Kickstarter's staff is unionizing - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18254995/kickstarter-unionizing-union-representation-inclusivity-transparency-tech-us-crowdfunding <comment><USER2> I'm not against unions in general or in principle, but some implementations are not great.

I suspect like some folks here, my personal (negative) interactions with unions have turned me off of unions in general. I worked at an unionized shop when I first graduated and while I recognize some of the positives the union brought, there were also many downsides.

Some examples:

\- Nepotism. We had an open position we couldn't fill for over a year because one of the union leader's son was graduating soon and that position was reserved for him.

\- General complacency. Raises and promotions for the most part weren't based on performance, but rather tenure. Many people start off ambitious but end up just doing the minimum over time because there is no reward in trying too much.

\- Strange (from my perspective) rules. I couldn't have more than one CAD going at one time, and because CAD is backlogged the turn around time was super long. This meant for long stretches of time I couldn't do any work. But I also couldn't leave. I read a lot of wikipedia pages during this time.

Eventually I got super bored, didn't see any growth potential and wasn't learning much so I left.

I assume not all unions are like this, but I do hear things similar to this from others (many on this thread) quite often as well.

<comment><USER3> > Nepotism. We had an open position we couldn't fill for over a year because > one of the union leader's son was graduating soon and that position was > reserved for him.

I don't know of any industry where this _doesn 't_ happen. Certainly in tech there's plenty of anecdata about nepotism in hiring, no unions required.

> General complacency. Raises and promotions for the most part weren't based > on performance, but rather tenure. Many people start off ambitious but end > up just doing the minimum over time because there is no reward in trying too > much.

Again, this doesn't differ much from non-union industry. Anecdotally (I know) almost every silicon valley tech company seems to have poor ratings in their internal polls for "we fire/retrain low performers". This isn't a problem that is unique to unions, nor can I see any evidence that it's _worse_ in unionized workplaces.

Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non-union wages. [1]

[1] [https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf)

<comment><USER4> > Here's a fact about unions: Average union wages are 18% higher than non- > union wages.

According to the paper you referenced, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in private industries and under the category "Management, professional, and related occupations" employees earned more actually – $35.70/h – compared to workers represented by unions, who earned an average of $32.95/h.

I would assume the majority of software engineers work in private industries, thus would fall under the aforementioned category, and as a result would actually earn more by not joining a union. Am I missing something here?

Furthermore, it's unclear whether those wages include other types of compensation, such as stock grants and bonuses for example, in which case the difference would be even greater.

<comment><USER5> Here's the relevant paragraph.

> In private industry, there is a different pattern among workers in this > occupational group: those represented by unions earned an average of $32.95 > per hour, while those not represented by unions earned $35.70 per hour. The > wage advantage for nonunion workers in this occupational group reflects the > concentration of union workers in certain relatively low-paying occupations > in business and financial operations, such as claims adjusters, accountants, > and training specialists.

<comment><USER3> Thank for pointing this out. The 18% figure is from the global average and that analysis of the private industry number certainly suggests that as unions become more prevalent in higher-paying occupations the trend there will reverse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To make this discussion maybe a little bit more solution oriented, what would be your solution to problems of labor mistreatment? Or do you suggest that nothing like that exists?

I recently came across an interesting talk by Richard Wolff at Google [1] which suggests that a great solution would be the democratization of the work place in the form of worker coops. It's actually a tried and true model that works well in a variety of contexts. It would probably solve the problem you outline as well as make labor mistreatment a lot less common.

1: [https://youtube.com/watch?v=ynbgMKclWWc](https://youtube.com/watch?v=ynbgMKclWWc)

<comment><USER7> Start a "consulting" business that provides really good pay and benefits to all of the workers. Be very selective about who you let in.

You're now in the business of providing workers for companies that produce stuff. If they want access to your workers, they sign a contract with your company. If some workers don't like working for some particular company, transfer them to places where they like to work.

You've now created a private union that operates on a consensual basis rather than a coercive / adversarial basis.

<comment><USER8> Some of my peers have thrown around the idea of team hires. Interviewing as a team and working as a team. The team is hired and quits together and is generally a collective that works within itself.

<comment><USER9> Isn't that now essentially a company that work gets subcontracted out to? or am i missing the joke?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been in a union before. The work ethic wasn't good. They had seminars on how to work less and push back against complaints. They directed the members to engage in behavior that was best for the union while bad for the workers and the company. The union itself is a big business, what would they think of unionizing the union? Unions allow substandard work for equal pay. That tends to hold back the major opportunities for individual success.

<comment><USER11> I think this means we need to re-think how unions work. It should be used to create fair workplaces.

My concern with the anti-union rhetoric in the USA is that we then turn to the government to protect workers. I think it's a lot better to have a union vs government as long as that union isn't protected from competition like they are today.

If we can introduce competition into unions then they might better serve the workers and the company.

<comment><USER12> Unions don't exist for the employees' benefit, they exist for the union's benefit. There's a big ol difference, and because of their protected status, unions get away with a lot of really horrifying behavior.

I've worked with several unions in different industries, and I can say pretty categorically that unions are brazenly unethical.

Unions may sometimes improve working conditions and pay, but only in the sense that the mafia reduces crime. You have to start out from a truly horrifying place for their bargain to be any better, and in taking that deal you're giving up on ever having a healthy environment.

<comment><USER13> Employees shouldn't join unions that don't exist for their benefit. And if a union doesn't benefit the workers, they should leave and start a new union.

This happened years ago in Netherland: many railway employees weren't happy with something their union (part of the largest union federation) negotiated for them, so they left and started a competing union to negotiate for them instead. Messy, embarrassing for the big union, but it solved the problem.

Not sure if the alternative union still exists or if it merged back into the large union again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a EU citizen, it always surprise me how the popular retoric about unions is to associate it with lazyness. I think is just undermining of what union actually really are.

I personally found this as a first step toward a perception shift about tech from which we can all benefit.

Unions for instance can help fight this constant non extra paid "after-hours" working culture that force you to do all-nighters and all this kind of crazy shits just because the industry is seen as a bunch of nerds that are that passionate about programming that stay long hours just for the sake of love/passion for the job itself.

<comment><USER15> My sister worked at a charter school. Because of previous labor violations teachers were not allowed to show up before class started (they could only be there for the official class hours). They also were not allowed to stay late after class.

My sister thought this was ridiculous, how was she supposed to setup her classroom and answer questions afterwards? Unfortunately her boss warned her that coming early and staying late was not allowed.

Once unions start adding work rules like this you'll see a push to disable after-hours emails, banning weekend work, etc. So while the trope of the lazy union worker is deeply flawed, there are some problems for workers who want to go above and beyond (and while most non-tech workers don't get extra compensation for unpaid overtime, tech workers who go above and beyond actually are rewarded with equity)

<comment><USER16> > Because of previous labor violations teachers were not allowed to show up > before class started

So the school was expecting teachers to come in early to setup, not paying them for those hours and punishing those that didn't. This isn't a problem created by labor unions, it is a problem created by exploitative companies. And when the company decided how they would address the issue they decided that pre-class preparation wasn't worth paying for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If Kickstarter can do it, the game industry can do it! Come on, game industry, it's your time to unionize!

<comment><USER18> It'll never happen so long as there are "gamers" who want to work in the industry they "love", unfortunately.

<comment><USER19> Why not? The US film industry is mostly unionized, and there's tons of people who love movies, too.

<comment><USER18> The supply of jobs is much lower in the games industry relative to the demand.

<comment><USER20> And there are way more actors than acting jobs.

Yet they have the SAG-AFTRA union which had a strike to force better working conditions from games companies.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_video_game_voice_act...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_video_game_voice_actor_strike)

<comment><USER18> There are "way more" actors in the sense that there are many people who want to act for a living, but the analogy doesn't hold from an education and experience married to that desire standpoint.

Further acting is older than gaming, and those unions were given space to form during a period of time that was very different from today.

<comment><USER21> >Further acting is older than gaming, and those unions were given space to form during a period of time that was very different from today.

In the 1930s back when union organizing was likely to get you beaten by goons or assassinated by hitmen/the mob? Or in the 1940s and '50s, when active membership in the union put you at risk of getting brought up in front of the House Unamerican Activities Committee and blacklisted from ever working again?

<comment><USER18> That's not at all how the film industry's unions formed or any of its history, and blackballing a statistically small number of writers was wrong, but completely unrelated to what we're talking about...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I haven't had a large number of interactions with unions but I have seen some things that definitely turn me off of them, e.g. requiring two or three people from as many different unions to set up a booth at a conference because multiple skills are required and the unions negotiated with the venue to have each step done by union employees with those specific skills. So eg the people assembling the structure couldn't plug in computers and the people who plugged in computers couldn't assemble the booth structure.

What I have heard a couple times now from relatives of union members is that senior people who know union leadership sometimes end up on "disability", meaning there is nothing wrong with them but they don't work and get paid. They have doctors in the loop to certify the disability. I have no idea if this is actually widespread.

My own personal reluctance with joining a union is that I feel like I do pretty well negotiating for myself.

Having said that, perhaps a tech worker's union could result in 30-hour four- day workweeks with reasonable minimum vacation, and that would be worthwhile if it became the industry norm.

<comment><USER5> I think a tech workers association similar to the AMA would be helpful. I think the best work it could do would be to push for standardized contracts around intellectual property(company doesn't own everything you touch even in your free time) and non-competes(for instance must be paid some % of salary while non-compete is enforced). And the second best work it could do would be to push for standardized on-call/overtime multipliers.

These things are harder to negotiate for than salary and would be healthy for the industry.

<comment><USER23> > I think a tech workers association similar to the AMA would be helpful.

A voluntary organization that less than 25% of people in the industry are members of, and which doesn't seek recognition by the NLRB?

That's very different from a union.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It will be interesting to see what this does for developer salaries at Kickstarter. If, as a top performer, I get penalized by joining the union then obviously Kickstarter looks less attractive to me. For unions in our industry to work they are going to have to be very explicit about how they are going to raise developer salaries.

<comment><USER25> Companies in general are crappy at recognizing top contributors anyway. Tech companies are no exception.

<comment><USER26> This is a problem everywhere, but it is worse when you are stuck with unionized employees. Compare public school teachers to private school teachers. Higher pay (thanks to unions) for public schools, and lower quality (thanks to unions).

<comment><USER27> > (thanks to unions)

Is there additional information about how unions lower the quality of public education inside the United States?

<comment><USER28> Look up rubber rooming in NY schools. Basically, they can't fire teachers with tenure (which they get relatively quickly compared to eg college professor tenure) for even gross misconduct, so they end up paying them to sit in a room doing nothing. If there isn't enough budget, they have to lay off newer teachers, even if they're doing well.

<comment><USER16> I looked it up: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_centers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_centers)

> Although teachers are now being charged more quickly, it still takes several > years to complete the hearing process and for the arbitrator to render a > decision.

So they get stood down until they've had a misconduct hearing, that seems fair, we don't want to ruin careers on allegations alone.

> In June 2012 it was revealed that the New York State Education Department > had not paid its arbitrators for several years, and collectively owed them > millions of dollars for cases they had completed, or were in the process of > hearing. In frustration, ten of the 24 arbitrators on the New York City > panel have quit, while the remaining 14 refuse to hear any testimony or > issue any decisions until their back wages have been paid in full.

This is a massive administrative failure, I don't know why your blaming unions.

<comment><USER28> I'm not blaming them for the number of people in those rubber rooms or for the terrible administration of that school district. I am blaming them for how hard it is to fire a teacher the administration doesn't want, for whatever reason, to the point where new, exceptional teachers are being let go because they have to keep around older teachers with tenure who are phoning it in. That drags down the average quality of teaching in the US.

That said, I also think that good teachers should be paid much more to attract more talent, and make it a viable alternative to more careers for people who aren't willing to sacrifice their finances to teach.

EDIT: I should also note that NYC public schools are an incredibly challenging teaching environment, a lot of false accusations fly around, and I don't mean that all the teachers in the rubber rooms should be let go. I just disagree that teaching should be a tenured position.

<comment><USER16> > I am blaming them for how hard it is to fire a teacher the administration > doesn't want, for whatever reason, to the point where new, exceptional > teachers are being let go because they have to keep around older teachers > with tenure who are phoning it in.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but is there any evidence that it is a huge problem and not isolated cases?

> That said, I also think that good teachers should be paid much more to > attract more talent, and make it a viable alternative to more careers for > people who aren't willing to sacrifice their finances to teach.

The problem is not having a way to quantify what a good teacher is. Is it the one that imparts a love of learning on there students or the one that gets better test results? Is it the one in the wealthy area or the one in the poor area where kids aren't even being fed? If the students do poorly is it the teachers fault or did a teacher in a previous year skip crucial topics?

Paying good teachers more isn't possible until you can identify good teachers.

> I just disagree that teaching should be a tenured position.

Well there I agree, it should at least be very rare. It does sound strange to me, I don't think it's a thing in my country and even in academia tenure isn't as strong.

<comment><USER28> Sadly, I've only heard anecdotal evidence from young teachers I know, and maybe some reading I've done in the past, so I don't have any sources on hand to point to, and maybe it's isolated rather than endemic.

You're right that it's hard to quantify whether someone is a good teacher or not, but I don't think it's impossible to judge. It's probably impossible to make it a simple succinct rubric, though. Maybe it's a challenge for a universal function approximator like a neural net :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If this works out, this has the potential to be huge for the industry. I would love to see more unionization in tech, and this could be a first step in that direction.

<comment><USER30> It's going to end badly, unlike factories where a walkout would but a strain on production. A walkout necessarily doesn't put a strain on tech. Companies are going to embrace distributed teams/remote teams very fast and unionizing will just be a reason to close up shop in that location. That's what I imagine happening, predicting the future is hard tho.

<comment><USER31> A programmer walk-out is way worse. The Bus Factor is a real thing. Hire a new team to replace the old one on a complex project and it'll be months or years before they start doing anything productive. Making things worse, bit-rot is real and threatens existing software with failure if complaints aren't addressed.

<comment><USER17> If everyone in my department walked out and a new team had to be hired, they'd just be screwed. There's not enough documentation and the system is pretty complicated, with bits of it hiding everywhere and a bunch of ancient code that we never got around to refactoring (especially after they laid off half our department and another half quit afterwards, without replacement).

I'm sure whenever I get a new job and resign they're going to be like 'oh shit', because there's just not anyone left to replace what I do, really (I'm the last person in the department with a good amount of knowledge on their proprietary and stupid complicated phone systems, and they've kept me too swamped to be able to do any knowledge transfer worth a damn).

And in phone systems, there's always something going wrong or down, it seems like, often network related.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is fantastic news.

I'm one of the software engineers who was fired for organizing a union at a SF/DC based startup last year. The National Labor Relations Board found in our favor and we won a large cash settlement. But what we wanted was a union. Seeing others pick up the torch is extremely gratifying. Below are some links to news coverage of our case.

[https://gist.github.com/bwestergard/a77744dc6f3095fd3fb769dd...](https://gist.github.com/bwestergard/a77744dc6f3095fd3fb769dd3d6562ad)

If anyone has questions about the process, I'm happy to answer what I can.

<comment><USER33> Two questions: Why are tech company staff wanting to unionize? For the most part, aren't tech staff reasonably to well paid - with good working conditions and moderate hour expectations (say 40-50)?

Management has the right at a workplace to make any decisions, whether someone in non-management sees fit. Can't people who are frustrated with the company just go pursue a position elsewhere?

<comment><USER30> Not a popular opinion, but these are usually non CS types that have flooded the fields later due to money. Not very skilled, but very entitled. The sense of entitlement is very ridiculous these days. I see folks outside the Bay asking why shouldn't they get paid the same as Bay area folks, when they want to remote from somewhere that has 1/3rd the cost of living. Or people outside the country with 1/10th the cost of living wanting USD rates. ... or literally "coders" who just know how to plumb software and build a basic CRUD wanting compensation that's on par with FAANG level. The world has lost it's damn mind and all I can do is SMH and watch with a grin.

<comment><USER34> >I see folks outside the Bay asking why shouldn't they get paid the same as Bay area folks

Pay has nothing to do with cost of living. That's a lie told by companies as a negotiating tactic. You don't magically make the company more money by being in the bay area.

<comment><USER35> Pay has a ton to do with the cost of living, because salary is the lowest amount you can offer while still enticing people to work for you - I'm not saying penny pinch every dollar, but business is not charity. You don't magically make the company more money by being in the bay area, but hiring in the bay area gives the company an advantage (or else they wouldn't do it) and they are willing to pay extra for that advantage.

<comment><USER36> >>salary is the lowest amount you can offer while still enticing people to work for you >> business is not charity

And this is why unions exist. Even if managers try to be nice, even if the company gives out buckets of benefits and pays a living wage, this is the adversarial thought that exists in business currently. Management wants to pay the lowest they can, because that helps the business the most. They want to spend the least amount possible because that's the correct business choice.

Management/Ownership and Employees are frequently at odds when it comes to their goals, and changing the math from "me vs the company" to "the union vs the company" is a huge boon for employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Well, there goes the high salaries, flexible working hours, and generous RSU grants for tech employees. Have fun fighting and scraping for 2% raises, paying exorbitant union fees for questionable benefits, and dealing with the nepotism and personal politics of your union leaders. And thanks in advance for adding to the unfunded pension liability crisis.

<comment><USER38> You know unionizing isn't something people do lightheartedly. A lot of planning and working goes into it, planning and working done by the folks who want to unionize. The idea that you only get benefits if you don't agitate your boss too much sounds pretty sad.

People don't join unions if they are going to be worse off materially.

<comment><USER39> >People don't join unions if they are going to be worse off materially.

Tell that to anyone whose workplace unionizes against their wishes and lives in a "closed shop" state. (Yes, closed shops are illegal, but agency fees lead to essentially the same thing).

Being forced to pay a fee to a union that does not represent you and that you did not vote to join is absolute bullshit.

<comment><USER38> You can say that about any job, union or non union. You don't join a job not knowing it's a union job. But in a non union workplace, if you don't like how things are you can change them. Good luck doing that without a union.

<comment><USER39> I am talking about places that turn into union jobs after you have been there a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Unions in tech companies is a very interesting idea. A lot of people never speculate this idea because lets be honest most of them get paid really well or visa workers are simply too scared to join such "abominable" unions etc etc. If any one can start materialize unions would be the workers at FAANG companies. And I am pretty sure rest will follow suit. As a tech worker, I see this as a positive change. As a CTO, this should scare me. As an honest CTO, I would see this as a balanced change for my subordinates and slightly shifting the power dynamics towards them.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wish them well, but having family members and friends work in unionized workplaces, it's not something I would ever do.

It always seems to degenerate into an "us vs them" sort of thing whenever I talk to them about where they work. Why would I ever work some place where things are so adversarial?

You also end up with this 3rd party involved in everything, creating all kinds of "rules" to make things "fair". Want to go on vacation? To make things "fair", the most senior people get to pick their times first, and the new guys get the not-so-good times. Don't care about the union's bullshit "industrial action" and just want to work and earn some money? Get used to being called a "scab". You get the point - it becomes more about knuckling under to what the union wants than getting work done or having a career.

<comment><USER41> This is senior engineer privilege speaking. A union seems strictly worse when dozens of companies are falling over themselves to pay you in the 90th percentile income bracket.

<comment><USER42> I see no reason for any workforces at any of the companies I have worked for as a developer to unionize. In my short career before that, however, I thought it would be very helpful for the valet company I worked at to unionize.

<comment><USER41> I certainly have. They were mostly the places where if you weren't perceived as the type who is willing to stay till 8PM a few nights a week peppered with the occasional weekend PR, you were relegated to the "poor work ethic" caste. Unions aren't perfect, but they certainly stomp out this type of abuse and force the company to either hire more people or pay fairer wages.

<comment><USER43> You're a senior developer and you don't think you're getting paid a fair wage?

Ok...

<comment><USER44> Why shouldn't he? The bigger valley companies got caught in a wage fixing scheme that by some estimates depressed wages by around 20% across the board, and all they did is send out a few checks for a few hundred to some of the employees.

He's almost certainly not getting a fair market wage.

<comment><USER21> >Why shouldn't he? The bigger valley companies got caught in a wage fixing scheme that by some estimates depressed wages by around 20% across the board, and all they did is send out a few checks for a few hundred to some of the employees. >He's almost certainly not getting a fair market wage.

Bingo! Complaints like that sound like people getting mad at professional athletes for getting paid and asking for more. If they get less money it's not as if you, the fan, are going to see that in lower ticket prices or anything. That's just money that goes to management instead. Why are YOU mad about it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _" America's political climate is changing; among other things, the 2016 presidential election brought up the issue of wealth inequality in this country and made people consider more closely the structural forces that define class here."_

What on earth does the 2016 election have to do with wealth inequality (or unions for that matter)? Inequality has been on the rise for decades and Clinton was also a member of the 1%. This seems like a non-sequitur.

<comment><USER45> They're probably mostly referring to Bernie Sanders, who ran a campaign very focused on wealth inequality. The union link is that when people become more aware of inequality and by extension class, they become more likely to participate in class-based politics and organizations such as unions, in theory at least.

<comment><USER46> The part I seem to be missing, is that most of the people working at Kickstarter are the top 2-5% of the U.S.. Their business caters to many people who want to start projects, who aren't living pay-check-to-pay-check anyway.

I don't really understand the purpose of the unionization effort, beyond the facade of just wanting to in some way "fit in" with a social movement.

<comment><USER47> > I don't really understand the purpose of the unionization effort, beyond the > facade of just wanting to in some way "fit in" with a social movement.

It's pretty naive to think unionization is just a social fad. It's a path towards job security, safety, good pay, and control over the direction of your own labor. Trendiness is pretty low on the totem pole.

<comment><USER35> Collective control over the collective direction of the collective labor. Unions, at least in practice, are only good for the majority of the laborers and definitely not good for independent control over your own work.

<comment><USER47> > Collective control over the collective direction of the collective labor. > Unions, at least in practice, are only good for the majority of the laborers > and definitely not good for independent control over your own work.

The alternative is complete control by the employer. Sure, a union, as an institution with power, can likely limit some of your independence, but an employer can limit all of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > America's political climate is changing; among other things, the 2016 > presidential election brought up the issue of wealth inequality in this > country and made people consider more closely the structural forces that > define class here.

What is a structural force that defines class in America?

<comment><USER45> Inherited wealth, disparities in access to education, racism, and a weak labor movement are a few of the many forces that impede upward social mobility.

<comment><USER33> Whats wrong with inherited wealth? Literally anyone can pass on wealth to their heirs. It takes no brains, and no special access. Just spending less. People shouldn't be taxed more because they have more foresight or impulse control than others. Yes, maybe it doesn't happen in one or two generations - but it can. Also - lots of people have moved up in the world from nothing - and it wasn't "inherited wealth" keeping them down previously. edit: as minikites mentioned below, it is education that wealth can be transferred is what needs to happen.

<comment><USER44> "Have the poor just considered not being poor?"

<comment><USER33> Your emotional response to my logical statement doesn't necessitate a downvote.... Edit: it should be inspiring, bc it shows that literally anyone middle class or above can be incredibly wealthy if principles are followed for 3-4 generations.

<comment><USER44> > Your emotional response to my logical statement

Wealth inequality has been increasing for 40 years despite worker productivity rising. Nearly every metric shows the rungs to wealth being pulled away, and I'm the non logical one here?

> doesn't necessitate a downvote

You were already downvoted before I commented.

> should be inspiring, bc it shows that literally anyone middle class or above > can be incredibly wealthy if principles are followed for 3-4 generations.

You didn't 'show' anything; you simply stated economic religion.

<comment><USER33> But I do.

Wealth has nothing at all to do with worker productivity. It has only to do with saving a lot more than one spends by spending less, or generating large value to society with a monetary reward.

The pathway for any middle class family is through inherited wealth and NOT some fantasty of wealth equality achieved in 1 lifetime. We need to stop thinking in small terms of 'years'.

Wealth can be achieved generally in a family over the course of 1.5 centuries. If a family applies good saving practices, and saves over 5-6 generational lifetimes - it is very hard NOT to be wealthy. My parents were a fireman and teacher. My grandfather paid for my college, my parents are paying for my kids college, and I'm paying for my grand kids and great grand kids college - SOLELY bc of saving over extended periods of time. That was our family deal - take care of those after you 2 generations down. Thinking multi-generational is the easiest path to success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> So if they succeed, does that mean nobody can work for Kickstarter unless they are part of the union?

<comment><USER50> I don't know how unions work in the US, but most unions in the UK fund a single political party, which means you could be forced to pay to support a party with views you find abhorrent in order to work, so I hope not.

<comment><USER51> Completely correct. Three of the top 10 election cycle 2018 contributors were unions.

* Carpenters & Joiners Union gave $38,366,262 with $37,822,215 to democrats and $529,000 to republicans.

* Service Employees International Union gave $28,224,658 with $28,219,509 to democrats and $132 to republicans.

* Laborers Union gave $27,538,080 with $26,810,870 to democrats and $708,100 to republicans.

Source: [https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id=](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id=)

As you can see, there's a massive amount of political spending by unions, and it's almost completely on one side. The "right to work" laws which are so demonized do at least provide one huge advantage: people are no longer forced to contribute to a political campaign which they do not wish to support. There has been court ruling around this area in the past few years, but it was a problem for a long time and, to an extent, remains one.

<comment><USER52> Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest groups. Though they do _tend_ to be more equal-opportunity in their support.

In both cases the answer to "how do I stop supporting this political action I don't like?" is "Quit. Hope your skills are marketable."

<comment><USER53> > Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest > groups.

Well, in one scenario it's _their_ money being spent. In the other, it's _yours_. You don't draw a pretty clear distinction there?

<comment><USER52> You get upset that tenants are subsidizing a landlord's political spending without a say? Any time you give money to anyone else for any purpose, for that matter? And "their money" comes from your labor (plus their capital, in some share, yes) as surely as "your money" does. This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be, and may not be relevant anyway:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States)

<comment><USER53> > This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be

It really isn't. I think we can all make arguments as to why we're justified in taking from others, but that doesn't change the reality of what is happening.

> may not be relevant anyway:

AFAIK this means only _public sector_ non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. _Private sector_ employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to.

<comment><USER52> > AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to > pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on > the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to.

I'll pick out the part I think's most relevant, since yeah, that's a big ol' wall of text.

"Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck that in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative known as agency fees.[12]"

Collect fees? Yes. Spend those fees on political activities, if you're a non- member? No. Unless I'm misreading this. The public unions bit comes next and says that public sector unions can't even collect the _agency fees_ from non- union members, which is a step farther and into union-busting territory. The original point was that union fees amount to compelled political speech, though (again, so does your company spending on politics, assuming they're making money off you even in an abstract way, but whatever) and this seems to make that moot, best I can tell. If that's wrong I'd like to know—I don't get off on going around spreading incorrect info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Never understood the desire for unions in the tech industry. Thankfully the USA has plenty of right-to-work states.

</comment><comment><USER33> Why are tech company staff wanting to unionize? For the most part, aren't tech staff reasonably to well paid - with good working conditions and moderate hour expectations (say 40-50)?

<comment><USER52> 50's too much and 40 should include an hour of breaks. Noncompetes and very broad claims of inventions and copyright by employers need serious push-back until they're rare or illegal, and organized labor can do that.

Also it'd be nice if some of the more powerful workers here could organize and help lobby for things like parental leave and minimum vacation for all workers, including those without so much clout.

<comment><USER55> Non-competes are illegal in California. If your contract contains one, the non-compete clause is null and void

<comment><USER52> One down, 49 to go, I guess. (probably there are a few other states where they're illegal, but it's far from all of them)

EDIT: and there's still the "if you write a novel in your free time on your own hardware we can try to claim it if we feel like it" clauses that are so common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This is a big move on their part. If it's successful for them, it could inspire a lot of others. I'm curious what their reason for unionizing is. Wanting more reasonable hours, perhaps?

<comment><USER57> Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% supportive of unionising for better conditions, but the thing I keep hearing from tech companies is that people want to unionise to have a voice in the ethical practices of their firms. I wouldn't be surprised if this was as much about that as working conditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> " first major tech company "

I don't think that is even remotely an accurate statement, unless EVERY company with a website is now a "tech company".

I took a peek at the data object in [https://www.kickstarter.com/team](https://www.kickstarter.com/team)

And to me it looks like an art company, with very little focus on tech.

"favorite category" counts by # team members Art: 32 Film & Video: 29 Design: 27 Publishing: 15 Games: 14 Technology: 8 Music: 5 Comics: 3 Food: 3 Photography: 2 Theater: 2 null: 2 Journalism: 1

# of backed projects by "favorite category" Film & Video: 6264 Design: 2372 Games: 2325 Art: 2238 Technology: 1228 Publishing: 777 Theater: 310 Music: 181 Food: 119 Comics: 44 Photography: 28 Journalism: 5 null: 0

I would add that I find it incredibly ironic for a "creative" company to have such rigid categories for what it deems "creative".

</comment><comment><USER59> Maybe the US has a different experience with unions but in Brazil, they are simply hated. They were made mandatory by law and very rarely (never?) step in to help employees.

It's only at big factories that they show up when more than X number of people are fired and do a big show out of that. Meanwhile, all the employees not working for big factories paid their union fees and saw nothing back. It's often a platform to launch their political careers.

Luckily, they are not mandatory anymore and now employees have to opt-in which was a great change. They have to work to earn respect and those fees back... but I'm not seeing much movement in that direction. So far they have been going the legal route, trying to cancel the changes to the law (and have lost).

In theory, the concept of unions is great but in practice, at least here, it was a terrible thing, from my IT bubble perspective.

<comment><USER60> In the US, it is illegal federally to mandate that an employee join a union as part of their employment, and it's illegal to force them to pay dues.

Some of our states go a step further and have introduced measures that seek to directly attack the ability of employees to collectively bargain, to remove the power organized labor has against management. These are called "right to work states".

Generally speaking, RTW states have lower pay on average, they are less educated on average, and their workers have less benefits from their businesses (parental leave, vacation time, healthcare benefits, etc), they have less recourses against employer bad behavior (both as a function of RTW attacking collective bargaining, and from the reality that the same politics that are against unions also are very anti-labor, anti-minimum wage, anti- regulation of labor marketplace all together, so there are far less public resources and regulators to assist with claims). If you're an employer, this probably sounds great. Labor is cheaper and you can fire them whenever you want for no reason at all on the drop of a dime AND there is no pesky government regulator to come waste your time and money investigating. "Easy come easy go" is one of the most common management philosophies from small and medium business owners in my RTW state, from my experience.

From the perspective of an American: you choose a liberal/blue/union state when you want good infrastructure, highly educated and competent staff, and little turnover. You choose a conservative/red/anti-union state when you're planning to take advantage of your staff, you don't care about higher turnover, you want to pay below-national-market rates as a rule, and you don't care as much about the individual quality of each employee. There's a reason why tech companies don't pick the South and when they do they require billions in literal free cash to do so.

It is what it is, but the slow death of the union in the United States correlates quite perfectly with the slow death of the American middle class in terms of wealth and income gains per year.

<comment><USER61> (disclaimer: also Brazilian, even if I don't live in Brazil anymore)

I have mixed experience with unions in Brazil, the fact that they are mandated makes it almost like a scam, a part of your wages go towards union contributions but rarely do you get anything out of that. Most directors at unions are in it for political powers as the bigger unions are major players in politics(as seen that our ex-president is a former unionist).

On one hand, unions can provide negotiation power, specially in class action suits, including unfair dismissal. But most of the time I've seen unions collude with companies and associations to provide underwhelming benefits and wages that are below inflation.

In some cases such as medicine and dentistry they are solid credentials of many professionals and I take it as mostly positive.

In the case of engineering it should follow the same as the engineer's union is a very strong powerhouse that requires quite high minimum wages for engineers(IIRC 8.5x the national minimum wage). However this has led many companies to use a loophole where engineers are hired with a different job title, performing the same job, just so that they don't have to pay that minimum, while sometimes even requiring that said engineer is registered with the union. As computer science is not engineering, even though some computer engineers are qualified as such, I've never met a programmer that has a proper engineer contract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> What's still unclear to me from the article is what problems employees at Kickstarter is facing for lack of a union and how, precisely, organizing a union will address those problems.

Maybe I'm being presumptuous but being a tech company and all aren't the employees are already relatively pampered?

</comment><comment><USER63> Prediction: if whoever is leading the charge is even moderately successful in getting employees to rally, they will be offered in job in management (at Kickstarter or somewhere else) at twice their current pay and the whole thing will crumble.

</comment><comment><USER64> Congratulations Kickstarter! I hope this becomes a trend in the tech industry. A union is not only about getting better pay, or more vacation - it is about having a voice in the future of the company.

</comment><comment><USER65> Kickstarter was founded as a public benefit corporation, so they've always been friendly towards social consciousness. Are there any other tech companies that are PBCs or worker co-ops?

</comment><comment><USER66> My humble take is that unionization is valuable as a counter-balance in a company and can benefit it and all within. Let's take extreme examples: 1) CEO sees a blip coming in the quarterly income results. CEO disposes of enough people to reduce costs, hit profit target and claim their bonus. CEO is better off, company is worse off. Repeats each quarter until the CEO retires. 2) CEO tries to focus company by laying off unionized employees in legacy area. Union blindly prevents this, company is stuck on legacy path, company suffers and so ultimately do the employees when it all implodes.

The problem in both cases is simply due to a misalignment of personal goals/compensation within the company.

When it's "working right" The CEO can defend their "not randomly firing employees" as being too expensive due to their unionized status. Converse is that the union can accept that some employees need to go to be replaced with other employees in another field to reflect the world changing (and help relocate/pay off/re-train as needed).

In summary - plans rarely work out and ideally there's an internal buffer/slush-fund to cover this. When you're publicly traded, there's always going to be somebody demanding you cash in this buffer to the shareholders in the short term. Unionization provides a nice external buffer.

</comment><comment><USER67> The merits of unionization aside, I don't understand how Kickstarter is referred to as a major tech company. There are only 140 ish people listed on The Verge site.

</comment><comment><USER68> I think that the main problem with unions for software developers, especially at this particular time, is that tech recruitment is very much a sellers' market at the moment. Most of the companies have a lot of troubles finding quality developers of all levels, remuneration is growing to absurd levels and short-term contracting is almost a norm rather than an exception. For a moderately experienced developer, changing jobs is both a) trivial, and b) often the best way to ensure promotion and pay rise.

Unions were designed for a market where employers were taking advantage of job scarcity and insecurity, and where changing jobs often meant difficult re- training for new equipment and methodologies, which was often provided by unions. That does not exist today, at least in the software industry; a solid GutHub account is a much better certification than any training or even a university diploma.

My point is that, for the majority of software people, traditional unions can barely give any benefits over the power they can have themselves. And for the best people it can even provide disadvantages by lowering the standards.

</comment><comment><USER69> Crunchbase says they were founded in 2009 and have 50-100 employees. They are pre-IPO and 10 years old. Maybe if employees were more owners I think (not knowing the inside story) this might have been less of an issue. Secondary grant?

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/kickstarter](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/kickstarter)

</comment><comment><USER70> The biggest challenge we have with unions is game-theoretic.

Specifically, the issue of defection.

The company can make it very easy for users to defect or FORCE them to defect.

They can give bonuses to people not in the union (with plausible reasons for the bonuses so it's not illegal) or do what Walmart does and simply shut down the entire store in that location to prevent the union forming.

We need some way to solve this problem ...

<comment><USER71> > _We need some way to solve this problem ..._

It's called solidarity, and respect for your co-workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> what are the pros/cons of unionizing? I dont know jack about this

<comment><USER73> The way I heard it best explained is no one would try to start a union if it made them less money.

Better pay and benefits - my maximum out of pocket was lower than most deductibles. Democratizes the workplace - really helps keep management in check. You get real job security - firing is much less arbitrary with a steward fighting for you.

However, if people aren't active in union elections, bargaining etc. it can get really stale really fast

<comment><USER50> > The way I heard it best explained is no one would try to start a union if it > made them less money.

People could start a union so _they_ make more money, but _you_ could make less money.

For example pay by seniority. Great for the senior people in the union, not so great for you.

<comment><USER74> Pay by seniority is a thing that developers keep bringing up and not understanding the basic concept that seniority-based pay is a decision that unions can adopt or reject.

Hollywood unions, for example, do not use a seniority-based pay scale.

<comment><USER50> If there's an industry-wide closed-shop union and it votes for seniority pay then I'm out of luck. It's replacing tyranny of the employer with tyranny of the majority.

<comment><USER74> I don't think you understand how unions work...

Closed-shop unions are illegal in the US, for starters, so you can't have a closed-shop industry-wide union.

The only industry-wide unions that exist set workplace protections and salary _floors_ but no salary caps...and no indutry-wide union has ever embraced seniority-based pay because, being an industry-wide union, that regime wouldn't work across the very different economic environments of 50 states and their thousands of cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Given my experience with unions, I'll quit when the union forms at my employer.

Unions increase the importance of political skills over performance. If you do work but are bad at politics you'll do worse in a union shop. Plus the nepotism and collusion between management individuals and union leadership to the detriment of shareholders, customers, and young workers is disgusting.

The only people who benefit are old underperformers in management and union leadership. They form coalitions of mutual support and screw the rest of us.

Screw unions. They are for useless people that don't trust their own abilities.

They are only useful if the oligarchs block market competition for labor. But we aren't there yet ... and we can be vigilant by supporting action taken against instances of collusion. Unions are no cure. They are like caking dung on the wound.

</comment><comment><USER76> Is anyone aware of an example where (a) a really small company unionized and/or (b) a workforce unionized without any real demands?

I run a 17 person company and I've heard employees mention that they think all companies should be unionized even if there aren't currently any problems that the union would seek to address. I strongly support the big tech companies unionizing and so it would be hypocritical of me to be opposed to it for my own company, but at the same time it seems like the overhead for such a small company would be really significant and I'm not sure what it would accomplish given that I'm not aware of current employees having any demands that we haven't satisfied already.

Even if nothing comes of it, I think it's an interesting thought experiment.

<comment><USER77> What is the overhead?

<comment><USER76> I'll admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the logistics of unions, but I imagine there's some kind of up-front legal overhead. Like, maybe there are contracts between the union and the company, or within the union itself to determine how it's governed? I also get the impression there is some overhead in an ongoing basis in the form of extra meetings, more complicated negotiations, etc.

All of those things seem like relatively minor costs when spread out across a large employee base, but I could see it being prohibitive for a smaller company. Or maybe this is a solved problem and you can just find some boilerplate stuff online that takes care of the whole process.

<comment><USER78> It seems your mis-understanding what a union is, the union will talk with management, forming an agreement as to what the pay scales are, how much paid leave is given at minimum, and escalation processes like grieving an issue when management does shitty things to the workers.

The "overhead" you speak of is to pay someone to negotiate on the workers behalf, save up for a strike stipend, and provide worker training (usually Unions will run or subsidize courses to help workers skill up, get licensed, etc).

<comment><USER35> And now you have a fixed payscale that could easily make it harder to hire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> With apologies to Isaac Asimov, I did not realize they were ionized to begin with :)

</comment><comment><USER80> There are 2 types of unions (in general). There are skilled trade unions (plumbers, electritians, etc) and strictly labor unions (TSA, agriculture laborers, etc). If they are unionizing as a skilled trade union and the union is thus ensuring training and quality of the labor, then i think it is a great idea. If they are unionizing as a strictly labor union, then i see no value to either management or the employees in the long term. From reading the article, it looks like it is likely the later instead of the former.

<comment><USER81> > i see no value to either management or the employees in the long term.

The term for this "class consciousness." It's not that the value isn't there, it's that you don't see it.

<comment><USER80> Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the benefits are to either management and/or employees rather than just making vague comments that have little to no meaning.

<comment><USER81> I could, but not for free. Google it. It is politics 101.

<comment><USER80> Nice way to shirk your responsibility to back up your statements.

<comment><USER81> Pay me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Just make free (paid in pizza) overtime illegal at the federal level and most of the work-life-balance issues would go away.

Add federal minimum vacation time too, 20 days at least.

"but but my margins!!!"

</comment><comment><USER83> One thing this article didn't cover was how kickstarter's management reacted to this news and why it's happening now. Are there issues at kickstarter that will be addressed through collective bargaining? Was this move considered necessary in order for leadership to take developer concerns seriously? I'd love to know more.

</comment><comment><USER84> Wonder how much their management troubles played into this [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/kickstarter-p...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/kickstarter- perry-chen-founder-worship-turmoil)

</comment><comment><USER85> Unionizing is still good because at the end of the day you can be fired for any reason.

</comment><comment><USER86> I grew up in a blue collar union family, dad was a Teamster Master Steward and my mom was a Secretary in the printers' union. I don't know how well it translates to larger tech companies.

</comment><comment><USER87> Is there such thing as "tech" that makes unionizing easier? AI that helps with the paperwork, some sort of app the allows structure organization easier, etc?

<comment><USER88> > Is there such thing as "tech" that makes unionizing easier?

e-Mail, instant messaging, etc. Any form of communication makes unionizing easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> > If recognized, Kickstarter would be the first major tech company with union > representation in the United States.

What has happened with Microsoft's union?

</comment><comment><USER90> I wish the US would adopt the German model where unions are for whole sectors. That way it's a level playing field for all companies.

<comment><USER91> When I've described my experience with American unions it I hear a lot for Europeans who report their unions are far different than my experience.

The American union tradition / behavior seems quite different than what I hear about elsewhere.

I'm interested in the European systems, but very very wary of the US systems. Too many US unions are really just bureaucracies on their own, emphasize seniority for pay, advancement, and etc, and seem to limit options for workers in terms of flexibility. And to some extent american unions become their own bureaucracy serving the folks embedded in that bureaucracy. Granted for some jobs that probabbly is ok, but for technical things, I'm very wary about flexibility and etc.

My experience with American unions has been highly disappointing and I'm skeptical about their ability to handle a more technical / fast changing world.

<comment><USER90> From my experience the US workplace is much more hostile both ways. Either the employer will screw over the employees or the union will try screw the employer. At least in Germany it'a little more collaborative partially because of laws that give employees some say how the company is run.

<comment><USER55> It's not hostile, it's professional. I advocate for my interests, you advocate for your interests, and we negotiate to find out a compromise that works for both of us. During this process, I do not worry about your interests (that's your job), and you do not worry about mine. We trust each other to take responsibility for our own interests and proceed accordingly.

I can understand why this would seem hostile to someone who isn't acculturated to it, but I don't find it hostile at all. I find it _honest_. The other side isn't pretending to care about me, and they aren't making hamfisted attempts to look out for my interests in ways that I don't like but they think I do (or should).

<comment><USER92> I don't understand how the union isn't basically holding the company hostage.

A company can't fire all their union employees, so if the union decides they'll only accept a deal that includes a 50% raise, what do you do?

I'm being serious here, from what I can tell it's not legal to fire your union employees. So what do you do?

<comment><USER74> It's perfectly legal for a _business_ to fire union employees. The US is an at-will country, and businesses are entitled to terminate employees for financial reasons.

Even public sector unions can't prevent terminations for financial reasons, though they negotiated no-fire clauses into their union contracts decades ago.

<comment><USER55> Not true. At-will is state by state. And, of course, there is nothing stopping either you or your employer from negotiating different terms.

<comment><USER74> You're right.

Montana isn't at-will after 6-months of full-time employment and follows the French system.

The other 49 states are at-will employment, with generally the same rules with limited restrictions.

I stand by my original comment. Even Montana has at-will employment for the first 6 months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Based on the comments in the article, it's not really clear why the unionization is taking place?

Anyone with an insider knowledge want to elaborate?

</comment><comment><USER93> The article only says "staff". Does this include developers and technical operations, or is it just office staff?

</comment><comment><USER94> This on the same day that the CEO steps down, for the second time. Sounds like a lot is going on over there.

</comment><comment><USER95> What would tech unionizing realistically look like in the US? Lets say, at some FAANG company?

</comment><comment><USER68> Unions, like charity, mean that the government has failed in its job.

</comment><comment><USER96> Nice of the hipsters to be the test case like this.

</comment><comment><USER97> Who else read unionizing as un-ionizing?

</comment><comment><USER98> This should go well. Good time to be a Kickstarter competitor I figure.

</comment><comment><USER99> #GoFundMy Benefits

</comment><comment><USER100> This is the end of Kickstarter as a dynamic company.

</comment><comment><USER101> Nice!

</comment><comment><USER102> Incoming screed in libertarianese about why unions are bad by Paul Graham on twitter in 5..4..3..2..

<comment><USER33> Mostly libertarian here, but not aware of the full views of the party, so I looked it up. Apparently the 2016 election view states on unions as below which I don't see contradictory to unions. [did this for my own knowledge]

"We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain." [https://www.lp.org/platform/](https://www.lp.org/platform/)

<comment><USER45> So "abolish the NLRB" then.

<comment><USER33> That's their stance, yes, I'm personally not fully libertarian and think an NLRB is useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> We also need more tech co-ops so employees can profit more fairly from their crucial work, because a pittance of low-priority employee shares doesn't really count.

</comment><comment><USER104> The anti-union rhetoric in America is staggering. You like weekends? Then stop ragging on unions.

<comment><USER105> I have a friend who worked at a grocery store for a few months while waiting for his teacher's certification to get processed and sent to the state he'd moved to. It was a minimum-wage job, yet mandatory union membership at this grocery store chain meant that a cut of each of his minimum-wage paychecks was taken from him without anything he could do about it.

The idea that unions are inherently, universally good is just as silly as the idea that unions are inherently, universally bad.

<comment><USER81> So you'd rather your friend be worked harder for his minimum wage? You'd rather he be liable for the things people steal from the store? You'd rather him be fired and be without medical insurance if he slips and falls at work?

Unions are why your friend isn't worked to death while he waits for his teacher's certification.

<comment><USER55> Believe it or not, some people actually are willing to work harder for more money

<comment><USER106> A lot of the people who work hardest, horrible hours out int he cold doing hard labour before you wake up, only make a reasonable living because of unions.

People have literally fought and died for the right to unions, for unions to be taken seriously. A bunch privileged silicon valley tech workers (not me, I'm a privileged seattle based tech worker, totally different ;) ) write off unions as inefficient and useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> kinda ironic, a platform that relies on a community of people and donors and leans on the socialist side of the spectrum is hit by a socialist leaning ideology.

<comment><USER108> That's not irony. Irony is when something happens that is explicitly not expected to happen.

<comment><USER107> I disagree, I think you're describing what a surprise is.

<comment><USER108> > Typically, the expression of one's intended meaning through language which, > taken literally, appears on the surface to express the opposite—usually for > humorous effect > ([http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.201...](http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100011437))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Software developers are a far cry from auto workers or even teachers. Its interesting to see the differences between early SV startups 10-15 years ago that would brag about the benefits of working for them and now. Things like ping pong tables, free dry cleaning, and daycare would be things people would go out of their way for years ago.

Can someone explain what the Kickstarter employee's hope to gain? "promote our collective values: inclusion and solidarity, transparency and accountability; a seat at the table," sounds very left wing in an already left wing company in a left wing area.

</comment><comment><USER110> I'm astonished by the reaction of some people here. They seem to live in a alternate reality where every CEO is kind, doesn't try to reduce labor costs at every opportunity, doesn't treat his employees like cattle, etc. 20th century unions had their issues of course, but using extreme cases of dysfunctional unions is not a argument to totally disregard unions as a concept.

<comment><USER111> It doesn't look like Kickstarter will have a CEO anymore either[1].

[1] - [https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18273318/kickstarter- ceo-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/19/18273318/kickstarter-ceo- resigning-perry-chen-chairman-board)

<comment><USER112> "Chen has picked a successor as interim CEO: Aziz Hasan, who currently heads Kickstarter's design & product teams."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> I have long thought crowdfunding is ripe for disruption. We should not need a middleman to send people money over the internet. It can be accomplished via a smart contract and creator listings could be self-hosted (think openbazaar). It could also fix the censorship issue inherit to these platforms.

With Patreon raising prices and now this, maybe someone will crowdfund an alternative.

<comment><USER114> Throw the word blockchain in there and you'll have a winner :)

<comment><USER113> It would use a cryptocurrency of course and probably a stablecoin. That means there's a blockchain somewhere along the line although crowdfunding would be an excellent use case for lightning-style payment channels to compress fees. If you pay a recurring fee every month then that's 12 fees a year. With payment channels we can reduce it to 2 - the fee to open the channel and the fee to close it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER115> I think there needs to be an overall IT union, with apprenticeships and the whole thing. Make new people do QA testing, or tech support as they work on their other skills and level up. Get mandatory overtime to finish a project, then get laid off and collect unemployment until the Union needs you again. Just like carpenters and glaziers and all.

EDIT: Instead of replying to everyone individually. Over the last ~15 years I've held jobs from tech support to network engineer to full stack developer. In each of them I have noticed that recent college grads are almost always clueless, and basically have to start from scratch. These are kids with massive student loan debt that could have started working earlier and learned through an apprenticeship.

<comment><USER116> I almost agree.

Have you talked to anyone who does professional entertainment/movie work about their thoughts on unions?

Unions are expensive, corrupt, and don't actually do much to help most of the workers. The unionized workers hire contractors to do the real work for many features, and are parasitic organizations that mostly just drive up the cost of making movies.

There was recently an article in the Times about a local NYC union president who's office is decorated with such high-end fixtures & furniture that he has a second office on another floor just to appear more humble. I can't find it at the moment...</comment></comment>


Apple Logs Your iMessage Contacts and May Share Them with Police - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/09/28/apple-logs-your-imessage-contacts-and-may-share-them-with-police/ <comment><USER2> Signal does a similar query to check whether any of your contacts are using Signal. Here is a blog post about the problem of private contact discovery: [https://whispersystems.org/blog/contact- discovery/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/contact-discovery/)</comment>


Ask HN: review my startup Wiki-OS, the first webOS developed the wiki way - <AUTHOR>

http://www.wiki-os.org
This is the first web OS that is developed the wiki way.
Every window and every major component has an "Edit" button that allows end-users to instantly access the corresponding source code. A built-in IDE allows making changes to the applications. The changes are instantly propagated to the other users, and they are displayed by order of popularity.
This "wiki-like" system makes it very easy to reuse code from other applications, to share common components, and to build upon others' work instead of often reinventing the wheel. Furthermore, initial developers of an application can easily hand over development to the community, as integration is based on popularity mechanisms instead of manual work.
The current "Developer Preview" version is based on the .NET Framework, but we are working to support other platforms as well, including Mac OS X.
A 40-second video overview is available at: http://www.wiki-os.org/what_is_wiki_os.htm
Thank you in advance for your feedback and advice. <comment><USER3> "We are currently working to support your operating system (please check back in a few weeks).

In the meantime, to enter Wiki-OS, please navigate to this website using Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7."

Seriously? Like, really seriously? You guys like irony, yes?

<comment><USER4> Second that. Platform independence should be #1 on your list of priorities.

It's a dupe as well by the way:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=712242>

<comment><AUTHOR> I know that on HN a majority are on Mac or Linux, but Windows is still a big platform. But yes, we know it's a major problem and it will be fixed very, very soon.

<comment><USER3> Fix major problems first (yes, this really IS a major problem), THEN re- submit. For the third time.

<comment><USER5> No it isn't. There are lots of very successful programs that only run on one platform and make money.

If you as a timestrained startup start developing for multiple platforms before you've got the resources to do so on the other hand _then_ you have a problem.

It's all about resources and business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This "sounds cool" at first - but when you think about it (assuming it's possible) the overlap between developers and users would probably drive users crazy.I'm tempted to say that users don't want to "edit" the operating system....but that would be a bad assumption - who knows what users want.

You would probably have to set this up so there is a some kind of demarcation between people who want the "role" of user or developer .. and the intermediate roles. You need to be able to use it simply without wanting to edit it.

Also, if it's "WikiOs" - why the fu __do I need Windows?

<comment><USER7> It seems like whenever you give web users collaboration tools (with proper security/vandalism protection), they often exceed most expectations of what they can accomplish. If someone told you about Wikipedia before it went online, could you have guessed it would grow to be the resource it is today?

Granted, most of the people who use Wikipedia aren't article editors, but that's okay, and I could see most Wiki-OS users being there to just use the apps, with a minority of devoted developers. Personally, I think this is a really cool idea

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Congratulations on successfully crashing my GMA driver; I think that's the first time I got a BSOD in Windows 7 :)

Regardless, I think the real problems with the whole idea of a "web OS" are the fact that it doesn't actually do anything remotely OS-like (besides launching applications and interfacing with the browser) and that the market for a product like this is so crowded that you really need to innovate in order to stand out (frankly, wiki-based development isn't "enough").

However, I do think that the "wiki approach" to application development has some merit: personally, I would much rather see this concept being integrated into an existing open-source system like Linux, however, it would need to be able to play nicely with version control, among other things.

All in all, I think it's a good concept and an interesting approach, and I am looking forward to seeing what comes out of it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Didnt this get submitted a few months back - and I do recall seeing the same red message then...

EDIT: sorry wasn't trolling - I meant this identical message :) I had deja-vu. I only ask because I cant see a difference?

</comment><comment><USER10> I like the idea. I can't try it under Linux (even though it's .NET based? can it run on Mono?) So I'll just give you a few thoughts.

Security? If changes to apps are "instantly propagated to other users", what's to stop me from editing an app so that it grabs another user's personal data when they next run it? You probably want a model more like Github where anyone can fork and pull, but not push to other users.

YouOS was YC-funded and failed, right? Why did they fail and how are you going to do better?

</comment><comment><USER11> Pretty decent work for what it is, but nobody wants to develop for a so-called web OS. Instead of building a big thing that only exists to be a framework for other things, you'd do better building something that has usefulness on its own, but can also take advantage of your wiki-coding stuff.

I'd recommend taking your code-editor app and replacing the web-OS bit with that. Then, instead of OS-and-apps, you do editor-and-extensions, applying your wikiable-app stuff to the extensions.

Or, instead of an in-browser code editor extensible with a web ecology of C#, do a similarly extensible email/groupware app. Or a collaboration space a la Sharepoint/Clearspace.

Or hell, do HyperCard. A blank space for slapping down fields and buttons, writing code into them all, and packaging up the whole shebang into something that others can in turn include and build on.

Any of those'd be exciting. Web OSes, though? I already have an OS and it works fine.

"Make Something People Want."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link: <http://www.wiki-os.org/what_is_wiki_os.htm>

<comment><USER4> Nice trick to get around the double submission lock...

<comment><USER12> Well, one was a random submission from someone else, the other is a Ask HN for advice from the author.

That doesn't sound like abuse to me :-)

<comment><USER4> I didn't say it was abuse, just a nice trick. I was wondering why he didn't put the link in the submission at first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- chrome.exe - Unable To Locate Component \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- This application has failed to start because xpcom.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem. \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- OK \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

<comment><USER13> OK, just tried it on FF35 and IE7. IE7 gets a runtime error. FF loads and the UI comes up, but there's no text visible (on what looks like the "Start" menu, and a largish box with expandable bits on the right. Vista x64 in case that matters.

<comment><USER13> Sorry to keep talking to myself. I kept the FF window open and bizarrely, after reloading the IE (since I assumed that one _ought_ to work) the fonts showed up in the FF instance too.

Launched a few apps, and it seems that any fonts (/sizes?) that haven't been used by IE aren't visible in FF. (That's my W-A-G anyway)

<comment><USER13> Wow, this is really cool! I don't know what I need it for exactly, but it's quite impressive.

Intellisense in .cs editor please. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This looks like a pretty cool project, but the lack of Linux support is a deal killer for me.

How does it handle vandalism? It seems to me that vandalism could be a lot more devastating in this environment than in, say, Wikipedia.

<comment><AUTHOR> For most apps, such as a calculator or a 3D game, vandalism is not a very big problem because:

\- there is no sensitive data to steal

\- there is low motivation to vandalize (whereas some wikipedia articles are highly controversial)

\- it requires more effort to vandalize an application (the code is not saved if there is a syntax error) than to vandalize a Wikipedia article.

\- the sandbox in which the applications run ensures that the user's computer is not accessible from the application.

However, for applications that manipulate personal data, there is indeed a challenge. At present, sensitive portions of the OS require moderators approval in order to be modified. We are also working to implement code access security systems to address this issue. But for the time being, we indeed recommend not entering personal or sensitive information.

<comment><USER15> I am also a Linux user and have a few questions.

> there is no sensitive data to steal

What would I use this for? Is it simply a system to propagate programs to users? (Collaborative software development?) Will my data be on the WikiOS or on my hard drive?

> there is low motivation to vandalize (whereas some wikipedia articles are > highly controversial)

Motivation can not be predicted in advance. If I make a program, could not a competitor add a change that "accidentally" introduces a security hole?

> sensitive portions of the OS require moderators approval in order to be > modified

What would you define as sensitive?

> We are also working to implement code access security systems to address > this issue.

What is your planned security model?

I like the fact that its is sandboxed from the host. Can a program on the WikiOS interact with host programs and if so, to what degree?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Will my data be on the WikiOS or on my hard drive?

The sandbox allows for OpenFileDialog and SaveFileDialog, so you can directly access user-specified files on the hard drive.

There is also an online storage, but it is currently in the alpha stage. For the moment we recommend using the open/save dialogs and work with local files.

> If I make a program, could not a competitor add a change that "accidentally" > introduces a security hole?

A competitor may indeed commit acts of vandalism, just like on any other web 2.0 site. However, we work hard to ensure that such illegal acts cannot - <USER2> design of the system - lead to security holes.

> What would you define as sensitive?

Currently, all the classes that are involved in the boot sequence (from the startup to the moment you see the desktop) are marked as "critical" and can only be modified by moderators. Furthermore, the "Code Editor" and the "History" applications are also marked as "critical" so that it is always possible to undo vandals changes.

> Can a program on the WikiOS interact with host programs and if so, to what > degree?

No, a program on Wiki-OS cannot interact with programs running on the host machine, except through the OpenFileDialog, the SaveFileDialog, and a few other very controlled features of the sandbox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Seem pretty cool to me. I've never really toyed around in the WebOS development space, so I'm not really sure what your competition looks like.

I'm a bit rusty, but I spent a little bit writing a Font Dialog and modifying the default Notepad to use it. I think the entire premise of allowing users/devs to edit and create apps is a really great idea.

My feedback so far would be more documentation of the Core classes, unless those are intentionally off limits for now, and figuring out how to clean up the dozens of test apps cluttering up the menus. :)

</comment><comment><USER17> What's the point of this? Which need does it solve? Why should I use it?

</comment><comment><USER18> listed as open source, I cannot find it anywhere. there a project/contributions page?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you can access the list of projects and contributions by clicking "Edit Project..." from the "Applications" menu inside Wiki-OS.

For example, the window manager and the taskbar source code can be found in the project named "WindowManager".

You can also see the list of contributions (sorted by date) by launching the "History" application. For the list of changes of a specific project, open a project in the Code Editor and then click "Social" -> "View history of changes".

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Call me old school, but I don't like having desktop environment in a browser (webtop sounds fine to me) to be called an OS. An OS is much more than that.

</comment><comment><USER20> I added word wrap to notepad! (well, less the horizontal scrollbar... a quick web search shows that is bugged in Silverlight) I'm not sure if simply saving it counts as publishing it, or what?

That was surprisingly easy and fun. I think you've got something here, but it clearly has a long way to go.

</comment><comment><USER21> \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- Core Error \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- There was an error in "Core.Dynamic.LoadType": Could not load file or assembly '<https://www.wiki-os.org/Components/RootXAMLControl.dll> or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.

Please report the error to the administrators. \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- OK \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

</comment><comment><USER22> Since the Vista-esque frames around the windows are proprietary content you'll need to redo them before deployment unless you're fond of Microsoft lawsuits.

</comment><comment><USER22> You can tell it's still early in development, but even now it works better than Linux!

(ducks)

<comment><USER23> So you tried it on linux, and it didn't work?!!! :-P</comment></comment>


Scholarly Publishing and its Discontents - <AUTHOR> http://www.joshuagans.com/scholarly-publishing-and-its-discontents/ <comment><AUTHOR> Central proposal on p. 98: "What if, instead, knowledge was unbundled from the start and embedded in how researchers actually develop their knowledge? This is essentially what happens with computer code , where programmers are encouraged to use GitHub for their own repository and versioning processes. Imagine that instead of code, it was the experiments, observations, calculations, and so on, that researchers stored. They could then release those units for "forking" and development by others — all with attribution and updating built in. From that base, they could then write their journal articles linking straight back to the primordial elements of their own and others' research. It is easy at a high level to think about how knowledge could be unbundled, but once a framework is developed, then graduate students who were learning and reading past knowledge would be encouraged to translate their own information into the new framework. The knowledge could be freed from the bounds of journals without undermining all the curation and attribution work that goes with them. And at the same time, a searchable database that is open by design would exist not for articles, pages, or PDFs, but for the knowledge itself."</comment>