide whether it's a good deal or not. There's no "sacrifice" involved.
Because it's an excellent argument.
"often unaware the founders hold 60%+ between the 2-3 of them."
Everyone who goes to work for a company knows that it's owned by someone else, dude. The vast majority of employees in this world get no equity at all. Ever.
the collective sacrifices of the company in whole.
As an employee, you are being offered a certain salary in exchange for performing a certain duty. You decide whether it's a good deal or not. There's no "sacrifice" involved.
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?
Basically sounds like some class of shares in a corporation?
Can the company tell how many you have, and draw conclusions about how committed you are?
I think this is being paid in stock options. Many people choose to mix stock, options, and cash in compensation.
I think this is being paid in stock options. Many people choose to mix stock, options, and cash in compensation.
I guess I'm thinking of a periodical rolling ICO with employees being able to buy in early, often, and at a discount.
Isn't this equity and stock shares, without the extra conversion step?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
“You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store”
What if it were the norm to be paid in cryptocoins linked to the value of the company you worked for?
Well, it's usually the norm for employees to be paid enough to get food, clothing and shelter. In your norm, this normal might not hold. Perhaps employees would be so upset in this case they'd form a union - or maybe just quit in en mass.
Well, it's usually the norm for employees to be paid enough to get food, clothing and shelter. In your norm, this normal might not hold. Perhaps employees would be so upset in this case they'd form a union - or maybe just quit in en mass.
That's just shares isn't it?
Imagine 100 employees having 100 coins each, and then the company tanks. No thanks..
Imagine 100 employees having 100 coins each, and then the company tanks. No thanks..
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.
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.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is always an apt question when someone argues against or for unions. There are no easy answers though.
I don't even know of any tech unions in the US.
But I can guarantee you, if the typical middle manager told his group of teamsters or UAW members that not only were they going to be fired, but if they wanted their severance, they'd train their own replacements - a bunch of 20 somethings from <low wage S. Asian country> on a work visa - the manager would probably end up missing.
It's interesting just how well the elites have trained us US tech workers to be good global, corporate soldiers.
But I can guarantee you, if the typical middle manager told his group of teamsters or UAW members that not only were they going to be fired, but if they wanted their severance, they'd train their own replacements - a bunch of 20 somethings from <low wage S. Asian country> on a work visa - the manager would probably end up missing.
It's interesting just how well the elites have trained us US tech workers to be good global, corporate soldiers.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Many rights of workers are protected by legislation
That legislation exists because of unions
That legislation exists because of unions
> Many rights of workers are protected by legislation
How do you think those rights found their way in to the legislation, and remain there?
How do you think those rights found their way in to the legislation, and remain there?
> How do you think those rights found their way in to the legislation, and remain there?
Look I not blind to the history, and protectionisms which came about from unionism. But that is a common retort, but also a bit of a straw man argument.
Look I not blind to the history, and protectionisms which came about from unionism. But that is a common retort, but also a bit of a straw man argument.
> but also a bit of a straw man argument.
I wasn't aware I was making an argument.
I wasn't aware I was making an argument.
> I wasn't aware I was making an argument.
Ok that makes sense now.
Ok that makes sense now.
Would you like to answer my question?
how else are we to interpret a "corrosive us-against-them dynamic" Unions don't get involved unless there is violation of workers rights. And believe me anti-union does mean anti-workers-rights.
"Many rights of workers are protected by legislation" - sure but employees are rarely able take the case to court without union backing.
"Many rights of workers are protected by legislation" - sure but employees are rarely able take the case to court without union backing.
> "Many rights of workers are protected by legislation" - sure but employees are rarely able take the case to court without union backing.
In several countries where I have lived you don't need a court for industrial conflicts, there are arbitrators, mediators, and small courts which deal with such items.
In several countries where I have lived you don't need a court for industrial conflicts, there are arbitrators, mediators, and small courts which deal with such items.
But without representation and legal advice such 'small courts' often rule on the side of money. Even before such a hearing can take place the employee can be subject to pressure and bullying and without representation in disciplinary meetings and the like they often end up quitting, or accepting treatment/warnings/disciplinary action they do not deserve. Without a union it will always be a David and Goliath story, but with a much more realistic ending.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Yes you/we do, for that we should be appreciative. But that doesn't speak as to the relevance of unions today.
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.
> "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.
> 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...
2 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/chipotle-downgraded-employee...
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...
2 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/chipotle-downgraded-employee...
"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.
There, I fixed that for you.
> 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...
Yeah inequality is worse in 2017 than it was in 1917.
http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e20120a57377...
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...
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...
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?
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?
What a shock, someone who creates companies doesn't like unions. And usually CEOs LOVE when their employees unionize!
> 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.
Go to his bio:
> After graduating Creighton University with a B.A. in economics in 1968
He on at least some level an economist.
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.
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.
Because layoffs also promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.
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.
I believe this guy is the owner of Gothamist, whose staff recently voted to unionize. He closed the company today.
Kids who don't read history become confident in poorly supported contentions.
Why I’m against taxes in countries that I live in
>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