So, you want high engineering salaries, and the inability to get fired?
I'm not strongly for / against unions either way, but something here doesn't seem like it's compatible. Is it completely crazy that a company doesn't want their high paid employees to be hard to fire when they perform their jobs in a way they don't like?
From the story, it doesn't sound like fundamental rights were being violated. People's wages weren't being stolen, their healthcare wasn't being shut off.
The employee starting the whole thing could've been combative, uncooperative, etc. Who knows what it was -- those things are totally within the rights of a company to fire someone over in CA. And using outside messaging clients on company equipment, so is that. So what you're advocating for is to be allowed to do things that are honestly, privileges, and within the rights of a company to object to, but not face any consequences?
I would also pose the following larger question: Silicon Valley / this environment for investment and technology incubation exists because companies are allowed to decide who they want to employ or not, what ideas they want to try or not. Would you have found employment in this sector, if companies were forced to hire and fire using union rules?
And how would working under a union work? Would you initiate a grievance process for every gripe? Would companies have to build up a case about your poor coding quality to be able to fire you?
I don't see it working.
I apologize for somewhat conservative views in this area, but my thought is, you live in one of the highest paid areas, with the chance to hit it big as an employee of a company like this, you accept the risk that it won't work out.
If there were some golden company that paid well, couldn't fire people, and worked on everything you liked, well, wouldn't we all be there?
There's a difference between what's legal, what should be legal, and what you can successfully bargain for. If employee wages were being stolen, that's a matter for police and lawyers. A union exists mostly to help employees represent their side of the latter two cases, in a way that's as organised as a company.
The article describes a situation where employees were blocked from taking holiday time by management, and where they collectively bargained to fix that problem. That kind of thing is not the same thing as "the inability to get fired", and I think there's a much stronger case that it's a net positive for society.
The big takeaway I got from this is, be wary of any organisation that attempts to isolate workers from each other and prevent communication. The old divide and conquer. People talk about people who cut off their significant other, maybe people need to be more aware of this tactic on a wider scale in other organisational contexts.
It's an interesting story and food for thought. I'd recommend reading (or at least skimming the article) and thinking about whether any elements in it remind you of events in your own workplace.
The conflict between management and workers is an old one, but many key elements are unchanging. Unions may not be the right answer, but we have as much right as anyone to be treated with respect, and it's worth thinking about what the right answer is going to look like.
(Conversely, with my manager hat on, it's worth thinking about how best to avoid the issues Lanetix seemed so eager to start.)
And this is why HR firms exist; the management in this tale navigated the concerns of their employees in a manner befitting a thoughtless bully. None of the negative outcomes needed to happen.
Sounds like they were unhappy working there and did not like the CEO or their management. Kind of interesting they are suing in an effort to go BACK to work there.
Nothing to make you realize how much you need to unionize like seeing how the boss will screw you over when you try. I hope this is the beginning of a wave of workers organizing at their workplaces. They can't fire us all.
Readit News
I'm not strongly for / against unions either way, but something here doesn't seem like it's compatible. Is it completely crazy that a company doesn't want their high paid employees to be hard to fire when they perform their jobs in a way they don't like?
From the story, it doesn't sound like fundamental rights were being violated. People's wages weren't being stolen, their healthcare wasn't being shut off.
The employee starting the whole thing could've been combative, uncooperative, etc. Who knows what it was -- those things are totally within the rights of a company to fire someone over in CA. And using outside messaging clients on company equipment, so is that. So what you're advocating for is to be allowed to do things that are honestly, privileges, and within the rights of a company to object to, but not face any consequences?
I would also pose the following larger question: Silicon Valley / this environment for investment and technology incubation exists because companies are allowed to decide who they want to employ or not, what ideas they want to try or not. Would you have found employment in this sector, if companies were forced to hire and fire using union rules?
And how would working under a union work? Would you initiate a grievance process for every gripe? Would companies have to build up a case about your poor coding quality to be able to fire you?
I don't see it working.
I apologize for somewhat conservative views in this area, but my thought is, you live in one of the highest paid areas, with the chance to hit it big as an employee of a company like this, you accept the risk that it won't work out.
If there were some golden company that paid well, couldn't fire people, and worked on everything you liked, well, wouldn't we all be there?
The article describes a situation where employees were blocked from taking holiday time by management, and where they collectively bargained to fix that problem. That kind of thing is not the same thing as "the inability to get fired", and I think there's a much stronger case that it's a net positive for society.
The conflict between management and workers is an old one, but many key elements are unchanging. Unions may not be the right answer, but we have as much right as anyone to be treated with respect, and it's worth thinking about what the right answer is going to look like.
(Conversely, with my manager hat on, it's worth thinking about how best to avoid the issues Lanetix seemed so eager to start.)
Deleted Comment
For every one employee who thinks this, there's ten ready to fill that role.