On leaving Mapbox after 12 years
trashmoon.com> Here’s some advice as a jaded start-up veteran: business models and investment terms are kind of the only thing that matter. Even if you’re a lowly designer or engineer, you must understand what your company needs to do to be sustainable.
This is a key observation. Every incredible team and inspirational idea eventually has to make the unit economics work. The longer it takes for a leadership team to realize this and prioritize it, the more difficult it is for people (ICs and managers) to internalize the changes that need to be made. Worst of all is when the shift happens because runway is getting short, and "get rich quick" projects become the focus instead of building a good product.
> ...you must understand what your company needs to do to be sustainable. It very likely is different from what they’re doing now, and may come with unexpected ethical compromises.
This sounds like a difficult situation, but is certainly something people should think about. Things can get weird when a company is running out of money.
I'm saddened by what happened to Mapbox. It's such a recurring pattern of organizational transformation: from a small "mission-driven" group building cool shit that starts taking money (and pressure from investors) and slowly erodes their past core values, changing into a faceless money-making machine subservient to some huge market or industry. In that process most of the original opinionated crowd will slowly rotate out and the more "career"/bureaucratic types will prevail and take over.
Maybe unions and workers having more control could curb it? But in such a late stage it sounds almost impossible to achieve.
Cars are certainly a problem, but technology has by and far been a great thing, and I would question whether the gaming is really such a positive industry in the end either.
Unions and Mapbox is a very sore topic and now the subject of a NLRB lawsuit for firing the union organizers. https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/mapbox-sued-firing-union-...
But the union drive came far too late to help the larger problem. The big change happened in 2017 when Softbank invested $164M into MapBox. In retrospect it was far too much money with too many expectations. And with the ugly side effect of salting the earth for any other map startups. It only got worse in 2021 when MapBox's attempt to go public via a SPAC failed. They're plodding along now but it's hard to see what a good final outcome is going to be.
> And with the ugly side effect of salting the earth for any other map startups
I'm unsure on that. Mapbox built a bunch of good tech (mostly around vector tiles), open-sourced it, and then lost interest in smaller customers in their rush for the petrodollar.
This has been genuinely great for bootstrapped map businesses. You can easily list a dozen who are using .mvt tech right now and making a good living out of it.
True, it wasn't good for Mapzen. But I can't weep too many tears for something funded with Samsung Accelerator magic money, much though they did hire one of the smartest teams in the business - Softbank vs Samsung is not a battle I can bring myself to care about.
I 100% agree with you that Mapbox went too far, too fast. But on balance I think their trajectory has (unintentionally) been good for wider mapping tech.
This is not the first time I see Softbank as a net negative. Too much money loosely controlled. Is there an example of Softbank doing good?
Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?
In almost all cases where a company is fighting for survival, leadership has failed, often quite visibly.
It's one of the few moments where rank-and-file folk realize they do need a say in where things are heading - because you start seeing that the leaders aren't somehow magic beings with perfect decision making qualities. And, at the same point, you get strong reminders that your livelihood is coupled to the company's livelihood - which is making bad decisions right now.
That's why "fight for survival" is a common inflection point for unionization.
”Your livelihood“
Buts it’s not. They can leave and find another job easily.
I agree that management can often be shit and make bad decisions. But at the end of the day everyone is working to make the owners a lot of money, and if the owners cannot see how shit management is, why should employees bother? They don’t stand to gain, only keep working at a company they believe could do great things. See…the incentives for employees drift off into intangible and unmeasurable things.
If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company. They have no skin in the game. It makes no sense.
> They can leave and find another job easily.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818323
> why should employees bother?
Perhaps they care about the mission. Perhaps they care about the customers. Perhaps they want to ensure the work they've been working on was not made in vain. You seem to see work as purely satisfying the lower ranks of Maslow's hierarchy, but for many workers it is also a means of self-actualization.
> If a union was able to shift the strategy of a company, what happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company.
And what if management or the owners do that? How about giving someone else involved in the endeavor a try?
> They have no skin in the game.
They literally have skin in the game?
1) Owners and management are, especially in the startup world, tightly intertwined.
2) Uh, yes, unions do have skin in the game. Again, it's the whole "keeping your livelihood" thing.
3) I'm not saying it's the best moment for people to start thinking about a union. They should've done that way earlier. Better late than never.
4) "What happens if they are wrong and it bankrupts the company" - I am sorry, do you have any idea what unions are and how they work? There are any number of vultures that'll fleece the body of a company before a union can "bankrupt" it. They happen to be all on the ownership side.
Because the people doing the work want a say in the overall direction of the company?
This sounds like a case for different corporate governance, yeah?
Maybe because the leadership is actively undermining the survival? From this case alone, it seems possible that the Mapbox leadership is chasing a hopeless strategy by focusing on the auto industry, which is dominated by other much larger companies.
And a committee of employees has a better strategy for profitability? I don’t see it.
The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.
> The employees have dramatically less incentive than the owners and management to earn the owners an adequate return on their investment.
What has led you to this conclusion?
I’ve observed the opposite to be true: employees have more incentive than investors to seek the long-term success of a company. Building a career within a company and industry requires an investment of time and effort. Career changes are slow and become increasingly difficult. In contrast, investors can invest in anything so investments are more liquid than careers. In the case of a company failure, well managed investment portfolios are exposed to significantly less risk than the typical salaried career.
> Long term success
Employees concept of this is not aligned with investors. Investors need a return on investment. It’s not enough for them to have a moderately profitable company with happy employees. They need a big exit event that fits their investment characteristics.
And this is fair because then accepting VC money gives them an advantage over their competitors who might have bootstrapped. We shouldn’t feel sorry for employees of a heavily VC funded company, but by their bootstrapped competitors trying to compete.
We shouldn’t try to protect employees with high salaries at entrenched big tech companies. We should allow entrepreneurs to create new companies to challenge them which is better for society. It’s better to have less monopolies and it would be better if one high salary was split in two due with someone from a smaller competing company. This is better for the labor market.
> It’s better to have less monopolies and it would be better if one high salary was split in two due with someone from a smaller competing company.
But the VCs whose needs you are arguing for are the ones who are seeking those monopolies, at least in tech. With the advent of blitzscaling as a preferred strategy, we are seeing VCs who are seeking to create monopolies and own markets from the start. So why do you feel sorry for those investors? They burn plenty of money, and if they lose money on one company, they have plenty more in their portfolios.
And if unions are truly as detrimental to the system as you claim, then perhaps it is good if they arise in VC-hyperfunded startups, because then they will thwart these nascent monopolies, and allow bootstrapped companies more of a fighting chance.
Your narrative contradicts itself.
> We should allow entrepreneurs to create new companies to challenge them which is better for society.
The existence of unions would not poise a challenge to entrepreneurship.
Perhaps the employees who are actually executing a faulty business strategy can see its first errors up front.
I’m sure that’s true some of the time. I wouldn’t say it’s true most of the time.
Perhaps your supposition should be put to the test.
Without access to a parallel universe generator, I don't see how you could. All I'm asserting is that I think that you can't reliably say that management or workers/employees are consistently in a better position to understand the best path forward for a company. Either one can be overly focused on replicating past success; either one can be wrong about opportunities for growth.
It could be put to the test if more industries, such as tech, experimented with unions, or otherwise empowering employees to share in decision-making.
It is rather strange that in a field where there are all sorts of autonomous movements such as open source projects or hacker collectives, there is still the hierarchical belief that the managers knows best. Ah, well FOSS always do have their share of Benevolent Dictator for Life positions.
Employees can become managers. This class divide is so much less relevant today than it was due to startup culture. Funding is not that hard to come by.
If the divide is not great, there's no reason why collective representation of employees would "distort market forces." If c-suite can represent themselves, no reason why engineering guilds shouldn't have the power to determine the outcome of their companies. Especially if the class divide is not as great, as you say, then the employees would have similar incentives to that of management.
If you want to look at it that way, then it's already being put to the test. Successful companies succeed, unsuccessful companies do not.
But as there are not many tech companies with unions, co-ops, or other structures with more employee power, that test does not exist and the current success and failure of companies is immaterial to this debate. The experiment has not been started in full, other than a few isolated causes such as Kickstarter (which was only inaugurated recently).
The employees don't have a better strategy, but they think they do. This happens when trust and respect is lacking (in both directions) between management and workers.
A union can't fix that scenario. You need a coop with employee ownership to have any influence over the business.
If the U.S. had co-determination, as in Germany, where unions reps have board seats, but point is taken.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo...
Still, having a union would provide a stronger bargaining position than individuals voicing concerns during all-hands.
Thank you, that was the concept I was referring to in another comment but didn't know the name of!
You're right, but we have to take one step at a time to get there. Among other things, unions normalize the notion that employees also have a say in how the business runs, even if it's rather limited.
This process reoccurs for a reason. Understanding that helps mitigate the loss, and possibly also helps new companies avoid the problem.
Basically it happens when people start needing money for life, and that need becomes more pressing than idealism.
Consider the start of your career, maybe you came from school or college, probably you had _very_ low money needs. You may have had subsidised living (living with parents, student loans etc.). You live in a world where money isn't as important, you have no obligations, you are as idealistic as you'll ever be.
At this point your world is "open source" - everything should be free, make the world a better place. It's not hard to find like-minded people, join companies with like-minded founders.
But life happens. You have expenses. Relationships, kids, obligations. If you have employees you have to make payroll. Some might call it "growth" - some might call it "growing up" - really its just discovering (and losing) some of those subsidies you took for granted.
Crucially it happens at different rates for different people. So inevitably there's friction - this isn't the company I joined - and so on.
It's hard for employees to understand the pressures that come with being an employer. Pressures that lead to decisions an employer would rather not have to make. Pressure to make payroll. Pressure to somehow make it work. Seeing the car park and realise the number of people dependant on making that work.
To an employee every decision looks like maximising profit. And in some companies that is true. In others its about maximising income, income to pay everyone, income to keep the lights on, income to build reserves to weather the storms.
Employees have the luxury of quietly looking elsewhere. Once they're set then can simply leave. Employers don't have that luxury.
Unions, especially unions belonging to one specific business, not industry wide, are not a bad thing. But a seat at the table means understanding the responsibility of that table - and the need to satisfy the needs of all, not just your own. I've seen unions be a huge asset, I've seen them destroy factories and industries.
Yes companies pivot from open source all the time, because yes they need to "capture" value - because at some point costs, and life, catch up and unfortunately "giving it away for free" doesn't really pay the bills.
> Over the next few years, Mapbox tried to find success in a variety of industries: journalism, social media, travel, ect. We never hit numbers that were big enough for our investors. In the process, we abandoned our focus on Open Source and Open data. Then, as is the case with many mapping companies, Mapbox shifted focus to the auto industry. My fear of loss of control fully materialized at this point. I’m a lifelong bicycle commuter, and I think cars are unequivocally bad.
I wish people better understood what taking VC money means: trading control for money. While employees might _feel_ the company is still theirs, that’s only true to the extent that they hold majority control of the board of directors.
It’s certainly possible to take VC money and keep your original vision intact. But only if your original vision works well enough to keep your shareholders happy. Failing that, the board will push management to compromise with the ideals as much as needed to get a return on investment.
Once a company takes VC funding or a buyout, or makes an IPO, any ethical promise they've ever made is null and void. Later when choices are made outside of their control, they wash their hands and say it's not their fault. But the founders break those promises at the time they take that money, when they willingly gave up their control. And the point of VC funding is always a buyout later, where all founder control will be lost anyway.
Once you take VC, the goal of the company is never to make the world better or empower their employees. The goal is now solely to make money, by any means it can. The funders will allow you to do that ethically, at first. When you're not making their return as fast as they'd like, which you never will, the ethics go out the window.
You're making a big assumption that making the world better isn't about helping paying customers.
> where all founder control will be lost anyway
Unless you are Facebook, Tesla or SpaceX?
Let's be real, the likelihood of that is, for all intents and purposes, zero.
Employees should never feel like the company is theirs. Unless you have a real seat at the table, you should assume you have no influence over the business. That's what being an employee is (with no actual shares). You give up the risk by being an employee, and your only negotiating power is leaving.
"give up the risk by being an employee"
I have observed many folks join startups as employees, take on risk without understanding it and without a clear benefit.
> Employees should never feel like the company is theirs.
Imagine you've put your soul into it, and some years later they tell you that you can no longer pursue your vision and respect your users, and you're now a mere executor. Your opinion no longer matters, and the fact that you have one at all is a nuisance for the new management.
I personally don't work for the money, for me the money is very much a side effect of making the world a better place.
> Imagine you've put your soul into it, and some years later they tell you that you can no longer pursue your vision and respect your users, and you're now a mere executor. Your opinion no longer matters, and the fact that you have one at all is a nuisance for the new management.
Ya, my argument is that people are absolutely naive to do this, for the reasons I mentioned.
> For me the money is very much a side effect of making the world a better place.
That's what they want you to believe. People sure as hell weren't clanging pots and pans for the software developers who instead of writing code all day in their ivory tower in downtown SF, only to leave and walk past human feces, needles, and suffering, instead got to go home and write that code from their $5k 1bdr apartment. If you can try to choose your industry more carefully, that's great, but don't lie and tell me you're paid so well because of your noble contribution to the human race.
People should try and be good to others, and if they can afford it, work for companies on products that don't actively harm people, but when they can't pay you or their stakeholders decide that's irrelevant, you can leave.
I'm non-US, and English isn't my native language either. But I have been to SF and have walked around the downtown. That stark contrast of there being so many homeless people just across the street from the building where Google I/O was held, where some of the best IT workers from all around the world gathered, that was something very unusual to me. Something of a culture shock. It's definitely not the norm where I'm from for people to not be able to afford a place to live.
> You give up the risk by being an employee
This is not true. Employees carry salary risk. For most people, unplanned loss of salary is catastrophic in the short-term.
In the U.S and maybe Canada, that's true, so you have to be cautious about which company you join. I'm actually facing this right now, but I'm a contractor, and by accepting that the risk of technically running my own business, I can also just stop providing my services if they won't be paid for. Employees can also do this though.
That sounds like you feel pretty helpless. Personally, I find that I have numerous avenues of negotiating power, even without unionization:
1. Do I recommend the company to my network? I can make it a lot cheaper or more expensive to hire.
2. How do I spend my time? All my technical choices will make certain changes easier down the line, and others harder. I work hard to understand the business context & help those choices serve our shared goals, but the emphasis there can be on "shared".
3. How much do I streamline my own work? I can work efficiently, or I can wait for that build to finish and that PR to be approved and merged before I move on to the next thing. This can be a particularly effective way to incentive investment in a platform team & build tools, if I'm not allowed to just fix them myself.
4. What do I collaborate on with my coworkers? We can pick priorities we care about, and negotiate together for specific improvements. I've gotten more vacation time, better computers, bigger screens, paid on-calls and time to fix bugs all just by talking with people about what's hard about our work.
5. Insisting on pushing improvements to open source software upstream if we are going to use the libraries at all. The company could decide it wants to write everything entirely in house, but as long as we are using open source software I personally only make changes to it that we are going to push back to the community.
And I am sure there are more: those are just the ones I've used recently.
Yhose are all nice when negotiating working from home or something similarly minor - but when it comes to foundamental business model, these things are unlikely to move the needle.
That's pretty much what I was thinking while reading it. The difference between doing your work, and doing your work better than you're expected, is often unrewarded with any measurable security, probably because they're non-functional requirements and it's hard for some manager to sell their boss on the RoI. It's similarly hard to measure, if they'd even let you in on that data, how much of a minor influence you had on the business financially. Sales people meanwhile can just say "I sold this company on a $2m contract for services over the next 2 years"
It also means getting your monthly payslip. Not a minor thing.
I sort of disagree - and I think most VC's would too.
The point of VC funding is not to pay salaries, really. If you squint it seems close enough, but it sets a terrible precedent that most VC's wouldn't want: looking at venture funding as how the company pays its bills. That's a natural way to read your statement - but also counterproductive & undesirable.
The point of VC funding is to take a profitable business and allow it to scale. Ideally the company could turn $1 into $1.25, before funding; that is, ideally it's making money. It should be able to pay some bills.
The VC funding is helping it to make more money, faster, and shortening the loop from sales -> payment -> expansion. It's helping it to leapfrog its competitors. That's what that money should be doing.
But what if it hasn't found product-market fit? Well, it's still not good to look at the VC's as "where our money comes from." That source is supposed to be customers, and you never want the focus to stray too far from there.
> The point of VC funding is to take a profitable business and allow it to scale.
There’s a heck of a lot of VC money funding only the dream of a profitable business.
It sounds like OP wants to be a part of the kind of social change that fundamentally cannot exist independently of politics but trying to enact it without.
A single company, especially one that is not generating monopoly/oligopoly profits and is still dependent on funding, is not really able to: unionizing creates a steep competitive downside on the capital market that is not offset by enough employee retention benefit to be worth it, and that alone creates existential risk for the whole company. Long term, it simply helps another competitor to come up without a union.
Systemic problems need systemic solutions. It saddens me a bit that people want social change so much but dislike politics so much more that they take up the wrong fight, and then retreat to something like making videogames, which frankly as an industry has an even worse track record than tech in terms of respect for its workers.
I hope OP changes their perspective and fights a wider fight, either on behalf of a party or of a larger union.
It's surely not that bleak (at least, not everywhere). And it doesn't have to be remotely about 'politics'.
My old employer made the leap to employee-owned and they seem to be going from strength to strength. https://torchbox.com/careers/employee-owned-trust
Having companies be employee-owned (which is commonly referred to as a worker co-op) is absolutely a political topic -- implementing policies to allow more companies to become worker-owned was part of the UK Labour Party's manifesto in 2017. Just because something is political doesn't make it bad.
What government policies are standing in the way of worker co-ops?
free market policies. Proper Co-ops are designed not to exploit workers, local resources or destroy communities in order to create profit therefore have a hard time competing with ruthless profit-oriented companies in most markets. Co-ops create social value and are beneficial to workers and society alike, but they need to be nurtured actively.
Co-ops are doing just fine in a free market. In fact, the average lifetime of a co-op today is longer than that of a traditional corporation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Economic_stability
On the other hand, less free market - which is what you get when you allow monopolies and oligopolies to dominate it - is harmful to them, just like any other business that's not "big enough".
Right, that works until you need more funding (unless you can raise from employees, but that also has consequences and limits). I'm guessing that Mapbox is angling for an acquisition or more funding at some point.
The other thing it does (giving employees more power) is make it harder for companies to change course. Most people hate change and will fight it as hard as they can, seeing all layoffs as "bad" and "evil".
Germany's auto industry is a great example of a highly unionized industry. Pay is good. But also, it's very hard for Germany to enact anti-oil and gas policies (carbon reduction / pro-environment) because it hurts auto workers. It should also give anyone really pro-union pause to consider why Germany didn't produce Tesla. They had every advantage imaginable including a well-trained workforce, existing manufacturing infrastructure, the deepest capital markets in Europe, and existing distribution relationships. And yet, the Americans beat them to it. Why, you ask? Because workers don't want to retrain or change what they've been doing for 50+ years. There's too much inertia, too much complacency, too much "this is how we've always done things".
Germany had/has promising range of electromobiles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetScooter
> Most people hate change and will fight it as hard as they can, seeing all layoffs as "bad" and "evil".
this does not take into account the other side of the ledger -- the behavior, movement and dispersion of Kapital. Is there a shortage of profit in the last forty years, that requires creative destruction at every turn?
Perhaps the secret ingredient would be something called "stability" that includes accounting for the real system-level costs of luxury resorts, massive sports franchises, excessive personal medication and single-use plastics?
Am I seriously proposing that the German Auto Industry is good the way it is for the next 200 years? no.. is California a model for the world economic growth in the next twenty years? you tell me
"stability" favours people already at a comfortable place in economy at the expense of everyone trying to enter the workforce or level up their pay.
Growth creates new opportunities.
Yes staying true to the rhetoric about 'making the world a better place' does preclude certain future states. But that rhetoric can be true, actionable, and not incompatible with profit.
Just saying here's an anecdatum about a money-making business that said the same kinds of things and is doing very well for itself.
So your hypothesis is that VCs put their class interests ahead of making money to such an extent that it is impossible to exercise our legal rights without putting the companies we work for in their political crosshairs?
You may be right. It still seems like the easiest solution is for all the startups to unionize so they don't have any choice: they can either invest in unionized startups or they can stop being VCs.
> So your hypothesis is that VCs put their class interests ahead of making money
It's much simpler than this and it is about making money.
Whether unions impact the ultimate success (in terms of ability to build) of a company or not, they certainly shift the share of money that is going towards labor as opposed to owners who want a profit.
This lowers the expected return of company equity which means people will be willing to pay less and you will be able to raise less money while you are trying to scale up. A non-unionized competitor will be able to raise more money and if there are positive returns to scale, outscale & outcompete.
That’s mostly the US corporate union system (which of course you’d be using as a US company).
European approaches like sectoral bargaining and codetermination don’t have these problems; a single company isn’t disadvantaged vs its competitors and the employees on the board are motivated to grow the company. Europe doesn’t have VCs and the culture doesn’t support failure like Silicon Valley, but that’s for different reasons.
> Europe doesn’t have VCs and the culture doesn’t support failure like Silicon Valley, but that’s for different reasons.
No, it is the same effect I am describing but inter-national as opposed to inter-firm. Capital allocation is transnational.
There isn’t an issue with starting companies in Europe as much though - Skype, Nokia, Booking are examples. The issue is they don’t stay European owned. US companies buy them out because they run out of ability to grow.
FAANGs have European offices with work councils and all and aren’t considered unproductive, but they’re not the corporate headquarters because they didn’t start there.
Certainly some European countries prefer having a few old large companies because it’s easier to regulate. Asia has the same problem; it’s an everywhere except Silicon Valley thing.
edit: actually, ASML is an example of a European headquartered tech company where all the value is “actually” American. Not sure how that happened. Video game studios also seem a lot more international than other tech companies.
None of this is contradictory to what I am saying. The fact that companies have been started in Europe does not contradict the fact that it is harder to raise in Europe.
FAANG companies having EU offices with work councils is completely irrelevant to what I am saying.
Absolutely it is, and anyone in denial about that can look at European GDP growth, GDP per capita, youth unemployment, firm valuations, or about 20 other economic metrics to back it up.
You can't start a company there because all this social spending makes it super hard to get going. I think the US is heading this way too now, toward lots of big companies with fat required benefit packages the little guys can never match (even if they eventually go on to become huge).
I wish people who would being so starry-eyed about Europe. One of the 10 biggest companies in Italy is the post office. Lots of industrial power, that.
Well, perhaps labor relations in the U.S. are just so acrimonious- its history is literally soaked in blood and violence- that it's just one patch of grass of Europe that seems greener on the other side. Certainly the idea of more cooperation between labor and management, perhaps the German model of labor unions, wouldn't be so bad.
It’s a similar problem to universal healthcare and the US government structure in general.
The US actually got there first, and hasn’t collapsed in any wars recently, and as such we’re on the old version of all government software so it all sucks yet nobody is willing to risk upgrading. Starting from scratch is a lot easier since there’s nothing to lose. (And of course, having the country collapse is bad too.)
No the argument is not about VCs putting class interests above profits, it's about them putting their profit first, together with a perception that unions decrease the amount of profit that is distributed to capital owners as opposed to labor, and decrease the strategic maneuverability of the business by diluting control over operations between management and unions.
> It still seems like the easiest solution is for all the startups to unionize so they don't have any choice: they can either invest in unionized startups or they can stop being VCs.
Yes. Or fight for workers' rights in the even broader sense (not just startups or tech).
> Long term, it simply helps another competitor to come up without a union
Alternately, long term it helps attract and retain excellent staff who care about the business and feel like they have a stake, and helps the business make better decisions because the decisionmaking process takes more information into account.
If this were the case, I would expect many more successful companies to have discovered this secret competitive advantage. It's not like employee-owned or union businesses are new. They've been around forever at the timescale of the Internet, and it's not like they haven't tried investing. I used to work for one that tried to diversify into tech and I can tell you what I saw: during growth phases, union pay wasn't competitive enough to retain top talent (due to a more egalitarian pay structure than the industry), and pretty quickly the strategic long term prospects of the company became pretty bleak compared with where the industry was going. So everybody who stayed aboard the egalitarian pay ship basically sunk with the ship.
Again I agree exceptions exist, but if it was some magic secret sauce, it'd probably be obvious by now...
> unionizing creates a steep competitive downside on the capital market that is not offset by enough employee retention benefit to be worth it
Citation needed.
Unionizing by itself does absolutely nothing, and if I, as the employer, genuinely want the best for my employees there will be little friction even with a union.
A "competitive advantage in the capital market" means something that VCs require from the companies they invest in, like "strong founder team" and "established product market fit". I don't see a lot of VCs demanding or preferring unionization among the companies that they invest in. Do you know of many VCs that have pro-union stances? Even if there are some, I think it's fair to say they're not the majority, hence it's likely a unionized business will not have as good of a capital-raising opportunity as a non-unionized business.
> it's likely a unionized business will not have as good of a capital-raising opportunity as a non-unionized business
I think a huge factor in this is that there are zero unionized businesses around in general. Chances of any of them being invested in by VC is therefore similarly zero.
If some marginally popular company unionizes, everyone will see that it’s not the big deal they make it out to be.
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.
Most startups fail. Why burden them more? There are plenty of stable jobs out there at big boring companies. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
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?
„Having a say“ = making demands / threats when you are unionized.
Employees already have a say.
Startups trying to survive don’t need the distraction and overhead of unions. What is the point of ideal conditions if the company won’t exist.
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.
> Worse conditions
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.
> employees would be disappointed but can go get another job pretty easy
True enough in tech, though the economy will tell.
> For investors they lose a lot of money. Employees have less to gain+lose.
VCs expect 9/10 of their investments to fail. Ask Masa Son how much Vision Fund's startup losses impact Softbank's bottom line, or his machinations.
> A collective of employees is not going to make better decisions than management.
Unsubstantiated value judgement.
> If management/owners are this bad then there isn’t much hope for the company.
And what's so wrong trying to save a company?
> If Union force needs to be used to get mgmt to do the right thing for maximizing profits, it’s not really worth it.
That's just defeatism!
> I only see the impact a union could have on improving morale
There is literally no higher calling.
Like many others no doubt, I invested heavily into the mapbox-gl-js library (pre 2.0). I was able to build amazing value on top of that library including a routing voice navigation app for an aged care facility that is used to this day 24/7/365. It was a very sad day when they changed their licencing model to lock in vendors and I had to walk away from that investment of my time and effort. Luckily I had also worked and contributed to OpenLayers and Leaflet, so with significant effort was able to move my clients to those platforms.
I guess we now have some more insight into why this occurred.
> "In order to use most Services, you must register for or authenticate into a Mapbox account. When you use our application program interfaces (APIs), including our SDK Registry/Downloads API, each request to an API must include one of your account's unique API keys."
Out of interest, is there a reason you can’t switch to Maplibre, the open source fork?
I remember looking at that fork when the whole licencing thing went down a couple of years ago, but it was unclear how much, if any support it would have. Looks like the project is doing ok.
Are you familiar with MapLibre? It’s a great project. It’s an open-source fork of Mapbox GL. I’ve only used the JS variant myself but there’s definitely a native one as well.
This is such a crazy and enraging read. If you don’t like your job, go join another company. It’s not as if devs don’t have plenty of high paying choices out there.
Especially for a startup that had struggled to find market fit, the last thing they need is a union.
Companies are not democracies and setting up a union is a hostile action. It basically says: here are the things we want and if we don’t get them we all stop working. If you want to run the company differently go setup your own company or buy some shares.
Yes, companies are not democracies. That's why we need unions! That's the only way to exercise our collective power to negotiate with the employer on more equal terms. When we negotiate individually we also say "here are the things we want, and that is our condition of work." There is _always_ a conflict between what employees want, which involves wages and conditions, and what employers want, which is getting the most work while yielding the least in wages and conditions.
Unions in tech are as possible and necessary as unions anywhere else. Nothing about being it tech makes us "special" and the whole mythology it does only serves to keep us from organizing and solidifying our conditions and strength.
I think the problem unions face in tech is that, for most developers, salary isn't an issue. Benefits probably aren't an issue either. What people in tech want to unionize to do is a bar far higher than the average union, they want to steer the direction of the company, they want to pick and choose what they work on, etc... all while struggling with the idea that tech is a very diverse landscape in terms of politics, and the language of people who create unions don't speak kindly to them all.
The market sorts out wages and conditions. I will assume you are not talking about developers because they have so many choices at all different salary ranges that are higher than many other industries.
Contractors in minimum wage roles would be the only candidate for unions.
You must not have heard about the situation at many large video game studios. Can be pretty dire there.
Why are unions necessary at tech startups? From my experience, these companies pay and treat their employees very well.
This argument that “if you don’t like it you can leave” is just too simple, and not in good faith. There are more options in the world than staying and going, and there’s more to it than not liking a job. I encourage you to stop thinking so black and white and have the courage to live in the grey area, because that’s where reality lies.
It’s amazing how easy it is for all of us to just take for granted that we are powerless at work and the only way to gain power is to create a company and disempower others.
Is it so hard to imagine doing it differently?
Even if you believe companies should not be democracies, and should be autocracies, what if there's incompetent autocrats at the top who are objectively hurting the company? Should the average employee rollover and pray that the board raises a fuss? What if management holds the majority shares?
It is completely baffling that people who otherwise decry the government as a pack of dictatorial bureaucrats turn a blind eye when corporations internally act the same way, complete with lavish amounts of wasteful spending.
It’s really easy to leave a company If you become disheartened or don’t agree with their direction. It’s virtually impossible to leave your country.
Sure, it's easy unless:
* You are dependent on your employer for your work visa; * You are dependent on your employer for your health insurance (US-specific problem); * You have don't have much experience in industry and thus will not easily be able to find a similar job; * You don't have enough savings to be able to be unemployed for a period of time while you find another job (doubly so if you have dependents or you have a non-compete agreement which would make you unemployable for a significant amount of time); * You have a criminal record that makes hiring far more difficult; or * There are few competitors in the space where you have expertise (or the few competitors you do have wouldn't hire you for one reason or another).
There is a very large number of people which would fall under at least one of the above points.
They are good points.
But unions also risk making it harder for these people to find jobs in the first place.
Yeah, yeah, the right of exit and all that. But that's still overlooking that companies, especially the most successful ones, start to resemble the exact same kind of institutions that those who are the most pro-private sector decry.
I am curious what you find enraging about this article.
He clearly didn't want to go join another company – he joined Mapbox because he shared its early vision, and thought that original vision was worth fighting for.
He provides no ideas that would help the company succeed and find profitability. Only vague mention of returning to open source and that focusing on cars is bad because it bad for the environment.
The company raised a huge amount of cash and needs to make money to survive. The mistake was probably raising too much money.
So somehow, he thinks that the projects his colleagues „believe in“ are going to be more profitable than what they are currently working on. Do they have a business plan? Have they spoken to customers? It’s just so naive.
And it’s important to note that while they raised and spent a huge amount of money, they sucked up all the talent and probably prevented other competitors from emerging in the space. So we shouldn’t feel so sorry for them. They were privileged to have so much money available to them when others didn’t.
But I won’t lie, it’s always nice to have VC money dumped into open source work while it lasts.
> He provides no ideas that would help the company succeed and find profitability. Only vague mention of returning to open source and that focusing on cars is bad because it bad for the environment.
That doesn't strike me as the point of the blog post. He's not trying to tell us all the things he would have done differently, he's telling us what went wrong and why he left.
He does go into his anti-car personal views a bit much, but he also suggests that focusing on auto tech is a dead end because Google and Apple dominate that for the mapping space. Is he wrong?
> Do they have a business plan? Have they spoken to customers? It’s just so naive.
If things are going downhill, isn't it more naive to believe that the current people overseeing that have the right idea?
>He provides no ideas that would help the company succeed and find profitability.
He didn't provide any ideas in this blog post, but that doesn't imply he doesn't have any ideas.
> setting up a union is a hostile action
No it is not.
All stake holders matter. Some stake holders have power, some do not. Unions (when they work) balance that.
Companies should be democratic and worker-owned; every single one of them.
And yes, you're right - setting up a union is a hostile action towards owners of the capital. And we need more such hostile actions to give control over capital to the people who actually use it to produce wealth, as opposed to the moochers who collect economic rent from it by virtue of abstract ownership claim.
from the article:
> A company like Mapbox hadn’t ever unionized before, so it seemed like an exciting experiment
Regardless of one's views on unionization, in this scenario as an underdog competing with 2 multi-trillion dollar companies in the space (Apple and Google), this "exiting experiment" reasoning seems especially reckless, irresponsible, and naive.
IMO, at such a small company like mapbox, it's akin to mutiny.
Oh no, mutiny in tech? Not as if that hasn't been a good move before (e.g. the Traitorous Eight, or the ousting of Jobs).
> Traitorous Eight
employees who left and started a competitor? how is that mutiny?
> ousting of Jobs
technically, the board had the voting power, and he wasn't even CEO. Generals removing a lieutenant isn't mutiny. If anything, he was planning a coup (mutiny) himself.
Desertion isn't mutiny now? Acquiring Jobs' splinter cell, and making him a general, isn't rewarding his attempted mutiny?
either way, your examples resulted in employees leaving and starting a competitor, which were net positive for the industry. They didn't create a union. They grew the industry as a whole which was better than any union could do at the time.
You are right in saying they created a net positive, and I am right in asserting that mutiny is not always a bad thing, which you are wrong on.
The thing is these companies use humanist language in their mission statements, recruitment pitches, and marketing. Every time someone says their startup is "going to change the world" or "revolutionize how we do X" they are tapping into the humanist well to promote their business.
I would be far less sympathetic to the author if Mapbox avoided humanist language in their marketing and recruitment of personnel. But that's the language the company chose. Turns out if you say shit like "We are using technology to better the world" people are going to actually hold you to it!
Anyway, I feel like there's sort of this culture clash going on in the tech industry between Gen-X cynicism - where all that flowery humanist language is delivered with an unsaid "wink and a nudge" and millennial earnestness, where they take people at their word.
If you're a founder seeking to avoid this kind of stuff I would recommend not gilding the lily and be very up-front about what kind of business you're trying to build. Strip out faux-humanism from your mission statement and avoid it when recruiting. If the people doing the purchasing of your product are under 40 however you'll probably need to keep it in your marketing however. Do this in the beginning and not when you've already hired hundreds of employees.
> I would be far less sympathetic to the author if Mapbox avoided humanist language in their marketing and recruitment of personnel
I think this is why I can still sort of respect Amazon. They’re very clear about who they are and what they stand for.
There are some mapbox employees replying to comments here. I think some appear to be defensive of their employer, but if there are some who are in agreement with the article, I can't tell.
It's hard to know one way or the other. Might be nice for employees to identify themselves.
Personally I was intrigued with the formation of the union and knew that many of their employees were quite liberal:
The company evolved from something called Development Seed - basically a progressive humanitarian and development focused company. It is different from most SV companies. And based on open source and open data. Them stopping key open source projects and charging for use of just their mapping JS library (not data usage, any use of the code anywhere) was shocking.
I'd love to hear from an original principled humanitarian employee on what happened to the company and/or them. Maybe money is better. Maybe they left?
We don't hear much about the union at all. We assume from the usual SV unions that it was all about identity, inclusion and diversity but perhaps it was more about this conflict of their humanitarian roots and money.
I interviewed at MapBox within the past year. The team I was interviewing with gave a pretty bad outlook. Essentially it was everyone had left and they're trying to keep the lights on until they can hire enough to do new work.
To be clear, I did receive an offer and passed.
It sounded like unionisation was an attempt at pushing back the ills of VC funding, especially taking back some control of the company’s direction, rather than concentrating on fairer pay and working conditions. I support unions but I’m not sure I support them controlling the direction of the company: most of the time the business people, frankly, know best about profitability.
The whole story reinforced the idea that if you build a company with value but no profits eventually you either abandon it as a business or give control to VCs, and if you had any emotional or political investment in the company you will be disappointed.
Maybe there is a middle ground? Surely VCs will fight tooth-and-nail against it since it's clearly taking away control (and some ability to extract profit) from them.
For instance in some countries with stronger unions and better labor conditions the union often has a board seat and so can advocate and don't have by any means control over the directio of the company.
Yeah definitely. My comment came from my understanding of what the author wanted the union to do rather than how unions could operate.
As an aside, I’m slightly skeptical about unions in the US. The US’s economic model seems to be based around innovation and unions arguably make making decisions slower and more difficult.
If you look at Germany’s economic model, one with very strong employee protection, it seems largely based on pre existing industries. Yet the US’s seems more based on innovation and failing fast. And German political culture seems more consensual compared to US political culture.
Of course, this doesn’t mean I don’t think unions are possible or a good idea in the US—for certain industries I think they could alleviate the US’s problems—but I just doubt they’ll readily get government backing, support or favorable legislation in the short term.
Im not sure that “Unions slow innovation” is true.
As a counter: in tech, its the workers that generate a significant amount of value by writing software and building products. Giving them more control and a seat at the table can be useful in encouraging long term investments in lieu of extreme short term thinking that VCs typically promote.
Google tried putting devs in charge and it didn’t work. It’s obvious too. Devs have such different incentives to owners. They want a nice place to work and play with fun tech and pad their CVs. They can leave at any moment too with zero concern for what happens when they’re gone.
Employee equity is usually not enough to be worth fighting for. It’s just the ability to pay less salary or get good people.
If you’re gonna go with anecdotes, its been going pretty well as Valve with having no hierarchies (aka “devs in charge”).
But that sort of conversation isn’t really useful. Study after study has shown employees’ job satisfaction doesn’t scale infinitely with compensation, other things start to matter after a certain income is reached. With many highly paid software devs, I would wager they are at or beyond that point.
Smart companies will provide conditions that attract and retain talent. Companies can compete on culture. The market will discover the necessary incentives to bring on employees. This has already happened. Look at all the perks companies offer without any union involvement.
If management sucks and cannot listen to their employees then it’s better that they don’t get more capital/talent and their competitors suck up all their talent.
> If management sucks and cannot listen to their employees then it’s better that they don’t get more capital/talent and their competitors suck up all their talent.
Except thats not how it works in practice at all.
Companies can run for a long while by brutally exploiting employees if they have captured the market (look at Amazon). They can exploit immigration laws to squeeze the workers. Unions can help prevent that sort of outcomes.
Theres also that little thing where companies dying due to poor decision making is just an overall loss of value for everyone involved in the short term. Why subject society to the vagaries of laissez faire capitalism when we have the tools to prevent that?
You touch on a common mistake with collective bargaining. It assumes the market and landscape stay static. That the entire industry will not go through huge waves of change and huge levels of innovation will be needed to survive.
If companies suck they should die. We should not have too big to fail. Look at blockbuster vs netflix.
Companies don’t have to fail completely but certain projects should be able to fail. We don’t want huge companies expanding into everything with their sheer sales networks. We don’t want monopolies and oligopolies.
Look at amazon. It has a terrible reputation. And a monopoly. What we want and need is more competition. And it will come.
> It assumes the market and landscape stay static. That the entire industry will not go through huge waves of change and huge levels of innovation will be needed to survive.
Collective bargaining doesn’t assume that though?
You keep saying that “companies that suck should die”. This is just the worst kind of approach to solving any problem: do nothing, let it sort itself out, “trust the market”. Well, we’ve seen what the economy is like with strong labor and without it, and the people that are involved in the economy should get to choose the system that they prefer.
>Google tried putting devs in charge and it didn’t work.
Putting devs in charge is not the same thing as giving them structured and respected input.
It's a massive jump from "give devs a seat at the table" to "putting devs in charge", and one I frankly find hard to believe is made in good faith.
What has a union got to do with „give devs a seat at the table“?
By „seat at the table“ you mean a way to get what they want by force or against the will of the owners.
You don’t need a union to collect employee feedback. Smart management will do this and if they don’t then employees can jump ship to a competitor that does.
Why do you jump immediately to forcing their way, you’re talking the language of class struggle. A seat to negotiate with would be a good place to start, and it would lead to more cooperation, not necessarily conflict.
All companies collect employee feedback. Much harder to act upon it. Yes, workers can leave- but not always!- but isn’t it easier if they had a mechanism to negotiate with power, to talk it over like adults, instead of having to resort to quitting?
I agree, too strict labor regulations around e.g. firing/letting employess go certainly would hinder some of the innovation hapening in the US and especially tech. Though maybe there is a flavor of unions that recognizes this and pushes for other things e.g. proper treatment of contractors, or osme slight input in direction, etc?
I think the US is screwed for unions mostly because to unionize you basically have to join one of the existing huge unions none of which are run very democratically or transparently; as well as the huge anti-union sentiment and misrepresentation of what unions could be. But those things are nigh impossible to change...
If everyone promoting unions in the US would have your very pragmatic take on the current situation, it might actually change. Admitting it's a risk to the business and developing a strategy to try to align as many incentives as possible and iterate where its not working might help create the success stories required to fix their reputation in the states.
As it stands right now, the most vocal advocates I see for unionization can't seem to help but slather their speech with the collectivist twang that turns so many off.
I don't think any of this is impossible to change. There was just a Labor Notes conference this weekend where thousands of people pushing for more democratic and rank and file run unions showed up. And examples like the ALU show that going through existing unions isn't the only way possible. And beyond that, even organizing with a major union can still give you a local you have power over - workers at the the times tech guild, amazon, kickstarter, etc have all organized with existing larger unions, and are starting to see more control over their conditions, more rights, and more respect already.
And I disagree that job protections would "hinder some of the innovation" happening -- if anything, more comfortable and safe employees are more free to innovate. I think it would just hinder employers giving us impossible deadlines to do underspecified or ill-specified things to tick some useless checkbox, or to deliver a feature they already sold without it having been written yet.
You're kind of right: I'm generally pretty pessimistic about systemic change in big systems where I'm merely a pawn. Though it definitely happens regularly! So hopefully the existing unions change and things move forward!
I am not saying that job protections hinder all innovation. But the "liquidity" of labor most certainly gives companies more control and an easier time making changes in many ways. I think that has an undeniable upside for instance with startups who want to push growth to the max without worrying much about possible troubles later.
And I think safety and comfort in tech doesn't come from the particular employer but rather how sought after tech employees currently are.
Anyway, I'm talking specifically about tech and tech innovation here: for other industries things are again slightly different. And I do really think that job protections definitely drive innovation in established and stable organizations!
there is this deeply unsettling thing about innovation: it's historically been driven by people who did not need to work and had free time to explore.
That means that innovators probably come with slackers, because they are secure in their standing.
VCs are looking for a big exit. They have targets for the investment to have been worthwhile. The founders agreed to this. They are not interested in a great company just breaking even and chugging along which is what the employees want.
I wonder how much additional stock the employees are buying with their paychecks…
Key takeaway: investors ruin startups.
It’s that belief that still keeps me from going that route even while working through a regular career for several years. If the project succeeds, well you’ve already sold it to the people who ru(i)n the world. Bootstrapping is so expensive but you diversify power in tech. Don’t sell out!
> A company like Mapbox hadn’t ever unionized before, so it seemed like an exciting experiment
Call me crazy, but taking such a drastic move as unionizing shouldn’t be trivialized into just being an “experiment”.
EDIT: why the downvotes? Why not simply reply with your thoughts so that we can have a thoughtful discourse.
Unionizing isn't "drastic": it is the norm for most trades in the United States. Any individual union is basically just you & your coworkers crowd sourcing employment lawyers you wouldn't afford individually.
Until Boeing got taken over by finance people, the Boeing engineering guild had spent decades being a book club. It is only when things go wrong that unionization significantly changes how we work.
> “crowd sourcing employment lawyers”
How is that not drastic?
You’re own words are saying unionizing is to bring in lawyers to be used against your employer.
EDIT: to answer your question below since I can’t reply.
No, it’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers. A company needs to ensure they are staying regulatory compliant, not breaking laws and de-risking company … that’s what the lawyers are doing.
They "de-risk" the company by making sure employees have as little power as possible, as few protections as possible, are as open to exploitation as possible, are paid as little as possible, have as little job mobility as possible, and have as little claim to their independent intellectual property as they can legally enforce.
That's what "derisk" means: it means the company is protected from your interests.
“It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers” is probably the point that was being made. It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers; it shouldn’t be drastic for a union—or in this case, a union organizing effort—to have lawyers as well.
If you feel like you have lawyer-up just to go to work, that’s probably a signal you shouldn’t be working there.
If one party doesn't have a lawyer look over legal contracts they are signing and the other party does, all they are doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage in a business relationship.
I see why that is advantageous for companies that get to employ workers at a disadvantage. I don't understand why it would be good for workers.
So in other words companies should pay teams of legal experts to fight against workers’ interests, but if workers want to hire an expert of their own to prevent themselves from being exploited they “shouldn’t be working there”?
It depends what you mean by "lawyer up." Having a lawyer look at any contracts you sign isn't a bad idea.
(Not that I've done it.)
The company has lawyers: is that drastic?
I was on a union bargaining team once. Made me hate my job, hate management, and hate unions. I was fine being in the union before that. Once you try bargaining and see what people really think of each other, it sucks. I wont join a union again.
Odd story about MapBox, we used to be a customer, and their product was very solid so we were happy but we were using it in a 3d engine which was causing loads of map requests driving up the costs. We only had a couple users and the bills were already in the hundreds per month. So I contacted them to see if we could come to some sort of agreement. The person who replied had a familiar name, I didn't remember where I'd heard that name before so I googled it, and it turned out he was one of the 3 kids that sexually assaulted a drunk girl during a spring break. Even though their abhorrent behavior was caught on video and presented as evidence they got away with less than a slap on the wrist, and the girl suffered emotional trauma and dropped out of university.
Definitely a heavy thing to have show up on the first page of your Google results, and I cross referenced with his LinkedIn it was definitely him, so I would expect him to address it somewhere. But nothing, never a public apology or even a statement, nothing from Mapbox. That was so crazy to me, surely whoever interviewed him did a minimal background check, and they just thought it was ok? It felt really off, so I found a different technical solution and never talked to them again.
Blame your leadership for creating such a bloated company that the only thing to satiate investors was to sell out completely to auto companies. I interviewed at Mapbox at one time, a ridiculous 3-day interview at their SF office where lots of PM's and managers were buzzing around hosting meetings, giving the perception of getting stuff done when in fact it was even clear to me, an outsider, that nothing was being accomplished. I found the product to be lacking and the team to be outsized for the quality and depth of the product. The core business appeared very weak and on VC life-support.
I can’t speak to the organizational problems you saw, but when you consider the quality of software that Mapbox was producing before the failed union drive – Mapbox GL JS, Rasterio, Shapely – what you’re saying is nonsensical. The latter two libraries have of course left Mapbox, along with their creator, and continue to see high-quality new features, but Mapbox GL JS is still so much better than anything else that I continue to use and pay for it, even though my friends and acquaintances were the people who quit after Mapbox management torpedoed the union drive (note: I’m relying on the current NLRB complaint against Mapbox here: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-283393) and I hope that one day I’ll have an alternative.
Shapely was around long before Mapbox, and Rasterio too. Both are based on stalwarts of the open source geospatial world - GEOS and GDAL.
Vector tiles, Mapbox GL, and Mapbox styling, and numerous other libraries however did grow out of Mapbox - the amount of geospatial developer talent they hoovered up must have made it pretty amazing to work at for a time.
Mapbox has had an incredible influence on geo software development for the web.
Hats off to everybody who made it happen.
I am not claiming otherwise, having been a Shapely user since…2012? I’m talking about the work done by Sean et al while they were at Mapbox.
Oh and I forgot to add that Vladimir Agafonkin and Morgan Herlocker’s JS libraries (earcut, rbush, delaunator, turf, polylabel) have dragged state of the art spatial analysis into the browser to an extent that won’t be equalled again in the foreseeable future. Just a ridiculously deep bench.
Yeah mapbox gl js is sooooo incredibly good I will continue to pay for it as long as I can at this point, technically it’s so far ahead of competitors for building customized spatial viz
With this much saltiness, it's not hard to guess the result of that interview :)
It’s possible to interview at a company and decide that it’s not for you, and frankly I wish I’d done that more often over the years. I used to be more inclined to ignore the little voice saying “aren’t these warning signs?”, accepted the offer anyway, and quickly realized the little voice had absolutely been right.
Oh, nothing wrong with going with your gut and paying attention to the warning signs. But, "I briefly looked at these people from afar and immediately concluded they all only pretend to work and never accomplish anything" is just ridiculously arrogant.
> where lots of PM's and managers were buzzing around hosting meetings, giving the perception of getting stuff done when in fact it was even clear to me, an outsider, that nothing was being accomplished
How could you possibly come to this conclusion while on an interview loop? Did you sit in on all these meetings?
> Then, as is the case with many mapping companies, Mapbox shifted focus to the auto industry. My fear of loss of control fully materialized at this point. I’m a lifelong bicycle commuter, and I think cars are unequivocally bad. They ruin cities, contribute to environmental decline (even electric cars!) and kill people.
All these things are correct except for the ruin cities part - that’s a US city planning problem.
Japan, everyone’s favorite high public transit country with a lot of demand for maps, has a higher car ownership % than the US. They just discourage using them for personal trips and commutes via small roads, toll highways, expensive parking etc.
But once you’re a family or want to go somewhere low density and take some luggage, it’s hard to beat them.
What it looks like to me is this guy wanted to work at a geospatial PBC but didn’t know such a thing existed.
> Japan, everyone’s favorite high public transit country with a lot of demand for maps, has a higher car ownership % than the US. They just discourage using them for personal trips and commutes via small roads, toll highways, expensive parking etc.
Do you have a reference for this? From a precursory search it seems the US has a much higher car ownership rate.
Looks like I remembered it wrong. Still, it’s quite high and more than Australia/Canada.
https://internationalcomparisons.org/environmental/transport... (2015)
The UK having the highest transit mode share (in 2014) is a bit surprising.
These stats all look wrong for Japan at least. I’ve done research specifically into Japanese transportation modes in Japanese using authoritative sources and the real stats are more in line with what you’d expect (i.e. more public transportation, more biking, less cars). I can’t grab the sources right now, but might try to come back and add them later.
Another source: > 6-2 Number of motor vehicles owned in Japan and other countries (2017) https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrctptpe/2020/0/2020_63...
I think there are more business vehicles in Japan. There are too much sales people. Goods transport is mainly done by vehicles.
According to [0], the US has higher (812 per 1k population) than Japan (590).
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicle...
Japan certainly does not have higher car ownership than the US. It depends on the source you use, but the US is somewhere in the 90s and Japan somewhere in the 60s. Plus they just use them a lot less as you mentioned.
The main issue is people want to copy Japan by building high speed rail, but Shinkansen isn’t actually that useful - it doesn’t carry mail/cargo, can’t carry much luggage, and though pleasant to use it’s quite expensive. It’s closer to business class flights than anything else. Economy class flights inside the country are often actually cheaper if you don’t mind going to the airport.
Japan’s strength is that you can take yourself everywhere daily on a train or walking/biking, and there’s density and malls in the train stations.
Well, yes? Shinkansen is intercity transport and that's exactly why it's priced to compete with airlines.
Shinkansen is comfortable than airline, no annoying inspection, almost no wait, and utilization is high enough. So technically it should be priced higher than airline, but I also feel it's weird that high CO2 emission airline is cheaper than lower emission train.
For whatever reason (probably just inertia), JR has been highly resistant to adopt dynamic pricing, so Shinkansen tickets costs the same regardless of whether you travel at absolute peak or when the trains are rattlingly empty. This is starting to crumble at the edges a little bit, and I expect advance-purchase fares to plunge if they ever do make the leap.
Yes it's one of the reason to choose airplane for individuals. Govt's regulation for train is an another reason why dynamic pricing aren't done well but it's changing. Currently train+hotel Dynamic Package is available as a cheaper option, but it's not for single day use.
If you reserve tickets online ahead of time, you can almost always get the 30% discount now. Maybe what's what you mean by crumbling at the edges.
Oh, neat, I recall a trial of that but didn't realize it was rolled out permanently. And apparently you can even book tickets online without jumping through insane hoops! Huzzah!
Yes, it’s competitive with airlines but it’s often more expensive. This makes sense as it’s nicer, but I think people looking at the system from overseas don’t realize this. That might also be due to how good the unlimited flat rate tourist passes are.
Besides renting/owning a car, the real cheap option for intercity travel is night buses.
Yup! Totally agree with all of that.
what does a geospatial PBC do?
Does anyone know why tech companies tend to be so hostile to unions? I'm not sure if its due to the large amount of venture capital invested or other reasons.
Because unions could increase wages, stop the scams companies like to pull with options, and push back on under-staffed expectations of the impossible.
Companies benefit by taking as much of the profit for themselves as possible, rather than doing right by their workers. Some of that pressure comes from VCs or shareholders, but even in private companies it takes a rare founder to put a worker's interests ahead of their own.
All for-profit companies are hostile to unions, because unions reduce the amount of economic rent that they can extract from their employees.
Tech companies can afford to be more vocal about it because a significant number - arguably, the majority - of their employees genuinely believe that they would do worse with unions (regardless of whether it's actually true).
I think at least in part this is because much of tech is in US, which has widespread "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" syndrome in general, but especially so in tech.
Only 11.6% of US employees are unionized (straight from the US bureau of labor statistics), FYI.
I get the impression that a lot of Software Devs buy into libertarian philosophies.
I think this is changing though. There’s a lot of people working in tech and with the kind of abuse that’s been reported (ahem, Amazon) we might see that change.
I'm curious what the split was in Mapbox union organizing interest between Engineering/Product/Design/Data and Sales/Marketing/other go-to-market roles.
Browsing the old union website (https://www.mapboxworkersunion.org/) almost all of the supporters of unionization were on the engineering side of the house, much more than I'd expect if you randomly sampled the org for job titles.
I wonder why that is?
VC funding enables the high salaries in tech. You can definitely be bootstrapped and work 4 days a week, you'll just have a hard time earning your current salary.
VC funding enables the high salaries in startups and that is because those startups are competing for talent against high margin, highly profitable other companies which can afford to pay very well.
Those startups are competing with other startups and ultimately VC money.
There's significantly more tech talent out there than the business problems that can be solved profitably with said talent.
When the VC money runs out and the "growth & engagement" engineering playgrounds close up shop we're going to see a massive readjustment. We're in the beginning of it now.
Once all of this unwinds, tech pay is going to get really ugly.
Kudos to the author for prioritizing of ethical and moral concerns.
A lot of negative sentiment about Mapbox in this thread. I have been prototyping a (native) app powered by Mapbox -- would it be a bad idea to hitch oneself to their ecosystem?
Don't hitch yourself irrevocably to their SaaS. Make sure that, if your app becomes successful, you can swap out for Maplibre (the open-source fork of Mapbox GL) and an alternative provider such as Thunderforest, Geofabrik, Stadia or Maptiler. Mapbox have a lot going for them, but your app's success shouldn't be dependent on one company's tariff.
I'd suggest reading their terms of service and licensing model. They changed it on their 2.0 version and it stopped being right for a lot of use cases, either for financial, privacy or legal reasons. Make sure it fits for yourself also.
Trying to understand how in the same short form piece we get: > "I still bristle at the word “career”. Not for me."
And then end it with:
> "The skills and connections I developed at Mapbox set me up for a smooth and satisfying career transition."
So do you have a career or not?
I once bought a brown/bronze car at a discount. It was the ugliest color I had ever seen on a car, but I still drove it for many months.
I really hated it, but what could I do? I couldn't afford another car, so I had to live with it every single day. I'm guessing author feels something similar about having a career.
"Fight for motives beyond profit."
Sigh. Profit is good. Profit is necessary. Profit is not a great motivator IMO. It motivates, but alone it motivates the wrong things the wrong way.
Money is my only motive available to me at the moment, and I am sad about that.
When it is hard for worker-bees to transition to become manager-bees then unions are important and necessary. In any other business where worker-bees can become manager-bees then they should take that opportunity if they want to create change. Unions in tech businesses smack of entitlement, if you want to change the working conditions at [insert tech corp name here] then join management otherwise leave. Small companies change as they evolve. Noble ambitions are set aside in favor of profit (rightly so). With that, early employees may well feel the firm they joined is not the same firm they are working at. In which case they should leave because the boat has already sailed and there are probably a 1000 more compatible candidates willing to work at the company. I hear non-profits pay incredibly well and do amazing work.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I just assume some version this happens to every company at some point in their growth. Like the author I would jump ship at this point, but I don't think I'd be caught off-guard by it
Always jarring to hear the claim
> Technology is fundamentally neutral
It is in the same way guns are fundamentally neutral. You can't view it without context. Include that and it is clear that tech (or guns) isn't neutral at all.
Is it fair to say that MapBox is moving into auto services?
Or to put it another way, is it not a good idea for me to move to a different provider for basic mapping services?
That's where the money is. Otherwise, Mapbox provides a lot of relatively low value commodity services. You can get maps from them but there are lots of competitors for that. You can get libraries from them for rendering those maps. But they are now closed source and have been forked by others (maplibre seems popular) and also there is some competition: leaflet, overlay and proprietary things like Here, Google and Apple maps.
The big money is helping big corporations (including automotive) with advanced use cases around logistics, very detailed 3d maps, gis, etc. So, that's increasingly what they are doing at the cost of the business that made them big (shipping good quality openstreetmap based maps and OSS software). They are now very similar to Here, Tomtom, and a few others. The latter two used to be mostly about consumer navigation products for in cars but that is now a commodity business that got disrupted by Apple and Google just bundling it with their phones (actually Nokia started this by giving away Here maps 14 years ago). Mostly if I'm in a rental car with tom tom / here maps built in, I end up using my phone with Google Maps instead. Just easier for me. Both will get me from A to B. I don't pay for it directly. That's no longer a viable business model.
We are currently using maplibre with Maptiler.com as our maps provider. We may have to switch maps provider for some of our customers (our German customers are picky about where their data is hosted). Maplibre has been pretty solid for us. Last year when I had to pick a library, I briefly considered Mapbox and then noticed all the activity around the newly created maplibre fork (and the reasons it was created) and went there instead. All the commit activity happening there is no longer happening around mapbox. That's the value Mapbox lost by going closed source. So unnecessary and short sighted.
> Is it fair to say that MapBox is moving into auto services?
It seems so
https://www.mapbox.com/navigation/
Perhaps that's just their 'thing' for now and their core mapping/viz work will continue - I hope so as it's great tech and still relatively open compared to other cos.
Just looked up mapbox after not checking it out for a few years. Oh wow, that's changed a lot :(
Same here. The last time I have used Mapbox was probably five years ago. Looking at it know I wouldn't even consider evaluating it anymore.
Thinking that organizing a union to change the direction of the company is an exciting experiment is really irresponsible. All the paycheck everyone at the company is getting needs to come from somewhere. You do not have the right to bet everyone's paycheck on an exciting experiment.
What happened to disruption, innovation, experimentation in this industry? What happened to move fast and break things?
Then start a company and choose to make that experiment. Don't shove it onto someone else's.
That's not how it works. If there's interest in a union in a company, the employees have the right to make the case for it, and then they vote on it. Sounds like the company in the OP tried to quash that right. Why do owners have the sole right to determine whether a company should undertake that experiment or not?
And beyond the legal and moral implications, you still haven't addressed my core critique: Silicon Valley tech startups claim they can change the world and disrupt everything. Yet when it comes to the subject of labor relations, they default to some sort of Victorian Era fear of workingman unions. There's an inherent fear that unions are unworkable and malevolent. That just completely clashes with tech's belief in its infinite innovation. Even if past unions didn't work in America, why be so afraid of building a new one?
The only thing they actually mention doing at the company during all that time was the union drive.
Did they create products? Features? Internal tools? Design guides/system? Any actual work? Or just agitating for a union that their coworkers clearly did not want?
Saman worked on many things at Mapbox, most notably to me is the interface for Studio [0], which continues to be an impressive expression of a really advanced set of features for map design. He also explicitly mentioned a stint as an engineering manager at the company in the post- maybe you didn’t catch that? Or maybe you don’t consider management to be doing “actual work”? If you think the latter, maybe consider organizing at your own workplace?
[0] https://blog.mapbox.com/behind-mapbox-studios-new-look-874c1...
Yes, major contributor who touched many parts of the company's core technology.
Source: I overlapped with them for the first 7 of those 12 years, back to the <20 employee days.
In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are a cancer to the org.
To say this person joined and then tried to subvert is a pretty dishonest reading of this story. They worked on something for 12 years and I’m sure there were many others similarly invested. To spend such a significant portion of your life on something and have basically no input on how it’s run, directed, etc… is not a good system. In my opinion the people forming the union had much more invested in this company than the people that just invested money. I’d say the handful of people that insist on complete control for having invested money are a cancer to the org and society at large.
There is a good chunk research indicating that when employees share governance, it has a mild positive effect on productivity & firm survival: https://voxeu.org/article/worker-representation-worker-welfa...
There are many short term pressures on executives and finance people. Sharing power with the people their decisions affect leads to better outcomes for the business than when they use their power over workers for short term gain.
On the contrary I think it’s a good system. If they want to control the company they can buy 51% of the shares. Those shares are valuable for a reason.
If management doesn't want to negotiate with a majority of workers, they are free to pick a different career path and leave it to other professional managers.
If the solution to a problem is have lots of money, it’s a solution for only a tiny portion of people, and not generally applicable.
Anyone can make their own company and their own shares and it’s practically free other than registration costs. The people with the shares get to set all the rules. That’s generally how it works. Otherwise the shares would be worthless.
You are sidestepping a massive amount of factors that allows somebody to create their own business. Even then, a company grows on the backs of its employees, and there quickly comes a time when a single person should not have complete control because it’s not just theirs anymore.
I own shares in public companies and have basically zero say in how they operate and those shares are worth quite a bit.
At this point it’s clear these arguments are flippant and not serious. I hope one day you can have a perspective on these issues that is not so shallow. They are important and you also should have a say in your workplace. Our voices matter.
Anyone who is willing can create a business, especially a software one that has no upfront costs, and the owner usually does most of the work to get it off the ground. The owner gets complete say in how it’s run until they choose to relinquish or sell control or structure it otherwise.
A company is a group effort and people can quit whenever they want. The owner doesn't have complete say and shouldn't have complete say, and it's good for employees to talk to each other so that they can use their say together.
People can quit whenever they want which is the main point.
Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union.
I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autonomy taken away.
> Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit
Why? It's pretty weird to say they should use the most extreme option without negotiation or do nothing, and that this is better than using intermediate options.
> because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union.
The main concern isn't the mere fact the union exists, it's to have a more even negotiating position, and I feel like everyone should want that. And I'm quite sure that the number of people that want that is much bigger than the number of unemployed workers, so that trade you suggest isn't even possible.
> I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autonomy taken away.
Are you actually encouraging the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" point of view? How about an attempt at an objective view, that even if we look at it like a zero sum game, it's better for 20 workers to have more autonomy than for 1 employer to have more autonomy.
And who's to say that the current management isn't doing a poor job? Based on Glassdoor and Blind, they've been experiencing high turnover and mixed reviews at best. So why shouldn't the management and owners be held accountable for questionable decisions? Why are you so insistent that workers get no say, and can only leave? On what basis is blind obedience mandatory in the workplace?
The owners hold the management responsible. If targets are not met then they dig deeper, see staff turnover, find causes, and fix them. It’s capitalism at work. If the owners are not savvy enough then the company should fail or be sold and the capital should be allocated elsewhere.
If workers have a say it distorts these forces. And by say you mean the ability to force the hand of management. Because they already can have a say and modern companies measure everything and listen to feedback.
Why does (in your view) capitalism mandate that only owners hold management responsible, and that workers having a say would distort that process? Are you suggesting that class warfare is inevitable? (That's a Marxist concept.) Otherwise, why keep workers out of the decision-making process?
Also, if in most tech companies workers are given equity, are they not owners also?
Workers don’t have same incentives. They can push for conditions that would risk bankrupting company, and if the company does shutter, they can simply get new jobs with no loss. Meanwhile owners lose their money.
Workers don't have an incentive of bankrupting the company. And not all employees are so blasé about finding another job- there are always some dependent upon a company for their livelihoods. Different owners also have different risk thresholds. As evidenced by the lavish VC funding of the past decade, there are many investors with a strong stomach for waste and failure.
Examples of unions fighting for management to make better business decisions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13986889
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3mjxg/general-electric-work...
An owner that's invested in multiple companies is probably more likely to push for risk than workers are. Losing a job is not "no loss".
Money is paid for the employees backs and the business entity owns all the IP. Employees agree to this and can leave at any moment. They are welcome to start a co-op style company and give that a go. But would a VC want to invest in such a company? Prob not.
People like to pretend we don’t live in a cut throat capitalist system and that it has worked out best.
Employees did not agree to the systems of corporate governance we have. There is no real choice, and not working means starving. Nobody is pretending we live in a different system, they are trying to change it. The level of defeatism you are showing is unfortunate. “It has worked out best” is a pretty amazing assertion to make.
Removing the profit incentive was pretty disasterous throughout history. I just can’t imagine a group of employees being able to veto strategic decisions can work. The system for this is startups which is working great. If you don’t like something, setup your own company and do things the way you want.
But if employees always demanded things to be run they way they want, then you couldn’t have this level of experimentation and innovation.
I think the obvious fact is that there are not many co op companies because it doesn’t work. It’s like: stop trying to change someone else’s company, and start your own and build it from the ground up with the governance structure you want.
Nobody said anything about removing the profit incentive. Workers having a say can be setup in a lot of way, it does not require direct veto power. There have been and are many successful coops. The argument is these are not somebody else’s company, it is the workers company because they built it. That’s a lot of straw men you are arguing against.
The shares give you a claim on the profits. The rules are a combination of the corporate bylaws and the law. The latter does not let owners set all the rules: it imposes health and safety restrictions, taxes, and (yes!) unionisation rules.
The people who make the laws get to set all the rules. The shares are valuable anyway, because an economic interest in a profit making entity is valuable whether you have perfect control or not.
In my opinion, if you are starting a company in the US, you're supposed to follow labor law. Founders who create a company and then try to ignore the rules they signed up for are a cancer to society.
You are free to not work at unionized orgs, and also vote no when a vote is scheduled to unionize.
Unionization is how employees get a seat at the table and a say in the business they contribute their labor to, labor without which the business could not exist. Comp and benefits are only a component why organizing is important, in my opinion.
Honestly I've had plenty of influence at the various workplaces I've been a part of. If a company is so dysfunctional it doesn't even take what employees are saying into account then I'm not convinced a union would help. Do you have concrete examples of unions succeeding in software?
Why does it have to be software-specific? It's a new-ish field and American unions have been pretty disadvantaged over the last few decades due to an increasingly conservative judiciary and some nasty anti-union lawyers. But you can't just ignore that unions got us weekends, OSHA, and 8 hour days. Now there is enough wealth in society to support three day weekends, and people are ready to fight to distribute that wealth fairly. Why shouldn't they?
Because as far as I know traditionally unions have existed in jobs where humans are basically robots (manufacturing, etc...). These jobs can be dangerous and also each worker is very easily replaceable giving the employer a huge upper hand.
This is not the case in software at all. Skill levels can vary dramatically and the more experience you have with your company often the more valuable and harder to replace you become. Software developers are expensive, especially bad hires. This puts them in an advantageous position. In sum we are - In demand, scarce, hard (or at least expensive) to replace (skill & domain knowledge vary considerably). The exact opposite of what a union fixes.
That's a pretty new development, and not necessarily true. Screen writing is pretty obviously creative, collaborative work, and they've been represented by a professional guild since 1933.
I think it is more common for the umbrella union orgs to focus on industries either with high barriers to entry (like nursing) or huge employers, because they are going company-by-company & it's just more efficient. On the opposite end of the spectrum, trade unions are more likely to serve people who change jobs ever couple of years and where most of the learning happens on the job. They tend to be run by & for people actually in the profession and can cross company boundaries.
Trade guilds will do things like specify minimum wages, but most of their members end up paid more than that. They'll specify minimum safety standards, but also support people on specific job sites that want or need additional protection to make that particular job safe. It isn't the same kind of one-size-fits-all approach you may be used to from Detroit auto plants.
There are advantages for employers too: they know that people in the guild are held to certain professional standards, for example. When retirement programs or health care are managed through the guild, workers can take the benefits with them to their next job, and small employers don't get taken for a ride. And employers can benefit from the steady influx of newly-trained workers who have been taught up to the standards the trade feels are important to meet.
Just look at the people in this thread who think it is "drastic" to have a lawyer look at our employment contracts: we may have individual leverage, but we aren't necessarily able to use it to make our working conditions better, or even to ensure the software we build is reliable and safe.
What happens if a minimum wage is set but there are people prepared to work for less? Or under lesser conditions? And a company cannot hire as many people because they have to pay them more?
Isn’t it fairer to rely on the free market to set wages? There are shortages and surpluses in many industries that vary over time. Unions seem to just distort the market.
Reviewing employment contracts can be done by one’s own lawyer via legal insurance too. Why does this need to be collective? Why not pay a fee for services you use rather than union dues. A lot of the benefits you mention doesn’t need unionization.
A free market is only fair if there are many labor purchasers and sellers. But when employers hold power (they are a major employer and they control many jobs in an area, they control your recommendations, the switching cost of changing jobs is too high) they can use that power to deflate wages below their fair market value. Unions create a level playing field to workers to negotiate with companies.
Agree but tech is not like this. Especially with the rise of remote work. Unions can also hold down wages by reducing flexibility in conditions to suit different employees preferences.
A new tech union need not operate identically to the ones that came in the past. Heck, it might not even be called a “union”, given tech’s propensity to reinvent concepts under different branding. We have the benefit of over a century of historical expedience to improve how such an organization might operate. And already, not all existing unions are overly restrictive about their working condition stipulations.
Didn't the kickstarter folks successfully unionize to ban monitoring software and no CoL downgrades in pay?
I agree that union organisation work is not _work_, it's not what people are paid to do, and it should therefore be done on personal time.
However, employers are in a position of significant power over their employees, and unions represent a way to balance that power. I think this is a broadly positive thing that I think employees should be in favour of, and that I think the best employers would also be in favour of.
IANAL, but my understanding is that it is illegal to treat unionizing differently than other social activities. If a company wants to ban unionizing on company time, they have to ban all non-work related socializing. If people are allowed to talk about movies & video games, they are also allowed to talk about unions.
That employee had been at the company for a dozen years, it's in the very title of the article.
One way conceptualize many companies is that they're just the id of senior execs measuring their genitalia against one other, why shouldn't workers get to participate?
The workers can make their own company if the terms of their employment don’t make them happy.
Your belief system isn’t congruent with US labor law. Why leave when you can make your existing job better?
Your other comment indicates they should have to amass 51% of company shares. Ridiculous. Their ability to organize and vote to do so comes from their labor rights, and is precisely why they don’t require capital (per labor law) to have a say.
Businesses can be built without capital. They cannot be built without labor.
Or they can organize, as is their legal right, and renegotiate those terms together.
Even if you aren't unionized, it is your right to get together with your coworkers & advocate for better working conditions.
Seems like a waste of effort and manpower if you have an otherwise perfectly salvageable business and product that is being hamstrung by management. Think of the customers.
Again they could, but they would not be following the example set by leadership.
> In my opinion you’re hired somewhere to work there and be productive, not to unionize. Workers who join companies and then try to subvert the entire system are a cancer to the org.
We are doing the "Tell me you haven't read the article without telling me you haven't read the article." kind of posts on HN now?
God forbid someone would want have a symmetric bargaining relationship between a single workforce and a single employer.