Tuning Concurrent Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/12/08/WF-Tuning-Clojure

<comment><USER2> As a Python programmer who has heretofore found Clojure very favorably designed, this is a little disheartening. I haven't programmed in a functional language yet; Python has served me really well for most everything, and C/C++ has always covered gaps where I need a little speed boost.

Yet I've always seen functional languages as a real fundamental approach that seems really elegant in theory. I have "Programming Clojure" on my Christmas list. Something about functional languages' elegance makes me really want to have a functional language succeed long-term. But every single functional language I've seen so far seems to miss the mark in seemingly important ways: Erlang with its syntax and purported string issues; Common Lisp (et. al) with its fragmented variants (so I hear); etc.

I would really like to see a great functional language _executed well_. You know, the whole deal: speed, interoperability, diverse libraries, concurrency...

Maybe Clojure is it, and it just has warts to iron out. Maybe the obtuseness that Tim Bray described here is just not "the way to do it". I hope that functional languages aren't inherently more difficult to work with than, say, Python.

I haven't worked with any of these functional languages yet, so granted I probably shouldn't be complaining. I know that with more experience in the languages I'd probably get a better understanding of how they excel -- and, unfortunately, where they don't.

Just... nothing seems to hit the sweet spot as well as Python and Javascript has, for me. I guess that's an unrealistic expectation for not having actually _worked with_ functional languages.

I want a functional language to _feel_ as smooth as Python. (If that just requires more experience and familiarity, fine. But I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the code demonstrated here could seem as clear to a Lisp expert as Python equivalents would feel to a Python programmer.)

Are the issues Tim found in this post actually just caused by lack of experience, or is this really how the language gets down to feel? I'd love to hear what lisp (clojure or not) folks can share.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haskell is the obvious alternative. It is a very elegant functional language that is, in my opinion, executed well. Does it fit into your list of languages that miss the mark. If so, in what ways?

I also really like Clojure at the moment but have programmed in Haskell in the past and found there was much to recommend it. If you are genuinely looking for a good functional language you would be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't take a serious look at Haskell.

<comment><USER3> how is haskell the obvious choice? The parent poster talks about clojure & python -- 2 dynamically typed languages. It's going to be a world of difference moving to a statically typed one.

<comment><AUTHOR> The change in typing is not really much of a jump when you realise that Haskell's type inference means you don't have to declare too many type signatures up front. A lot of type signatures in Haskell code are not technically necessary and are usual there for documentation.

For example, this is perfectly valid Haskell code and doesn't mention a single type:

        factorial n = if n > 0 then n * factorial (n-1) else 1

The bigger conceptual shift will be from Python's mainly procedural style to Haskell's (or Clojure's) very strong emphasis on a functional style.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm really enjoying this series. Definitely getting down and gritty with what Clojure is really capable of (and all the other languages he's tried). Of all the articles I've read on concurrent programming and the languages that promise new ways to handle it, I find the Wide Finder series the most pragmatic and concrete.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say that the article gets down to the nitty gritty of what Clojure is capable at all. It's a great series about a high profile hacker having a go at what I think is a great new programming language.

For a down and gritty analysis of Clojure optimization you're better served reading Christophe Grand's posts. Or even my own fast but butt ugly optimization of Uncle Bob's Jarvis March- [http://github.com/swannodette/convex- hull/blob/master/convex...](http://github.com/swannodette/convex- hull/blob/master/convex_hull.clj) where I use macros to inline everything.

His version ran in 25s, mine in about 0.5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd really like to see a Common Lisp solution to the wide finder sometime (in case any lisper is really bored and feels like cranking one out :D )

</comment><comment><USER7> I am shaking my head in dismay.

Reduce is a loop. Rewriting all of your loop code as reduce won't get you any performance gains. If anything you will lose performance over looping because you are now passing stuff to a function and it is getting boxed.

Why is he splitting all of the lines with a #"\n" regex? there are perfectly good methods for reading something line-by-line in a number of places (in both java and clojure).

I like Tim Bray and anyone who writes about clojure or lisp, but I feel like I'm tripping on acid here.

<comment><USER8> Reduce is actually faster than using loop/recur normally IME. Probably at least in part due to chuncked seqs which map and reduce among other functions can take advantage of.

Most of the built in clojure functions are better optimized than doing things by hand yourself.

<comment><USER7> Reduce /IS/ a loop: (from clojure.core)

([f val coll] (let [s (seq coll)] (if s (if (chunked-seq? s) (recur f (.reduce (chunk-first s) f val) (chunk-next s)) (recur f (f val (first s)) (next s))) val)))

It follows that I can use chunks in a loop... chunking and looping are not mutually exclusive.

It also happens to be the case that reduce is a function call, and (AFAIK) that you can't use transients (like conj!) or make use of unboxed values.

This is an issue, as such, one should still loop for best performance.

<comment><USER5> If I'm not mistaken chunking is only supported on some of Clojure's data structures. Reduce is certainly the better option with vectors (and maps?) if you write your own loop/recur you'll simply be duplicating the existing implementation.

Also I really can't imagine using loop/recur on anything except for vectors and maps most of the time anyway, so why not just use reduce?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google is using nix! - kalium-xyz https://github.com/google/nixery <comment><AUTHOR> _This is not an officially supported Google project._

<comment> kalium-xyz At least someone at google is using Nix c:</comment></comment>


Show HN: Ryeboard 0.95 – A Personal Workplace for Your Ideas - <AUTHOR> https://www.ryeboard.com/?ref=hackernews <comment><USER2> If this could integrate with Asana (not an ideal platform in many ways, but what my workplace uses to track projects) I'd be sold. I want integration!!!! Great idea, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot!

Yea, we'll look into how users are synergizing Ryeboard with different products and see how we can make that process smoother :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks similar to [https://www.milanote.com/](https://www.milanote.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, and they've got a great product over there!

We're aiming to differentiate by bringing more traditional whiteboard elements to the game (like free-drawing) and keeping boards separate unlike Milanote's board-in-board system!

<comment><USER3> Yeah I just saw your producthunt post and I guess you get that a lot, I'll give it a try on a future project.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sweet sauce! Hope you'll have a good time with it :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is now a good time to snap up cheap tickets for future flights? - <AUTHOR> https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/155135/101 <comment><USER2> if you buy the flights on a credit card then you have an extra layer of protection of the airline folds, at least in the EU, not sure how protection works elsewhere but given that Visa and MasterCard are US companies I imagine there is similar level of protection for purchases.</comment>


Someone Just Edited Seth Rich's Reddit Posts - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/someone-just-edited-seth-richs-reddit-posts-b5f185b0aab <comment><USER2> Can someone explain what this means please? The blog post is really badly written and winds around and about without explaining clearly what appears to have happened.

<comment><USER3> It's crankery out of the right-wing epistemic closure, regarding a Democratic National Committee staffer murdered in an attempted robbery. It started with blogs and the self-reinforcing YouTube circle and has progressed now to Fox News, which has promulgated some _real amazing_ claims about said crankery from an "independent investigator" (actually a Fox News contributor) and who continued to do so even after that contributor retracted them and claimed that Fox misrepresented him.

Rich's family has denounced the cranks at length. (Surprise.)

The Wikipedia page is even-handed and probably gentler to the cranks than deserved: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow this was buried fast.

<comment><USER5> Users flagged it. That's usually the explanation.</comment></comment>


Virgin Galactic moves on from crash, debuts flashy new spaceship - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/virgin-galactic-moves-on-from-crash-debuts-flashy-new-spaceship/ <comment><USER2> TL;DR: rebuild it just as it was with a little safety pin to prevent the exact error that caused the crash.

Nothing flashy whatsoever.</comment>


Outsource Tasks, GMail, Yahoo!, ZipCar, etc to India - $30/mo - Coupon BETA for a free month - <AUTHOR> http://www.asksunday.com

<comment><USER2> I've got a different capital intensive idea that could be very profitable. It's in biotech which has a lot of things that truly are capital intensive, like proving product safety to the government.

Synthesize 7-hydroxy-mitragynine and get it approved by the FDA for the treatment of severe chronic pain. It takes many millions of dollars but there's an enormous market for a new painkiller that is as powerful as fentanyl and measurably less addictive.

Oxycontin is pretty much taboo after the enormous settlement they paid. There's always money in the legal drugs business. The patent holder for formulations of 7-hydroxy-mitragynine would need to be much more responsible about marketing than the Oxycontin suppliers. Mitragynine alkaloids are atypical opiates that are less addictive than the opiates in the poppy plant.

7-hydroxy-mitragynine is the main active alkaloid in kratom, but kratom is not currently approved for sale as a drug or supplement in America. Getting it approved as a supplement would take millions which no kratom vendor other than wholesaleshamanicherbs has.

</comment><comment><USER3> It may be worth noting that other well-established companies like Your Man In India have been offering remote personal assistant services for some time. Timothy Ferriss' "The 4-Hour Work Week" has an entire chapter on how to outsource your life to India. Pretty entertaining. $30/mo is an attractive price point, though.

<comment><USER4> I tried something similar a while back.

Results were quite lackluster.

Perhaps these companies make the service much more enticing by providing necessary training on the other side of the world?

From my experience:

Was paying an Indian guy $10/hour to find potential advertisers for one of my sites. (not rocket surgery by any means) It took the guy 1 hour (or so he says) to do what I could do in 15 minutes. That's a real rate of $40/hour, quite expensive for an entry-level American of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While USD $30 is only 1200 INR, one agent can probably handle more than six or seven clients.

</comment><comment><USER6> $30/mo=INR1200/mo

India is not that cheap yet ...

</comment><comment><USER2> Starting this company required a significant capital investment.

What's the best thing for someone with a capital intensive idea to do?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know too much about them (I'm about to sign up right now) but I think one could start a similar service on a YCombinator investment.

<comment><USER2> did you save the much longer post you had here before?

I think filling out a Y Combinator application for a company building a platform that allows the outsourcing of simple tasks that require an email/phone call would be a great exercise. That app would be the best place to put ideas about why an improved copy of this company could be very profitable/liquid.

Beyond personal assistants, you can create interchangeable overseas office workers.

Email's in my profile, anyone can email me that would like to collaborate on said app. I think we could try and build a demo screencast for YC app submission. We'd assign equity in any resulting company by using the Cambrian House model of defining specific tasks that give you a certain amount of equity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I wrote 12 paragraphs that you must have seen, but I then edited down to one sentence. It wasn't edited properly and I had no time to do it. The point of it was basically the same thing you just said.

(I apologize for the lack of editing) I don't know too much about them (I'm about to sign up right now) but I think one could start a similar service on a YCombinator investment. If I were to do something like this, I'd create the web site and back-end for customers, support agents, and admins so customers could sign up and store account info, agents see questions and customer history and could reply via the web site when they're done, and admins could track quality of service. You would have two or three founders answer the e-mails from other YCombinator companies to get a feel on the most-common requested tasks/services.

During a 1 month period after private launch where you track what people ask for, you would also code a system where only trusted agents would actually have access to the client's files, such as logging in to their yahoo! account, and then pass the data the user wanted to another support agent who specializes in generic, non-sensitive data who themselves could be outsourced eventually.

For example, when somebody asks for a Contact's map and directions in their Yahoo! account that they forgot to print out, an American would find that e-mail and send it to the 2nd level assistant who works for much less (on premises or outsourced) to finish the task.

After a few months, you'd identify higher-profit niches like those companies who use Google Office and cater to those companies via Google's API, setting higher prices and better/faster support. For example, transcribing a document via phone into Google Writely, making it look nice, saving it and attaching it to an e-mail via Google Mail. Eventually, you'd automate that aspect, too.

Another example might be listing a bunch of items on eBay every day from a spreadsheet with titles and descriptions pulled from similar items already on eBay.

Since the company, at root, would be a software company, it could come out with way more automation and plug-n-play support for latest API's than a regular staffing company.

The benefit to society is that any foreign person who wants to improve their life and have a computer job, and save customers time and money, will be able to be plugged into the system.

The fun of life is to improve, not to have. Americans would outsource to Indians. Indians could use this to outsource to others. The buck might be passed down to those who use the $100 laptops in undeveloped countries eventually.

Everybody learns, everybody improves, everybody focuses on productivity, not face-time.

Those for whom the dollar would make a big difference, proudly earn money, buy clean water, move to a city, etc, and start their own competitive businesses. Those for whom saving 30 minutes is more important than a few dollars also benefit. Everybody advances.

Instead of getting money from charities, those in 3rd world countries would learn math and computer skills by working for their money which goes a long way. Giving somebody a buck doesn't teach them anything. On the other hand, very few people in America don't have access to clean water, or things like that. Instead of spending an hour researching a good $1,000 television to buy, people could save that time and pay $5-20 for the research. All of a sudden, you just helped someone pay their electric and internet bill for the entire month, and all without the hassles of charities or needing to be rich to make a change in the world.

You'd get bought out by Google for 50 million dollars by March of next year. What do you think, pg and paul?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


IOS 7 has weak random number generator. - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/16/ios_7_has_weak_random_number_generator

<comment><USER2> I know little about RNGs -- but wouldn't it be practical to run about 3 RNGs with different algorithms in parallel, and add their results? Surely that would be a lot harder to attack than any one RNG.

Ditto if you start with the RNG output and apply even a simple transformation to it. After all, if you start with a pseudo-random-number and apply to it an isomorphism from the valid number set to itself, you should wind up with something that's still pseudo-random.

<comment><USER3> The old crypto literature has lots of ways of combining RNGs to make better ones (for some values of "better"). You're generally better off just designing one with known properties.

<comment><USER2> I was thinking of it as a way of protecting against design flaws. Similarly, I think -- and Ed Snowden recently said the same thing -- that for max security one should wrap things in a sequence of different kinds of cryptography.

And by the way, not all parts have to be individually robust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Random numbers don't always need to be cryptographically secure. In situations like games you might just want to use a function with low resource requirements.

If you want a cryptographically secure random generation you should use SecRandomCopyBytes(3) which I think comes from an isolated hardware random number generator and should be tough to monitor through software.

Disclaimer: I'm not sure if what I'm saying is true</comment>


Kickstarter employees vote to unionize - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8pp5/kickstarter-employees-win-historic-union-election <comment><USER3> 1\. Why do tech workers need a union?

If you want to improve your workplace, you have additional leverage to fight for changes if you're in a union. There's often very little you can do alone. This might be things like pay, or it might be something else entirely.

2\. But aren't tech workers elite coddled rich kids who are lucky to make what they receive?

I mean, no. But even if so, high pay doesn't stop athletes from joining a union. Folks who run these companies are even more elite than the person who codes. Why not negotiate for a better workplace? Why be a weak negotiator? Isn't that especially important to do when you have flexibility to go somewhere else?

3\. Why don't they just leave their job?

Some issues are systemic across an industry. Additionally, some people like to improve their jobs rather than just leave. People are wired differently. Creating lasting change at a company can be rewarding. Some also care about the mission of the company they work for.

<comment><USER4> Just in terms of salary isn't an union somewhat contradictory to the engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we'd like to think that the good ideas win and impact and outcome matters. We hold up the 10x engineers and those that make an outsized contribution to the industry / company / product right? Shouldn't they get higher compensation compared to the rest of the work force? How do we square that with collective bargaining that has set salaries and annual increases?

<comment><USER5> > Just in terms of salary isn't an union somewhat contradictory to the > engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we'd like to think that the good > ideas win and impact and outcome matters. We hold up the 10x engineers and > those that make an outsized contribution to the industry / company / product > right?

Not necessarily. I'd imagine that a union could negotiate its pay-scales any way it likes, which could take into account "meritocracy" in many different ways. That could include ideas that are totally foreign to existing for-profit company practices, such as a peer-controlled meritocratic bonus implemented via the union itself.

> Shouldn't they get higher compensation compared to the rest of the work > force? How do we square that with collective bargaining that has set > salaries and annual increases?

Here's a hypothetical: In a non-union shop, regular engineers get paid $100k, while 10x engineers get paid 120k. In a union shop all engineers get paid $150k. Should the engineers reject a union so the 10x engineers can get paid more than regular engineers, even though that means everyone makes less?

Also: Are the 10x engineers the people management chooses to pay more? Is management good at recognizing merit? When they recognize it, do they choose to compensate it accordingly? Or do they make the good business decision, and pay the meritorious employees the minimum amount of money they'll be happy with. For some 10x engineers, that could be 2x salary. For other 10x engineers, that could be 1.05x salary. For some 10x engineers, that could be _0.75x_ salary.

<comment><USER6> While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150? I think people will have a hard time with that. I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this. Is there some desire that most people have to be that stellar performer and get that extra compensation, which might make them not want to Unionize so they can try? Would also be curious as to how the breakdown in these votes go. Are the people already better off (well above mean compensation) less likely to vote for Unionization?

<comment><USER5> > While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for > everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask > them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150?

I think that one key aspect of your comment is that you're taking about _a_ 10x. Which can be generalized into a question: should a solution be rejected if it leaves a well-off minority less well-off than they are now, regardless of how much good it may do otherwise?

I, personally, think the answer to that general question is no. That answer may be hard to swallow if you're part of that well-off minority, but I don't think that changes the truth of the matter.

However, that doesn't mean that a union would or should force that guy to take a pay cut.

> I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get > incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and > not more. I am curious what other people think on this.

I feel that people will always want more money regardless. I also feel that compensation is actually a poor motivator for performance. I think the real motivators for performance are internal factors (such as a desire to improve oneself, to avoid annoyance with badly made things, or to be challenged rather than bored).

Personally, I think once you make enough money, the extra compensation is more a form of recognition than anything else. Recognition doesn't _have_ to be in the form of money, it's just that a souless corporation only cares about money, so money is the only way you can extract recognition from it.

<comment><USER6> Generally I think I agree. The well-off minority should not hold back changes for the betterment of the majority. I just wonder how that gets executed cleanly.

And you are right, compensation is definitely a form of recognition, and perhaps there are better ways to do it. Just not sure how you bestow that recognition in some reasonable way. So what other form of recognition conveys your actual value to a company? What else can be done here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Coming from a public accounting background, I've seen a variety of businesses. Somewhat obviously, I've seen some be successful with unions and others be successful without, which makes sense, as unions are neither inherently good nor bad. They are a tool which can change the power dynamic and incentive structure of workers and employers throughout an organization, but there is nothing inherent about having a union that guarantees ineffective operations, just as the absence of a union does not indicate that employees are getting shafted.

Generally speaking for well run, ethical companies, whose management actively try to do the right thing, unions add unnecessary redundancy and bureaucracy. When there is a sense of trust between employer and employee, communication flows between employees and managers, employee working conditions are safe and healthy, and compensation is reasonably fair. For companies that are shady and treat employees poorly, unions help enforce structured communication and transparency between managers and employees.

Usually I look for symptoms of bad management when hearing about employees who want to unionize. In tech, we can generally assume reasonable working conditions and pay, so Kickstarter unionizing screams "toxic management" for me, personally. I haven't heard management's defense, but ultimately the burden is on management to convince a majority of its employees that they don't need a union. Clearly they haven't, and given how easy it is to appease developers, this is particularly damning.

<comment><USER8> > Generally speaking for well run, ethical companies, whose management > actively try to do the right thing, unions add unnecessary redundancy and > bureaucracy.

The only type of "well run, ethical companies" where unions are redundant are _worker-owned cooperatives_. Otherwise, an employer, regardless of how ethical they are, can never replicate the most critical aspect of unions: __collective bargaining rights __. Sure, an employer can essentially just implement the kind of benefits that would be negotiated by a union, but it does not replace the fact that until a union exists employees have essentially no means to collectively demand changes to compensation and working conditions unless they _unionize_.

<comment><USER9> Bargaining rights don't come for free. At the end of the day, unless you are the owner of the company or union leaders, you are basically serving two masters.

<comment><USER10> That's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Without a union or being a high-skilled worker, you are 100% serving your corporate overlord. In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way around. With a good union you are serving yourself in a far more significant way than without the union.

<comment><USER11> > In well-run unions the leadership serves the membership, not the other way > around.

Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves the people" etc? That's certainly true _in theory_...

I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management".

Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.

<comment><USER10> > Isn't that a bit much like "in a well-run republic, the government serves > the people" etc? That's certainly true in theory...

Surely one has to prefer theoretical upside over the certainty of servitude.

> I have no experience with US unions, but I am, thanks to a previous job, > very well acquainted with most of the major unions in Germany on multiple > levels. The further up you go, the more corruption you will find. They are > run as cross-overs between political party and corporation, with large > salaries for the executives, networks deciding over promotions and mostly > based on political & personal affiliation, not on merit. They tend to say > "we have to see eye-to-eye with management to negotiate", which roughly > translates to "we have to be paid as well as upper management".

I have no first-hand experience with German unions, so I won't comment beyond observing that in either case, the issue comes down to a lack of a meritocratic reward structure. Unions are neutral on that front, it all comes down to the laws and culture. American unions were born out of capitalist greed run amok, so they tend to be pretty antagonistic and confrontational. I get the impressions that German unions are more of a cooperative with capital to ensure work stoppages are minimized.

> Don't get me wrong, I'd probably still recommend joining a union if you're > starting out today, but I wouldn't give you any of that ideological crap. > It'll get you more pay, and you'll have a lawyer for any issues with your > job. Do it, don't tell anyone about it (illegal or not, if you apply for a > job, they will look you up and if you're known for being active in a union, > they will not hire you), and keep your head down, because they can also make > your life hell if you get on their bad side or insult some local boss.

I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological, and I don't personally feel an ideological bent toward unions. I wouldn't personally join one because I don't need it, but a union would benefit most of the developers I know from a practical standpoint. Getting on the bad side of the union is no different than getting on the bad side of an executive - at least with a union you have 2 centers of gravity to pull on instead of one.

<comment><USER12> "certainty of servitude" -> "I didn't think my statement was particularly ideological"

Have the self-awareness to concede that describing 'a job' particularly in high tech which can pay quite well and has great conditions, is tantamount to servitude is effectively ideological.

<comment><USER10> Why do the salary and conditions matter? Either you are ownership or you serve their interests in exchange for money. There is nothing ideological about calling a thing what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Congrats to the Kickstarter folks. Here's hoping this is the turn towards increased workers rights in the tech sector.

Yes, this sector tends to pay fairly well, but that doesn't mean there aren't other areas to improve. From IP restrictions to overtime, oncall to transparency in promotions, there are countless workplace conditions I hear about needing to improve constantly.

<comment><USER14> transparency in promotions?

<comment><USER13> In a lot of companies there's a sense that the promotion process is secret, unfair, or doesn't evaluate everyone equally. Especially at big tech companies (at Amazon, for instance, I often heard a sense that it was 'impossible' to get to L6. Additional transparency can help people understand why they are/are not moving to the next level.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Speaking as an IAM union member, congratulations! now comes the hard part.

You're probably (still) going to hear a lot of FUD from your employer but dont worry, things really do only get better from here. Once you get a union youll get more quarterly insight into your companies profits, losses, and a MUCH better picture of what the company intends to do in the next six to twelve months. Youll also get a direct say in almost anything you think will help the business. Im not just talking about a suggestion box for the snack-o-matic, but real input to people with actual power.

the hard part is the election period. Kickstarter is going to pull out ALL the stops to change your mind. youll get harassing phone calls at night, weird letters in email, meetings intended for one thing but that end up as an anti- union rant (EX: Safety meetings that turn into anti-union propaganda immediately) and of course lots, and lots, of direct mail from people and organizations no ones heard of outside a union busters office. Youll also get invited to a ton of after-work "pow wow" or "support" groups that sound like they are union related, but arent. Keep your eyes on the prize, ignore the fliers on your windshield, and vote.

<comment><USER16> I just formed a company back in December. Super easy to set up an LLC, C or S Corp. But I wanted it to be a worker co-op like Mondragon. And there's no real guidance or help.

Democracy is cool, until we look at companies. Then it's dictatorships as the norm. And trying to do it right from the ground up is high impossible.

As a obligatory comment: are there any other in the HN-sphere that focuses on worker cooperatives?

<comment><USER17> > Democracy is cool, until we look at companies. Then it's dictatorships as > the norm.

Democracy is a horribly inefficient system of government. Its only redeeming quality is that it seems effective at (so far) deterring tyranny and abuse of power.

However, like I said, it's horribly inefficient. Changes that are easy to make under a dictatorship can be extremely hard to make under a democracy. Not exactly a quality you would want for a project or company, especially if you (the founder) have a vision.

IMO, part of the reason Linux and Python were so successful was that they had a "benevolent dictator" with a strong vision. Imagine the gridlock that would occur with Linux development if we had a 2-party system that polarized on controversial issues and got mired at every vote.

<comment><USER18> Democracy is also a system that produces BETTER decisions. Sure tyranny can make decisions "efficiently" but that's not that great when those decisions are terrible.

Democracy: Fewer macro, more micro, better decisions

Command-Control: More macro, fewer micro, terrible decisions.

EDIT: Another way to think of democracy is "distributed decision making" vs command-control which is "centralized decision making". When I talk about democracy, I mean distributed decision making.

<comment><USER19> I expect you're being downvoted because your statement is so obviously wrong. Democracies have consistently made horrifying decisions. Take a read through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)

<comment><USER20> As have monarchies and dictatorships. So where does that leave us? The conclusions that all forms of government make horrifying decisions?

<comment><USER21> I like to think that a democracy and good decision making are not particularly correlated. But democracy is technology for preventing violent revolution because power change is built into the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I worked in a union shop once, as a summer intern.

Every day, we were told to be in the break room at 7:59am to begin promptly at the 8am bell. By 4:30 or 4:45pm, everyone was back in there, waiting for the clock to hit 5pm.

One day, I needed to connect two PCs together, which was approved by boss as they would be isolated from the network. So, being the diligent type, I went off and found some network cards and a cable to do this.

About the time I had one PC opened up and was installing the NIC, one of the local IT guys dropped by and told me "You can't do that." 'Why not?', I asked. "That's not your job.", he replies.

Not "you're not qualified", not "you're not taking the proper ESD protection steps" (was wearing a grounding tape strap), etc. This boiled down to the union job classification, which said that I couldn't open up a PC to put in a network card.

Unions, in my experience, exist to help keep mediocre, unmotivated employees employed. One has no incentive to excel, as promotions are based on years "served", much like prison.

I got my degree, went to work for a start-up where ambition and taking on responsibility are appreciated and rewarded. I never looked back...

<comment><USER23> A friend of mine worked as a developer at defense contractor with mostly union employees. One time they moved him to a different cubicle. Due to union work rules he literally had to wait two days for a union electrician to come by and plug his desktop computer into the wall socket. Just ridiculous.

<comment><USER24> Was that "union rules" or "the way the company had agreed to comply with their agreement with the union"? Because 'work to rule' can be a double-edged sword, and in my experience companies just _love_ to blame their own chosen behavior on the union. "We have to fire you if you're late five times this quarter, because the union" really means "after we frequently and arbitrarily abused employees under the excuse of 'attendance' the union insisted we have a uniform attendance standards and this is what we came up with".

<comment><USER25> That's still "union rules". If the union chose to be pedantic and insisted upon these rules in negotiation, then it's really the union's fault.

<comment><USER26> This is really a problem of unintended consequences. And it's not "union rules", it's a collective agreement that both the union and management sign off on. Union shop or not, we can all point at absurdities in work life - <USER2> as many come from management in my experience (which doesn't include much work with unions).

It's a bit like the tax code or some complicated piece of bureaucracy. Some of the stuff in there sure seems stupid but you can bet it was put in for a reason that, at the time at least, looked sensible. In the case of things like "only an electrician is allowed to do that", it's a pretty safe bet that at some point in the past management tried to do an end run around the agreement and have cheaper labor do something they weren't trained or compensated for. In the US at least the system is so adversarial you end up with hard lines being drawn on both sides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Congratulations to everyone at Kickstarter!

All workers deserve a voice in their workplace and that's exactly what the solidarity of a union provides.

</comment><comment><USER28> > That dynamic doesn't reflect who we are as a company, how we interact, how > we make decisions, or where we need to go. We believe that in many ways it > would set us back, and that the us vs. them binary already has.

What a shameful statement.

Kickstarter has a so-so 3.6 on Glassdoor, and a sub-50% CEO approval rating. A lot of reviews talk about a secretive, insulated management group.

You don't see companies with 4.5+ stars on Glassdoor unionizing.

So I'd have to ask their leadership: who made this an "us versus them" situation? Perhaps your local superstore sells handheld mirrors.

You don't want your employees to unionize? Offer highly competitive salaries, benefits, and opportunities to grow. Treat employees like real people you care about and avoid turning the C-level suite into a force of secrecy, discrimination, and exclusion.

<comment><USER29> > Kickstarter has a so-so 3.6 on Glassdoor

Glassdoor's ratings are not terribly reliable. Here's something I wrote previously about my own experience with using it:

\-----

I left a poor review for an employer only one time in the 10 years or so I've been on Glassdoor (there were only a couple other reviews). And almost immediately after, there were about 20 or 30 5 star reviews posted in a short amount of time. The company only had about that many employees, which proves that the CEO (or someone at the top) either told everyone to write a good review, or some of them were fake, both clearly 'incentivized' by any sane definition of the term. I reported this to Glassdoor and they refused to do anything about it, and I even had the report escalated and re-reviewed, without any effect.

<comment><USER30> One of my past employers did something like this. We had some negative reviews from job candidates that weren't hired. At an all hands our CEO encouraged everyone to leave _honest_ feedback on Glassdoor. A lot of employees did, bumping our score up. It wasn't dishonest or misleading, all of the reviews were real.

<comment><USER29> Reviews are supposed to be from people who worked at the company, so if they were from rejected candidates they are fake reviews. If the company wouldn't remove the fake reviews, that further proves my point that the Glassdoor ratings are not reliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a contractor, I'm happy for them. One day we will have one big union.

<comment><USER32> As a contractor, I am happy to have absolutely nothing to do with unions.

<comment><USER33> You can be a contractor with your own S-corp and still get the same benefits as union members if you are in an industry that has union workers like SAG.

[https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out- company/](https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out-company/)

<comment><USER32> > same benefits as union members if you are in an industry that has union > workers like SAG

I have an LLC operating for tax purposes as an s-corp. I can't think of any benefits a union would give me that I couldn't otherwise get for myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > " _inherently adversarial_ "

Given that the employer-employee relationship--or indeed any vendor-customer relationship--is already inherently adversarial, _and_ its power balance is skewed in favor of the employer for everyone but the most highly-skilled of laborers, one might naturally expect that laborers might cartelize to improve their bargaining position.

The "us versus them" binary arises as a consequence of typical corporation management structure. One of the best ways to avoid it is by giving the employees an actual stake in the success of the company as a whole. Pay them in stock, or give bonuses based on meeting the company goals. Employees with zero stake are more likely to find any lever they can use to pry more of the value that they provide to the company out of its owners.

</comment><comment><USER35> I would love to understand the dynamic better, so please correct me here or chime in.

Tech is has one of the best combinations of (lucrative + meritocratic) I've seen. Fields that pay similarly or better (law, medicine, investment banking) require either significant time-consuming credentials or significant time investment as an underlying (like IB analyst).

The interview process does require intensive preparation to land a top spot. However, your compensation package increases proportionately to the preparatory time. From the mind of a top performer, wouldn't you want to seek out the best of the best, rather than settling for median wage? It seems like unionizing will encourage the top workers to leave while the below-average to stay, dragging down the overall talent pool.

<comment><USER36> I don't know how you can fail to see how an organised and unified workforce will always benefit all workers in a firm. Pitting 'top performers' against the rest, scaremongering about 'lazy workers' etc. just divides the workforce and allows management/owners to exploit/underpay workers as a whole. The company would not be able to function/make as good a profit as it does without ALL workers contributing. If a worker truly is lazy/not pulling their weight, they get fired. A union doesn't stop that. A union is a unified voice for workers that can demand rightfully, better working conditions, better pay, better benefits.

This fiction that somehow tech workers should avoid unions because their pay is so well is utter corporate propaganda. The money won't always be this good people, especially as more and more are told to enter the industry. I know HackerNews is an entrepreneurial haven but it's funny to me how people here, with all their technical wisdom, are so blind to any benefits to workers and aversion to anything seen as 'socialist'.

<comment><USER25> >I don't know how you can fail to see how an organised and unified workforce will always benefit all workers in a firm.

Because historically it hasn't in the US. Unions end up implementing a seniority-based compensation/benefits scheme and there is nothing given to employees who outperform everyone else. This even fosters an environment where top performers are discouraged by their peers for "making everyone else look bad".

<comment><USER37> > This even fosters an environment where top performers are discouraged by > their peers for "making everyone else look bad".

You don't need a union for this. Most large companies that do software (not the FAANGs, but the non-tech-first ones) generally don't know what to do with top performers, because consistency and predictability is more valuable to them. Especially a top performer who's bad at politics so they come off as attacking whole other departments or teams.

A union won't fix it, but probably won't make it worse, in those places.

<comment><USER21> Someone who comes off as attacking other departments or teams is probably a toxic individual to work with. Even if they crank out good code quickly, at some point senior engineers are expected to influence others, and attacking others is not conducive to that.

As for rewarding top performers, most places have annual or biannual reviews where people are given bonuses based on individual and company performance. The difference between underperforming and overperforming can be a lot of cash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm excited by this. I hope they utilize this as an opportunity to improve employee well-being and force the employer to treat issues like climate change as an actual hard requirement and not a "nice to have."

I think the only concern I have, which I've seen with a lot of unions, is that they can evolve to become an us vs. them mentality, which enables absolutely mediocre people to keep their jobs at the cost of everyone.

</comment><comment><USER39> I really don't understand this. A career in software is one of the most pampered and lucrative ones I can think of. Due to the shortage of software engineers, we can go anywhere and get a job instantly.

The only downside I can think of is ageism, but then again, I have colleagues in their 50s and 60s where I work. But I suppose this isn't universal. (I'm in Atlanta and we have a lot of older workers. Age doesn't seem to be a thing here.)

Yes, we're underpaid for the value we provide, but we're paid a hell of a lot more than most people. We have the flexibility to find new work or create our own businesses.

Why introduce a new level of politics and collective bargaining? I don't want to pay union dues. If I don't like where I'm working, I'll go somewhere else.

Can someone explain why I should want this? (Or why I should empathize with those who do?) I don't understand it at all.

<comment><USER28> Just look at their employee reviews. The management there seems toxic.

I implore you to also think twice about the way in which you are demonizing unions. Sure, some unions aren't the best, but what you're saying is 100% discounting the benefits that a union can bring to employees. Union dues can more than pay for themselves in wage negotiation. They can restrict overwork, unpaid overtime (see the special salaried overtime exemptions that IT employees and teachers get enshrined into US law), and unsafe working conditions.

Sure, unions have bureaucracy, but they have bureaucracy that is incentivized to increase outcomes for the employee and not the employer. You are directly paying the union to represent and fight for you.

The "go work somewhere else" solution isn't an equitable or realistic solution for many employees. That often equates to "I can go work somewhere else that's just as shitty."

Sure, life is nice for many tech employees right now, but what happens when the supply/demand situation inverts?

Tech employees often also have a very bad habit of pretending that more poorly compensated areas of their own company are enjoying the success in the same way. Ask someone in support or a junior graphic designer about what they think about the prospects of "working somewhere else."

<comment><USER40> >junior graphic designer

I don't think anyone says tech employee and is referring to graphic designers/anyone in that area.

99% sure anyone who hears tech employee is thinking software development.

EDIT: How on Earth can anyone downvote this statement? If you ask 10 people to name 10 tech companies, not one of them is going to pick a game studio.

<comment><USER41> Graphic designers work at most tech companies I've worked at, and I've never worked at a game studio. They definitely can be classified quite reasonably as tech employees.

Also, here in Montreal, most people's list of well-known local tech employers would absolutely include at least one or two of the many game studios here.

<comment><USER40> Be honest here.

What percentage of employees at Google/Apple/Microsoft do you think are "graphic designers", and what percentage are "software developers"?

Your argument to create a union is that the 1% of employees need protection. Honestly I agree video game industries could use a union. But the presence of a graphics designer at Google does not mean every employee needs to unionize.

<comment><USER41> Google has more software developers, no doubt, but still far more graphic designers than you seem to expect.

No, every employee at Google does not need to unionize. CEO Sundar Pichai certainly doesn't. But lots of Googlers have long wanted a union for good reason, including software developers. I would have happily voted yes in a union election when I was there, despite being a software developer myself.

I know of plenty of examples of misbehaviour and other harmful actions by Google toward software development employees, a number of which have been publicly reported. And the situation seems to have gotten worse since I left.

To be clear, Google is far from unique in this regard, and it's still probably a better employer than many of its peer companies. That just underscores how severe and widespread the problem is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Perhaps I'm jaded by my experience working for employers that support change and transparency, but I, for one, would immediately pack up and leave if any part of my firm's white collar workforce unionized. I have zero interest in participating in collective bargaining. I work hard to stand out, and I capitalize on that influence to negotiate raises and promote change on my own.

While I'm sure there are situations that merit such a decision, might I suggest that unionizing < finding another employer that meets your needs. The inability or lack of desire to do so indicates to me either fear of change or aversion to risk, both of which are unwarranted from anyone who is continually working to improve themself.

</comment><comment><USER43> Absolutely pathetic for both sides. If you don't like your white collar tech job, go somewhere else. It's not factory work where you're paid way less to do the same thing wherever you go. You make yourselves and your company look weak in doing this.

This is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of entitled pricks.

<comment><USER44> I on the other hand think that the comment as yours is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of entitled pricks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Is Kickstarter in a right-to-work state? Because if not, 46 people are forcing 37 to support a union that they might not agree with, which is distasteful in the extreme.

<comment><USER27> Thankfully, New York is not a right-to-work state.

<comment><USER45> So you are fine with the majority forcing the minority to support something they don't want to support? Never going to get behind that notion myself.

<comment><USER46> This is literally how democracies work.

<comment><USER47> Most democracies include, at the very least, a bunch of hand-wringing about oppression of minorities, though.

It would be unusual in the extreme for a modern western democracy that was 75% christian to force the 25% minority to convert.

<comment><USER48> Being in a union that protects your rights as a worker is more like insurance (which the majority indeed mandates the minority to get) than religion.

<comment><USER25> It's not insurance. It actively changes how you can be compensated and takes very hands-on interference with the operations of the company (in US unions at least).

<comment><USER48> As opposed to insurance, which has a huge influence on who you can go to and what your options are if you get sick, to the point that your choice of insurance may end up becoming a turning point in your life? I don't think I ever heard of someone's life turning on joining the wrong union.

So no, I don't really see the distinction. But my point was more that sometimes we are "forced" to do things for the benefit of the people around us, even if we don't really want to and don't personally think we need it. Unionizing is one of those things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> How do unions operate in organizations where voluntary turnover is relatively high? A small % of people in tech stay at one company for more than a couple of years. I guess there's nothing about a union that stops you from voluntarily quitting for something else in that case, other than paying whatever fee you pay for the time you do stay?

<comment><USER33> The model you are asking about is similar to SAG-AFTRA. This how actors work. This is the preferred model. Kickstarter employees should have used this as an opportunity to push for something like that.

The reason SAG started was because production companies made an agreement amongst themselves not to bid competitively for talent. (Remember that just ocurred in tech...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Will they publish the union agreement? Wow... we will go from job/salary comparison sites to sites comparing transparent union agreements.... That is a step up!

</comment><comment><USER50> I see a beautiful symphony here. The fact that this is discussed is to me a sign that enough people are feeling pressured and stressed, and sharing how the current systems don't work for them.

Through sharing we can reveal our hopes and frustrations.

Dialogue is step 1. It's a brave, difficult first step.

Bravo Hackernews community.

What ever pains people have, I'd like to ask them to try and see it as temporary growing pains. That maybe those who disagree with this development can see that others are sharing their unmet needs, as a request to help get help in getting those needs met. Exploring new strategies.

I believe we will make it through and come out stronger.

</comment><comment><USER51> good luck to them. I was part of a union and joined the negotiations board. come bargaining time, I was probably the most stressed I have ever been at a company ever. you learn just how little the company actually cares about you and everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER52> Well, now we have a natural experiment on the effect of unionization on a tech company. I look forward to monitoring the results over the next few months and years.

</comment><comment><USER53> Folks should really read this article to get more context on Kickstarter's history with unionization, it is truly bananas and not what you think:

[https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil- uni...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-union-drive- historic-tech-industry.html)

\- The first thing that jumped out at me was that the primary spark of conflict was NOT compensation or working conditions.

\- The main conflict was around a Kickstarter project "Always Punch Nazis", a project that gathered a few laughs among Kickstarter's largely liberal staff + management. When they faced right-wing political pressure to de-platform this project, since it technically violates their "do not incite violence" ToS, it triggered a ideological schism within the company.

\- Unionization seems to be largely about placing this kind of decision in the hands of the employees. This is somewhat consistent with Kickstarter's history of activism.

\- However, it's pretty uncharted territory here: Unionization that is not primarily motivated by distribution of wealth, but for the political soul of the company.

<comment><USER54> This is exactly it. After scrolling through so many of the comments it's crazy to see the _actual_ reason for unionising so far down the list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Somewhat tangential but perhaps of interest to anyone here curious about unions — the documentary American Factory [0] chronicles Fuyao Glass' creation of a factory in the US, and the subsequent attempts (and ultimate failure) of those workers to unionize.

[0]: [https://www.netflix.com/title/81090071](https://www.netflix.com/title/81090071)

<comment><USER21> It was interesting to see the lengths management went through to prevent a union from forming. The show ends with management getting excited about their now robotic arms. Robots don't unionize and complain about healthcare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Is it normal for unionization votes to have this kind of opposition? 56.6% doesn't seem like an overwhelming majority, so I'm curious to see how it plays out for all of the employees there.

It would be interesting as well to know how/if the vote was drastically different based on role - it sounds like this was a company-wide vote, which would necessarily include many more roles than just software engineers.

</comment><comment> L-four I never understood why employees in America need to vote to join a union. In Australia employees can join/leave unions at will.

</comment><comment><USER57> Professional guilds for maintaining industry-wide standards of competence and unions for corporate bargaining power.

Still waiting on the first one.

</comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if they'll be able to do anything about outsourcing jobs?

If they gain some advantage by being in a union but practically lose out due to outsourcing, what good would it be?

Do they have any options to protect against that scenario?

I recall a few years ago one of unis in SF outsourced many of their IT ops overseas. That is a progressive city also ships off jobs.

Is there any way to attenuate that?

</comment><comment><USER59> I don't see this playing out well for Kickstarter in the long-term.

</comment><comment><USER60> Anyone else think the phrasing in the title is a bit weird? Were there other people voting in this election who were _not_ Kickstarter employees? How can a group which makes up 100% of the electorate _not_ "win" an election? The outcome reflects the majority opinion, by definition.

<comment><USER45> Only 46 employees voted for the union, 37 against.

<comment><USER60> That's kinda my point. A significant percentage of employees were against unionization, so it seems rather odd to treat "Kickerstarter Employees" as a monolithic group who "won" the election. It'd be like announcing the results of a political election with the headline: "U.S. Voters Win Historic Presidential Election."

<comment><USER29> It seems odd to imply that the mainstream media is the gold standard on accurate reporting of national political news.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> > a historic win for unionization efforts at tech companies.

Kickstarter is a small company which isn't representative at all for other tech companies, so I doubt this will mean much for efforts at other companies. For example, a majority of their staff at every level are women (a quick glance at their linkedin shows that this is likely true for engineering roles as well) but that doesn't say anything about gender equality of the tech industry as a whole. It is very easy to make wins like this at small companies just by having random (or sometimes not so random) perturbations.

[https://qz.com/923957/kickstarter-is-teaching-the-tech- world...](https://qz.com/923957/kickstarter-is-teaching-the-tech-world-how-to- get-real-about-gender-equity-and-fair-pay/)

<comment><USER48> The fact that Kickstarter is unusual for a tech company does not make the fact that it was able to unionize any less historic. Keep in mind that it is far from the first tech company (small or not) to attempt to unionize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> For those who are curious this union drive was really started by extreme incompetence from upper management. The former CEO hired ineffective status- seekers (including the current CEO) into many positions of power which created a super toxic environment. Accountability for internal problems has been extremely low. The "Always Punch Nazis" controversy was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

People in the bay area may not understand that most people working at Kickstarter truly believe in the company's mission. The money is not great and we've been willing to accept that to feel like we're making a positive change in the world. Unfortunately upper management has used this (as well as Kickstarter's reputation) as a bargaining chip to treat employees poorly.

Source: I work at Kickstarter

<comment><USER63> But didn't the same management also decided to make the company a PBC instead of becoming billionaires by going public? That always felt to me like a signal that the management believed the mission too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Kickstarter prints money, so I don't think they'll be hurt too much by this.

I think that Kickstarter as a company could exist in its current form with little change for a long time. I wonder how the culture works around there.

</comment><comment><USER65> From my work at a major consulting company the way to fix this is to rebuild the offices over ~150miles away (the exact miles is NY law). Rehire all the positions and then let go of the employees in NY.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'm not going to express my opinion on unions because to be honest I don't know where I stand, but it's certainly interesting that the most talked about tech companies seem to be investing heavily in diversity and we hear from boards getting behind the idea that bringing different ideas to the table is positive, but when the new diverse crowd chooses to unionize this is taken as a bad surprise. Insert a surprised pikachu picture here, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER58> I want to know if their union contract does anything from preventing parent co from shipping jobs to places with less regulation and cheaper labor...

<comment><USER67> That will kill your company way, way faster than any union will.

<comment><USER68> How? In my country for example there is a surge of US companies setting shop here just to hire local devs, and a lot more hiring remote, when their products have presence only in the US. Each year the number keep increasing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Hospital doctors are unionized. Professors are unionized. Plumbers are unionized Dirt movers are unionized Police are unionized Figherfighters are unionized Public employees are unionized Teachers are unionized Actors are unionized the NBA is unionized the NFL is unionized the MLB is unionized the NHL is unionized And yet, software engineers should not be ?

<comment> pro-duct It being a common practice isn't relevant to whether it is best for this industry and its workers. I'm not saying I disagree, but your reasoning just doesn't support your argument

<comment><USER69> What makes software engineering different?

<comment><USER21> Many of us make more money writing software today than we could working one of those unionized jobs while having less credentialing (or not being in the top 1% like the sports players). Nothing on that list looks enviable to me.

<comment><USER69> You should actually look into those union careees and see how much they make. You'd be surprised.

<comment><USER21> There's no question that limiting the supply of labor in a job market increases its price. I just don't think it's worth the price. For unions there's an extra layer of overhead and union dues. For professional societies (like the AMA) there's an extra layer of credentialing and suspiciously low innovation.

But that's my assessment and I'm probably abnormal in my situation. I'm happy to be wrong though. If more companies form unions and these companies pay better, reward good performance more fairly, have less intrinsic bias, etc, then I'll be the first to jump ship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft had something akin to a union at least a decade ago. Any Microsofters here?

<comment><USER71> I was there a decade ago, nothing of the kind was transpiring within my earshot. I also have plenty of friends there and never heard anything like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I can't help but think that unions are very similar to code smells, it's when the management of the company isn't able to maintain cooperation and trust with their employees. I would never work for a company with a union

</comment><comment><USER73> What's up with the satanic jacket in the picture?

[https://teespring.com/shop/satanic-no- masters?pid=2&cid=2397](https://teespring.com/shop/satanic-no- masters?pid=2&cid=2397)

</comment><comment><USER74> I guess they didn't think they could win their vote when there were ~110 employees but they did when there were 86.

I guess things were so tense between the two camps that many people moved on.

</comment><comment><USER75> The same ol'shite that is ruining most of the workplaces nowadays. Wtf you want? A job right? You've got it now do it properly and earn your money the right way..

</comment><comment><USER76> They'd be wise to learn from history: There are many people willing do your job for cheaper, most of them in other countries working for smaller wages.

<comment><USER77> There wouldn't be any programmers in the Bay Area—or, for that matter, the US—if price were the only relevant factor in hiring developers.

<comment><USER78> That's what Detroit thought.

<comment><USER48> Sorry, so you're saying that Detroit's auto industry went away _because they unionized?_ The thing they did many decades before that?

<comment><USER78> SV has the same kind of attitude towards competition Detroit had in 20th century.

<comment><USER48> I agree with you, but that has zero bearing on whether unionizing is a good idea. If anything it makes it more urgent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> How many are there? Kickstater looks like something quite a small team can do and I always imagined a union to mean thousands of employees.

</comment><comment><USER80> The most fascinating thing to me about tech worker unionization is that it is less about working conditions and more about input on moral decisions made by company management.

At Kickstarter the moral divide started with the Punch a Nazi incident. You see this at other technology companies as well, as employees agonize over free speech, what to censor, whether or not to work for China, whether or not to deploy surveillance tech, etc.

This is a new era for union organizers. Ideology has become a "workplace condition" that people are organizing to change. It is an interesting concept.

I am not for it or against it, I need to think about it more.

<comment><USER81> agree, this is by far the most interesting part of all this. it's not about "my working conditions" but about whether or not my employer "agrees with my views."

I think this is partly because people understand the power and influence their organizations have in the world.

When many migrant restaurant workers are working 80 hour weeks or don't keep their tips, it makes it easier to see the radical privilege of tech workers, and their unawareness.

<comment><USER80> I think it is also generational. We now have in the workplace a few generations of workers who grew up being told their opinions mattered and that speaking up is a virtue. I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing.

Us old-timers were taught the opposite, your opinions don't matter much, no one will listen to you until you prove yourself, etc.

So I think the generational shift has something to do with it.

I also think labor organizers are exuberant because they finally have a way to build a wedge between highly-paid employees who were formerly resistant to unionizing and their management.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Does this union cover a global workforce?

</comment><comment><USER83> What are the cons of unionizing? All of the benefits always seem "too good to be true" to be.

<comment><USER84> In a non right-to-work state like NY, it means you have to pay dues to a union that negotiates on your behalf. It can very well end up negotiating for things you don't want, or are even actively against. For instance, a teacher may be in favor of merit-based promotion and compensation while they are obligated to pay dues to a union that pushes for seniority based pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I'm all for it. Congrats to them!

</comment><comment><USER86> Sounds like Kickstarter will sell their assets and close soon.

</comment><comment><USER87> I'm trying to understand what the employees hope to get out of this. The only substantial issue mentioned in the article is a dispute over whether "Always Punch Nazis" should be allowed on the site.

Does anyone have insight into what's motivating the Kickstarter employees here?

</comment><comment><USER88> Kickstarter employees vote to be unemployed.

</comment><comment><USER89> So Kickstarter will be hiring more contractors then?

</comment><comment><USER90> Where's my Coolest Cooler?

</comment><comment><USER91> " I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence."

-Eugene Debs

<comment><USER76> Nobody at kickstarter is living a wretched existence.

<comment><USER92> That is some of the reason they can unionize. Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal than they would otherwise.

What's much more interesting is the labor status of the people who work on the Kickstarted projects.

<comment><USER93> > Kickstarter produces enough surplus that the workers can get a better deal > than they would otherwise.

Not really. It may be short-term better for the workers, but not likely long term as they are effectively constraining the growth of the business relative to what it would be if the union did not exist.

<comment><USER92> Depends.

The whole entertainment industry is unionized in L.A.

I know an actor from Las Vegas who moved to L.A. and got a role in a TV commercial and was surprised to see somebody else standing in front of the cameras and was surprised to find that every actor has a "stand-in" who is there so they can set up the equipment, then the real actor is fresh when he does his scene.

These costs add up, but there are many specialists who are highly productive. For instance, setting up and tearing down sets is a special form of carpentry which the average carpenter would take a change of mindset.

Union labor helps maintain a productive and talented workforce that gives L.A. a comparative advantage. Being at times the the documentarian who travels light and feels it is extravagant to have a sidekick that sets up lights it heavyweight but it maintains a world-beating quality standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> These workers are setting an example for the entire industry. Tech employees deserve job security, strong wages and benefits, and a voice in their companies.

</comment><comment><USER95> Condolences

</comment><comment><USER96> more shares for everyone! immediate monthly vesting, no 1-year cliffs, refreshers 6 months in woooo! I hear some companies are already like this, but then you have other companies with like only 5% vesting on the first year and no refreshers.

<comment><USER74> Kickstarter has had no intention of going public and doesn't issue shares like that to employees at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Opinions aside, you have to see the writing is on the wall.

<comment><USER97> However you feel about unions (and I personally have many reservations), if tech workers unionize, management will have nobody to blame but themselves. They've had decades to listen to us, and they've responded with open offices, JIRA (or the equivalent) ticket quotas, unpaid overtime, whiteboard coding interviews and zero training. We're well paid but besides that, I'd be hard- pressed to think of a way we could collectively be treated with any more contempt than we already are.

<comment><USER95> You can always start your own company if you are unhappy about other companies' conduct.

<comment><USER33> Yes you can be part of a union and create your own loan out company.

[https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out- company/](https://www.wrapbook.com/how-to-set-up-a-loan-out-company/)

<comment><USER95> For example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> knee-cartilage nearly half of them voted against it? americans are so amazingly propagandized against anything vaguely construed as 'socialism' it's honestly impressive

</comment><comment><USER98> there goes the neighborhood

</comment><comment><USER99> Hipster Local 153

<comment><USER81> We hereby declare the following as Scabbing:

\- drinking starbucks coffee \- wearing new clothes that's not patagonia \- owning a car. renting ok. \- eating animal products that aren't wrapped in expensive paper and rope packaging \- discussing any views that aren't first endorsed by a jezebel staff writer or hollywood star.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Absolutely pathetic for both sides. If you don't like your white collar tech job, go somewhere else. It's not factory work where you're paid way less to do the same thing wherever you go. You make yourselves and your company look weak in doing this.

This is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of entitled pricks.

<comment><USER100> Please follow the HN guidelines when posting here. Lashing out like this not only damages the commons, it discredits what you're saying, so it's neither in your interest as a community member nor as an individual.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER43> I understand. I apologize. You may want to remove my comment on the other thread then (exactly the same), although interestingly it is upvoted there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Test

</comment><comment><USER101> So what happens now? Do the 37 nay voters need to join the union or be fired?

</comment><comment><USER102> What exactly does it give the workers, better ways of dealing with management?

<comment><USER103> Leverage.

Without a union, you can ask management for stuff, but they can just say no. Your only recourse then is to quit, which wouldn't change anything when it's just one person.

With a union, a work stoppage is a possibility. Suddenly management have a reason to come to the negotiation table and make concessions.

<comment><USER104> First of all "asking for stuff" implies a negotiation between two parties. A negotiation implies that either party can walk away from a deal. You're implying management shouldn't be able to say no. Management is not necessarily out to get employees and excessive compensation or regulation around hiring and firing leads to either insolvency or stagnation. It's a balancing act.

A union can be just as exploitative as a company can. It's not all sunshine and rainbows.

The software industry has been regulated by demand over the last few decades. Demand is still extremely high for software devs. Managers know that employees can make moves because unemployment in our sector is something like 2%. I've worked in many industries in my life and I've never been chased down or marketed to move jobs as much as I have in software development.

<comment><USER105> A negotiation is also done in good faith with both parties willing to listen and discuss options. An individual almost never has the advantage when negotiating with a company.

For 99% of employees out their quitting isn't the threat you make it seem to be. As easy you make it sound to get a new job, its that easy for them to replace you. Then that new employee gets to deal with the same shit you left over. It never gets fixed.

Leaving and going somewhere new doesn't solve anything. for most people job hunting is just looking at piles of shit and finding which one stinks less.

Insurance at my current job is not great. I can't go to my boss and say I want better health insurance he would laugh me out of his office, but even if he could, why would he not just give me the better insurance from the start? If a Union went to management and said we demand better health care that carries weight. That would get something done.

<comment><USER104> Yes they do, when you are in a high demand industry with low supply of skilled workers, you are in the driver's seat of a negotiation. You have options. You're the one being bid on by multiple employers. You absolutely have the leverage there. This is similar to the real estate market, by the way. There are so-called "buyers markets" and "seller markets" where one trend or another is dominant at any given time depending on if there are more buyers than sellers or more sellers than buyers.

It's not easy to replace tech employees at all. Even if there was an abundant supply of expert software engineers (there's not), it takes many months to ramp up on a new code base to optimal productivity and to learn the organization and domain requirements of a software product. That will never change.

An average tech company will spend tens of thousands of dollars to fill a position, not even counting initial salary and bonuses.

Leaving for somewhere better often does solve quite a bit. On my last job move my pay increased by 50%. If I had stayed at my previous company I'd be skating by with 4% raises.

On the whole the aggregate effect of employees moving around in a dynamic market creates the cush benefits and pay we see in this industry.

The reason they wouldn't give you specifically better insurance is because they have to negotiate a plan for everyone in the company. What is that costing them on paper? I don't know how many employees your company has or what their margins are or any details really, but it can be as much as $700-$1000 a month per employee for health insurance. If you've got 100 employees that's $100K a year.

No boss should "laugh you out of the office" for requesting that. But really, its an HR and Corporate leadership issue so you should take your grievances to those with the power to make the change and not your boss (unless you work directly for the CEO).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Kickstarter is essentially a microcap stock fraud platform with a slick UI, so this is a good fit.

</comment><comment><USER107> What's the benefit of being in a union for highly specialized tech workers that are very in demand?

<comment><USER108> The same things as any other union? Improved working conditions (e.g. hours), protecting employees from abuses, and maintaining fair pay & benefits.

Unions as only a working class institution is mostly a US historic artifact. Other countries have unions in highly specialized and in-demand industries too.

<comment><USER93> How are extremely in-demand tech workers not "maintaining fair pay & benefits"? Surely if they were not being paid "fairly" (not sure what that means anyways, if not market price) they could just leave, as there are plenty of tech jobs in NYC where Kickstarter is based.

<comment><USER108> You're misquoting. I was explaining a union's purpose, I didn't claim tech workers were underpaid. Plus "fairness" could also refer to inter-employee compensation at the same company (e.g. men and women).

Additionally if the union expands beyond highly compensated tech' workers (e.g. Customer Service, QA, janitorial, etc) it could help them negotiate better pay and benefits.

<comment><USER93> Re: enforcing fairness, that argument is still asinine, if women were underpaid relative to men at the same company surely they could find many other companies willing to pay them a fair wage (and hopefully they would sue their former employer as well)

<comment><USER48> It might behoove you to read a bit more about the well-documented nature of employment discrimination in the tech industry. Women are systematically underpaid and denied raises and promotions compared to men, which tends to make their cases weaker when going to a new company as well.

<comment><USER93> It might behoove you to not make baseless assumptions about other people's knowledge.

<comment><USER48> If the question about why women just don't go work at another company when they're given unequal pay was legitimate, then I think it's fair to assume there was a knowledge gap. If it was a bad faith question, of course, there's not much I can do about that!

<comment><USER93> Unless you're wrong about the mechanics of the pay gap, which you are.

<comment><USER48> There is still a pay gap after you adjust for pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure is what you're thinking of.

<comment><USER84> It's harder to account for things like the price of benefits and measuring the amount of time spent on things like oncall.

As a concrete example, when Google analyzed their wages they actually noticed that they were underpaying men.

<comment><USER48> It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more--utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be pooled to reduce the risk.

Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my point.

Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on-call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, because this way they can pay both women _and_ men less.

Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been _repeatedly_ found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role when employees release their salaries (something the company officially denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.

<comment><USER84> > It is illegal to discriminate on benefits coverage between women and men, so > whether women are using their benefits more is wholly irrelevant. This is > like saying that older people should make less because they get sick more-- > utter nonsense. Benefits coverage at a company is in any case designed to be > pooled to reduce the risk.

> Whether you actually utilize your benefits should also have no bearing on > whether you get promotions or raises, given that those are supposed to be > tied to job performance, so I don't understand how that's related to my > point.

You are misinterpreting my comment. It had been well documented that in job searches women prioritize benefits at a higher rate than men. So women might on average be getting $10,000 less in salary but also ~$10,000 less in benefits. This is not about utilitzation of the same benefits. This is about differences in men's and women's job preferences that result in unequal salary but equal overall compensation.

> Similarly, for being on the rotation less. If Google wants to include on- > call hours worked in your salary, it has the option to pay explicitly for > overtime. The reality, of course, is that Google does not want to do this, > because this way they can pay both women and men less

Equal pay for equal work can also be violated by giving workers equal pay while allocating unequal work.

> Finally, I'm not sure why you trust Google's analysis of its own payment > structure. Besides the fact that this is literally an instance of "we > investigated ourselves, and didn't find anything wrong!", they've been > repeatedly found to pay women and men different salaries for the same role > when employees release their salaries (something the company officially > denies doing). They also have a long history of executives blocking women's > career advancement to punish them for reporting sexual harassment.

Google's analysis is conducted over all of their employees, for one. By comparison people typing their salaries into spreadsheets is 1) subject to people falsifying or misremembering their compensation, and 2) has a selection bias towards people who feel they are not compensated fairly. Furthermore, Google has the data to know the stock prices at the time equity packages are awarded, which affects compensation results (e.g. someone who started right before a rise in stock gets more money than someone after even though their original equity packages had the same dollar value).

<comment><USER48> Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired, so this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the same role at the company.

I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an excuse for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal pay for equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they should have different titles.

Is there _any_ evidence that would convince you that Google is not being honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there isn't, this is kind of a pointless conversation to have.

Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises much more than men:

[https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html](https://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html)

[https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research- pr...](https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2018/05/new-research-promotion- gap)

[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work- harder-...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/health/women-work-harder- gender-pay-gap-intl/index.html)

Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career. This is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see people trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really uncontroversial fact.

<comment><USER84> > Google does not generally engage in negotiation of benefits on being hired, > so this would be a strange reason for women to make less than men in the > same role at the company.

Yet again, you continue to misinterpret the role of benefits that I explained in my comments. Women's prioritization of benefits over compensation does not mean they are receiving different benefits than men at the same company. It means they apply to different companies than men. Pointing out that Google does not negotiate benefits is not a valid line of criticism.

> I'm afraid that paying employees less for a role with the same stated > responsibilities, then allocating them less work, and using that as an > excuse for why you're not paying them as much, is still a violation of equal > pay for equal work. If the roles have different responsibilities, they > should have different titles.

You assume that this is the company refusing to allocate more work to women. Typically, this is the opposite: the company is more than happy to give women 24 hour oncalls but a lower rate of women are willing to do so than men.

> Is there any evidence that would convince you that Google is not being > honest in its evaluation of its workers' compensation? Because if there > isn't, this is kind of a pointless conversation to have.

The onus is on you to provide proof of your allegations that Google is not being honest in its pay analysis. What proof do you have that they are lying? Like I said, employee compiled spreadsheets are rife with selection bias, and there's no guarantee that employees are even telling the truth. Why would we believe the latter over studies compiled by people who actually have the real salary data?

> Anyway. You still haven't addressed my original point, which I can back up > with lots of research: that women are passed over for promotions and raises > much more than men:

This is not what the research you linked claims. There is a promotion gap, in the same way that there is a wage gap: the average woman is less likely to be promoted than the average man. The existence of a gap is not the same as the existence of discrimination. Much like the wage gap, when normalizing for role and experience the disparity mostly disappears:

> The additional controls slightly reduce the gender difference in promotion > rates but, controlling for all variables, including worker performance > ratings, men's promotion rates were still 2.2 percentage points higher than > women's.

And furthermore, your own study says that there is no wage gap once these factors are accounted for:

> However, in marked contrast, the authors find that after controlling for > measured characteristics, promotions and expected promotions continued to > yield comparable wage increases for both men and women. And, there were > essentially no gender differences in overall wage growth at the > establishment, with or without promotion

So this difference in promotion drops to 2% when accounting for differences in role and experience, and there is no wage difference with or without promotion between men and women. I'm not sure how you think this study supports your point.

Not to mention, there's plenty of evidence of discrimination against men: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/)

> Also, talk to literally any woman who is trying to advance in her career. > This is an incredibly universal phenomenon. It's really strange to me to see > people trying to cast doubt on it in this thread when it's actually a really > uncontroversial fact.

I have. Many do note instances where they believed there were discriminated against on the basis of their sex. Most of them also detailed explicitly discriminatory policies aimed at allocating more opportunity to men. I'm more than happy to give you the details if you so desire. They want to be treated equal to men, not have the red carpet rolled out for them because they're "diverse". Since you're seeing many people disagreeing with your claims around these supposedly uncontroversial facts, it would be prudent to rethink whether your assertions really are as universal and uncontroversial as you claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> 2019-nCoV The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.

</comment><comment><USER109> What an awful decision by those employees. They're in for a rude awakening.

</comment><comment><USER110> I hope we can look back on this day as the first in a series of victories in which tech workers rest back control from their workplaces from their executives that have driven them off course. From sex abuse scandals to wage fixing to collaboration with authoritarian regimes, it's clear that many of these companies have become unmoored from the vision, talent, and ideals of the labor makes that makes them possible.

</comment><comment><USER111> Is there a list of demands and laws anywhere they want to impose?

There is only this: [https://kickstarterunited.org/](https://kickstarterunited.org/)

Not a word about the standards of performance or expectations from employees who would want to be part of union. A short list of some fairly handwavy statements and a one-page website "join-join-join".

Also what kind of positions do people who pushed this occupied? How many engineers have signed this?

Are they actually technical workers or ex political studies majors, who lucked out to get a job at Kickstarter and not Starbucks.

<comment><USER112> Literally taken from your link.

> Is there a list of demands and laws anywhere they want to impose?

"02) What are the workplace improvements Kickstarter United is seeking?"

> Not a word about the standards of performance or expectations from employees > who would want to be part of union.

"Kickstarter United will be made up of all employees in the bargaining unit."

<comment><USER111> > "Kickstarter United will be made up of all employees in the bargaining > unit."

So no standards of training etc. for the workers? Just you know, show up for the work, punch in and punch out?

Also there is no specific requirement in the list. The only one that is not a blanket statement and has actually some case in it is "when disciplinary action is taken"

the rest is just a list of what KS is already doing and has been doing better than many companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> Yeah this discussion appears to have been hijacked by thinly veiled anti-union astroturfing. I would be highly skeptical of all posts in this thread. Many of the posts literally using the exact phrases commonly repeated by anti-union propagandists.

This makes me wonder if Silicon Valley is starting to see the writing on the wall and pay for disinformation campaigns in places where engineers regularly read and post. I know that there are people who share similar views to Peter Thiel within the software engineering community, but they are not the majority as you see in this thread. This is pretty shameful that this is what the Internet has become, a new medium to misinform the public. I wouldn't expect any productive conversation here.

<comment><USER33> I would not be surprised if there is some low level effort amongst some of the larger companies in silicon valley.... especially after the whole issue of not bidding up talent or stealing talent from each other...

<comment><USER113> Yeah all of the language here feels very contrived.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> Wow this really sad, provided Kickstarter is one of the nicest places to work at and their public benefit corporation was not empty words.

These people ruined a really nice NYC company for everyone around. Anyone running their company who thought of making the workplace a bit different will expect the kind of crowd from this photo to show up and implode it.

One thing is if the conditions were bad, there was insane overtime, the pay was low etc etc., but no, none of that applies to the people on the photo.

This is why we cannot have nice things.

<comment><USER18> Why do you hate people making Kickstarter what it is? The people actually doing the work want a union, how is that ruining the company?

<comment><USER111> The whole thing started as political stunt sort of due to the neo-nazis' outcry over some anti-fascist project. It was a mess (of course not sympathizing with Breitbart at all for the record).

And now they just added a whole new overhead of dealing with their initiative. Look at that one-pager of extremely poorly formulated demands. Obviously the company will have to spend resources sorting this out, through lawyers, through hiring MORE managers to deal with these managers. KS is NOT a bad place to work at by large margin it's a GOOD place to work at.

I am hearing already around here in NYC that no I don't want to go work there next to these folks, I am a developer not a polit-sci wannabe etc.

The spectacular outcome would be if KS fails to raise more funds because of this which is quite a possibility.</comment></comment></comment>