Management was basically incredibly incompetent, for a long time, and were so unfair to employees at the company that they felt this was the only option. There is a Tweet stream a couple months ago from someone who left the company who highlighted the amazing degree to which they were unfairly reviewed and unfairly criticized, alongside how much work product they were expected to produce (which was unreasonable). I have enough corroboration to say that the tweet stream as written is fairly unbiased, and that their experience was common. My understanding is the employees felt backed into a corner.
I think unions can be very, very valuable, but I think needing one at a small company that took a series A round quite recently speaks more to management failure than anything else. I'm happy that they unionized, because it sounds like they needed to, but I am so fucking disappointed that it was necessary.
This is something I wish had been in the article. Even something vague, like "Employees reported they were unhappy with management and the performance evaluation system. The union with CWA will work with management to blah blah blah".
Agree that it sounds like a management failure.
Thanks!
"Management was basically incredibly incompetent, for a long time, and were so unfair to employees at the company that they felt this was the only option"
Why not just quit and get a new role? I don't really understand how being unionized under terrible management is desirable.
seems to be a correlation - back then like 10 years ago HN had various FG blogposts/articles appear on the front page relatively frequently while in recent years i don't remember any.
That said, I have no idea if that's why Glitch has fewer articles or not. It could also be different culture; the FogBugz, Kiln, and Trello teams have all gone away. I don't think I even know anyone who works at Glitch these days. They may just emphasize blogging less.
on a secondary note, there is nothing wrong with living in a democracy and wanting representation in your community. Our work is a part of our community as much as any other space, especially since we spend so much time there and center our lives around it.
[^1]: A particularly egregious example from the factory where my dad works as a maintenance person: they have a machine that cuts cardboard; to service the blade, they need 3 people: one to remove the bolts holding the blade in place, another to remove the blade, and yet another to service it (and then the first two must replace the blade and the bolts, respectively). There must be three distinct people (IIRC because they're from different unions or something similarly silly) by contract (not because removing the bolts or the blade requires special training), which generally involves a lot of waiting for each person to be available--something that could take half an hour often spans multiple days.
[^2]: Another particularly egregious example from my father-in-law's IT office (he has since retired): employees generally laze about doing little; they aren't allowed to browse the Internet or play games, but some bring in books and one woman literally sits staring vacantly at her black-screen monitor for hours on end. No idea why electronic idleness is okay, but reading, etc are okay.
I don't think this is true. Rather, they don't buy the myth that unions have no downsides. Therefore you choose not to willingly accept such downsides until necessary. Arguably medical coverage is always necessary and is a poor comparison.
I don't know when I'm going to get sick, and I can't get rid of the sickness, so I buy insurance to compensate.
I know what I'm getting myself into when signing a contract with a company, because there's a contract. I can leave when I want and seek employment elsewhere.
Glitch isn't a startup. It's a 20 year old company with probably rigid rules.
"Bargain as a team" is called "collective bargaining" is called a "union". Just avoid the indirection and call the thing by its name.
[0] Communications Workers of America (CWA) is the largest communications and media labor union in the United States, representing about 700,000 members in both the private and public sectors (also in Canada and Puerto Rico).
I'm still however not sold on the idea that tech in general needs unions, but am open to the idea that it may be a variable need company to company for certain groups of people.
Just don't make me have to join one, because I am fairly convinced it's not in my best personal interest and same for a lot of other tech workers like me.
--EDIT: It's also worth noting that if you are on the digital content side of game dev like modeling and mapping there's not a ton of alternative options for practicing those skillsets professionally, unlike programming.
Because kids romanticize it and think that their job will involve playing video games all day.
Why don't we have more smaller unions in America, but instead these GIANT mega unions?
I get collective bargaining is better with more numbers, but it feels like there is no way to have a "new" union exist?
Organizing a union is also fairly hard, and staff of established unions are more likely to have the skill set to teach you how to have convincing conversations with your co-workers, make sure they stick together, keep everybody from freaking out when the boss starts threatening to fire people, etc. It's also good to have them around to provide financial/legal support if the boss follows through on those threats.
Other countries have much less liquid labour markets, or have bargaining powers of unions backed by governments, so they don't have to grow so much to make a difference.
How does this bigger union give them any more bargaining power against glitch?
* The more removed bargainers are from the rank-and-file, the less understanding and emotional motivation they have about many of the issues the workers face.
* Larger unions are easier to corrupt and influence - at least if they have a centralized, hierarchical structure (which US unions mostly do). And that is true even if this structure is democratic (i.e. central governing bodies are elected).
* Larger unions are more difficult to reform and recuperate from past organizational failings than small ones.
* The capitalists and the state absolutely _detest_ more radical / tougher unions. So do the more collaborationist unions. While they might tolerate smaller ones - larger ones threaten the stability of the entire system, and will thus be met with harsh, violent suppression, and "member-stealing" / "workplace-stealing" campaigns much sooner.
Case in point: Industrial Workers of the World in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_Worl...
US labor law differs from European labor law, and it essentially encourages/requires a small number of conglomerate unions, each of which have exclusive representation within a company, rather than a larger number of independent unions which can coexist within a single company.
Also, if carpenters work for UPS, should they be in the carpenters union or the Teamsters? Large industrial unions do away with such jurisdictional problems.
Also I assume there’s a formation/founding cost. How does that work?
Founding, organizing, and legal stuff for newly forming unions can be handled by the larger organization (e.g. CWA) using pooled dues from existing unions within that organization.
It depends, some unions have it as a percentage of salary, others have a set rate per position (all juniors pay X, all mids pay Y, etc.), and yet other have a single fixed amount for all members.
That, at least in the US, is the common case. It is also extremely tempting - and I say this as a past union activist - to go for this option.
2. If, however, the union values its independence from the employer, then union dues are collected either:
2.1 By hand from time to time (much harder, but you get independence from the banking system), or
2.2 Each member signs a standing transfer order, transferring a certain amount of money from their account to the union every month/quarter/year. It's still a challenge to collect anything from non-members, despite them enjoying everything the unionized workers have achieved.
Regarding 2, is there any reason the union achievements must apply to non-union workers as well?
Unfortunately, conservatives have been mostly successful in gaining control of the courts, so expect union-busting measures to be rubber-stamped by them.
There is likely to be much conflict between labor and owners.
I know the ideal libertarian corporate structure has a single CEO making a huge salary controlling a vast collection of precariat workers who are paid the bare minimum to avoid them becoming homeless, or slightly less, but this is .. unpopular with everyone else.
> 90% of the workers indicated their support for joining CWA and authorized CWA to be their bargaining representative
> about half of whom work in the New York City headquarters and half of whom work remotely throughout the country
> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues, including sexual assault and harassment, ageism, unequal pay, “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking), poor treatment of contract workers, inadequate racial and gender diversity, and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
> “We appreciate that unlike so many employers, the Glitch management team decided to respect the rights of its workforce to choose union representation without fear or coercion."
> CWA was founded by telecom workers, and supports media workers through its Newsguild-CWA and NABET-CWA sectors.
Unionization is not going to fix the management training problem.
[https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/07/a-field-guide-to-d...]
There's also an uncanny valley effect, where ignoring a problem entirely means that your employees may have needs they aren't aware of, and as soon as you shine a light on it, their job satisfaction is actually lower until you get it right.
I think a couple of my bosses understood this intuitively and would invite us to participate in developing solutions. We are much more patient with ourselves than with others.
I'd like to explain what I like, and what I'm concerned about:
> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues,
Very union related, that's what unions are for.
> including sexual assault and harassment,
Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system.
> ageism,
That's vague, but there are protections against this
> unequal pay,
Not sure what this means, pay between workers of the same level of seniority performing the same responsibilities? Overtime? A lot of things factor into equal pay. A junior employee isn't going to make as much as a 20 year employee.
> “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking),
Looks right. These are covered in union contracts
> poor treatment of contract workers,
If they have union membership? Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?
> inadequate racial and gender diversity,
What does that mean? Inadequate to whom? What makes those characteristics worthy but other characteristics not?
I find it very hurtful and insensitive to people who struggle, suffer, overcome odds, from difficult upbringings, but not member of some class or facet. Why reduce the struggle, character, and worth of someone down to those things? Where does this come from?
What does this say to your colleagues who don't have these traits? Do they have life easy? Have you walked a mile in their shoes?
> and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Though if a larger organization wanted to allow someone to move somewhere else in the org, that seems fair
> That's vague, but there are protections against this
> Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?
Unions can be an additional safety net/layer of protection/tool against these discriminations and abuses. In a time when HR departments are often derided as existing to protect the company instead of workers, and it often takes either media exposure or self-publishing (as with Susan Fowler) for discrimination against protected classes to be acknowledged, a union could be a place for the discriminated to turn to where HR reps fail. At least then you don't have to hire your own lawyer.
> unequal pay,
This might be a gender gap criticism meaning unequal pay between workers with the same title but of different genders.
> That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding.
Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general?
Basically, no.
That's what's management is for.
They can become manager's if they want to impact that, though.
Are they qualified to understand what they're talking about? If they have a disagreement, is there a reason why they wouldn't raise it via proper channels rather than effect other things that are vital to the organization?
Are they big picture thinkers that have taken the time to digest the system, uninfluenced by social pressures? Some people don't care about their organization's goals, their coworkers, and decide to act out for their own vanity, at everyone else's expense.
And that is one reason why management exists. To answer your question, while they may be wrong, there's a purpose in shielding decision making away from those who lose sight of the org's goals.
The point of the union is when management makes decisions, which can be unfair and uncaring to the worker, that their rights, safety, and livelihood also are represented with fairness. The alternative I offered to you was, in an organization large enough, they could request to move to a different project.
All State University of New York graduate students are also represented by CWA. [1] Out of the lowly salary I earned as a grad student, I had to pay dues to them throughout the entire five years I spent in grad school. I never felt like they particularly cared about us or got to see a return on this investment.
They made a show of coming by the campus once in a while, especially when elections were happening, but other than that I can't recall a single time where I felt it was beneficial to be part of the CWA.
Anybody privy to the info how it fared?
I kinda wish proper guilds would become a thing in tech. I feel they could solve both the craftsmanship and workers rights problems but oh well...
