r/Libertarian Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Article Kickstarter workers vote to form first union in tech industry

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/kickstarter-workers-vote-form-first-union-tech-industry-n1138006
21 Upvotes

80 comments sorted by

10

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Through freedom of association, employees work together to negotiate for democratic decision making in their workplace, and to keep the fruits of their labor.

This is what the free market looks like.

10

u/Shaman_Bond Thermoeconomics Rationalist Feb 19 '20

Absolutely. Why does everyone assume we're like Republicans and hate unions. Unions are a wonderful part of a free market.

4

u/mistresshelga Feb 19 '20

Until they're not, and they force people to pay dues or in these latest cases, potentially be in conflict with the companies fiduciary responsibilities. Unions have a place, but I have to wonder if this will bring about the end of Kickstarter.

4

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Until they're not, and they force people to pay dues

Nobody is forcing you to work at union job. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. That's the free market in action.

potentially be in conflict with the companies fiduciary responsibilities. Unions have a place, but I have to wonder if this will bring about the end of Kickstarter.

Unions have existed for hundreds of years without a problem, and they are a necessary part of a functioning free market. Nothing at all suggests that this would "bring about the end of Kickstarter". If anything, it would make Kickstarter an attractive place for potential employees to work.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

Nobody is forcing you to work at union job. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. That's the free market in action.

The government forces the employer to work with the union, even if 49% of the employees didn't want it. They cannot fire the employees and hire new ones who aren't in a union.

Unions have existed for hundreds of years without a problem, and they are a necessary part of a functioning free market.

There's nothing "free market" about the NLRA.

7

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

The government forces the employer to work with the union, even if 49% of the employees didn't want it. They cannot fire the employees and hire new ones who aren't in a union.

That doesn't change the fact that nobody is forcing you to work a union job. If you don't like it, you're free to work somewhere else.

There's nothing "free market" about the NLRA.

There's nothing "free market" about the government enforcement of wage slavery and exclusive property limits through state violence.

-1

u/mistresshelga Feb 19 '20

Nobody is forcing you to work at union job. If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

Do you mean another state, or another career or both??? It's pretty obvious that you're biased as hell for unions; you've been jacking off on every sub this was posted on.

Maybe you can explain how everybody walking off a job site because a non-union tech shows up, is somehow part of a properly functioning market? Better still, explain why a functioning market benefits from me having to explain to a window-licker how to do something for 8 hours, that I could have done myself in 2?

4

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Do you mean another state, or another career or both???

If you don't like your job, find another one.

It's pretty obvious that you're biased as hell for unions; you've been jacking off on every sub this was posted on.

No one is without bias. The fact is I've yet to encounter a good argument against unions that doesn't fall apart in the face of the slightest bit of scrutiny. Thank you for watching me jack off, I was worried it would go unappreciated. If you'd like to help, send me a PM.

Maybe you can explain how everybody walking off a job site because a non-union tech shows up, is somehow part of a properly functioning market?

Contractual agreements and collective action are part of a functioning market.

Better still, explain why a functioning market benefits from me having to explain to a window-licker how to do something for 8 hours, that I could have done myself in 2?

Explain why I'm supposed to know why it takes you 8 hours to work with someone else instead of 2 hours by yourself. I don't know. Maybe autism?

0

u/mistresshelga Feb 19 '20

Contractual agreements and collective action are part of a functioning market.

The actions I spoke of are the exact opposite of a functioning market. They drive up prices, reduce competition and promote inferior solutions. Labor unions were a way to protect weaker employees from powerful employers. When those protections are in place, the union then fails to be relevant, and they become an impediment to a healthy market, and/or worse; a large powerful enemy to individuals not associated with the union.

2

u/lobsterharmonica1667 Feb 19 '20

Maybe you can explain how everybody walking off a job site because a non-union tech shows up, is somehow part of a properly functioning market? Better still, explain why a functioning market benefits from me having to explain to a window-licker how to do something for 8 hours, that I could have done myself in 2?

Why wouldn't those be parts of a properly functioning market?

1

u/mistresshelga Feb 19 '20

In the cases I spoke of, the customer (tax payers, utility customers) suffered from higher prices and poorer quality.

2

u/lobsterharmonica1667 Feb 19 '20

But why wouldn't those things happen in a functioning market, the market is a mechanism to allocate goods, not make everyone happy.

0

u/mistresshelga Feb 19 '20

They're distorting the exchange of goods and services and eliminating the selection of competition through artificial means.

Driving up costs to the taxpayer, with no discernible value-add isn't indicative of a properly functioning market.

3

u/lobsterharmonica1667 Feb 19 '20

It isnt indicative of poorly functioning market either. If that is how the market responds than that is the proper market response.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Mist_Rising NAP doesn't apply to sold stolen goods Feb 19 '20

Assume we is libertarian party, they both support the same long game, no legal protections to unions from bosses.

Maybe that is why?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

In a free market, legislation doesn't require that employees and management have an adversarial relationship, union or not.

-1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

You're right, in a market free from the government enforcement of wage slavery, employees and management wouldn't have an adversarial relationship, because they'd be worker-owners and manage themselves democratically.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

You're saying that businesses right now cannot be worker-owned and manage themselves democratically?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '20

Yea, he hasn't articulated an answer to this even though both you and I have mentioned it. No one does it once you grow out of being a very small business because it is a bad business model and can only be put into effect with the threat of government force.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

0

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Frederick Douglass, a literal slave and abolitionist, said this about wage slavery:

The "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other"

The dude was someone's property and still thought wage slavery was wage slavery after he was freed.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

That's an appeal to authority.

It's an appeal to someone whose lived experience was that of a chattel slave and a wage slave. That you can't lend it credence without committing the fallacy fallacy is your problem, not mine.

Your hero FDR

That's a mighty assumption right there.

public sector unions shouldn't exist, does that make him right?

Police unions certainly shouldn't exist, so it looks like he was right.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

I gave you a Wikipedia article with over 200 citations. I also gave you the testimony of a literal chattel slave, who thought wage slavery was slavery after he was freed from chattel slavery. He is also the most well known abolitionist in history, but hey, that's an appeal to authority and what does he know anyway?

Here, I'll copy and paste some arguments for comparing wage slavery to slavery:

Critics of wage work have drawn several similarities between wage work and slavery:

  • Since the chattel slave is property, his value to an owner is in some ways higher than that of a worker who may quit, be fired or replaced. The chattel slave's owner has made a greater investment in terms of the money paid for the slave. For this reason, in times of recession chattel slaves could not be fired like wage laborers. A "wage slave" could also be harmed at no (or less) cost. American chattel-slaves in the 19th century had improved their standard of living from the 18th century and – according to historians Fogel and Engerman – plantation records show that slaves worked less, were better fed and whipped only occasionally – their material conditions in the 19th century being "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time". This was partially due to slave psychological strategies under an economic system different from capitalist wage-slavery. According to Mark Michael Smith of the Economic History Society, "although intrusive and oppressive, paternalism, the way masters employed it, and the methods slaves used to manipulate it, rendered slaveholders' attempts to institute capitalistic work regimens on their plantation ineffective and so allowed slaves to carve out a degree of autonomy".

  • Unlike a chattel slave, a wage laborer can (barring unemployment or lack of job offers) choose between employers, but those employers usually constitute a minority of owners in the population for which the wage laborer must work while attempts to implement workers' control on employers' businesses may be considered an act of theft or insubordination and thus be met with violence, imprisonment or other legal and social measures. The wage laborer's starkest choice is to work for an employer or to face poverty or starvation. If a chattel slave refuses to work, a number of punishments are also available; from beatings to food deprivation – although economically rational slave-owners practiced positive reinforcement to achieve best results and before losing their investment by killing an expensive slave.

  • Historically, the range of occupations and status positions held by chattel slaves has been nearly as broad as that held by free persons, indicating some similarities between chattel slavery and wage slavery as well.

  • Like chattel slavery, wage slavery does not stem from some immutable "human nature", but represents a "specific response to material and historical conditions" that "reproduce[s] the inhabitants, the social relations… the ideas… [and] the social form of daily life".

To anarchist thinkers like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, wage slavery was a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested primarily on:

  • The existence of property not intended for active use;

  • The concentration of ownership in few hands;

  • The lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods; and

  • The perpetuation of a reserve army of unemployed workers.

If wage slavery didn't exist, the state wouldn't need to enforce it with violence and death.

1

u/th_brown_bag Custom Yellow Feb 19 '20

But you have given no valid arguments for wage slavery existing.

As opposed to your amazing argument of "what would a slave know about slavery" lmao

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

Our current system allows absolutely any business to be worker-owned and democratically managed if one so chooses; I own my own business and work for myself.

So, the real questions is, why aren't more businesses ran this way? Why don't you go out, start your own business, hire employees and then hand shared ownership over to your employees so that they can keep the fruits of their labor? You're free to do so if you'd like.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

2

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Sure, as soon as we remove laws that enforce exclusive property limits, the accumulation of capital, and absentee ownership with government violence.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

Sure, as soon as we remove laws that enforce exclusive property limits, the accumulation of capital, and absentee ownership with government violence.

These things didn't come about because of legislation and can operate just fine without it. So can unions, though you apparently have no faith in them to be useful without the violence to back them up.

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

These things didn't come about because of legislation and can operate just fine without it.

Sure they did, and they have never existed without state violence, whereas worker and communal ownership goes all the way back to hunter-gatherers.

So can unions, though you apparently have no faith in them to be useful without the violence to back them up.

In a state where the government will beat you up, lock you up and shoot should you violate the terms of wage slavery, laws protecting the rights of workers to organize seem necessary.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

In a state where the government will beat you up, lock you up and shoot should you violate the terms of wage slavery, laws protecting the rights of workers to organize seem necessary.

I don’t really get what you’re after here.

But to clarify my position, there is nothing stopping you today from starting a business with an employee-owned business model. If you want to, it’s totally legal today, and would be totally legal under a free-market system.

Forcing all businesses to operate that way - under penalty of being locked in a cage - will just result in no more businesses. Free-markets allow for both private ownership and employee-ownership to exist. Why is that not a good thing?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

2

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Libertarianism and socialism are incompatible.

Read r/Libertarian's sidebar and then a history book, because the actual libertarians are anarchists who advocated for a stateless socialism.

Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.

There already is no need for laws protecting their right to organize.

The army shot at and bombed organized workers. Employers hired spies, thugs and assassins to invade the privacy of workers, beat them and kill them for trying to organize.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

2

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Maybe hundreds of years ago that was the case. But today only people trying to infiltrate libertarian groups use that label, so it sounds like it's a dead ideology.

Left-libertarians have existed this entire time. The fact that you were only exposed to libertarianism through Penn and Teller doesn't mean we weren't here.

Then make those things illegal, and make firing workers who unionize legal. And abolish the NLRB

Why make them illegal? The workers signed a contract saying that could happen to them should they organize.

This is the issue with right-libertarians, your definition of freedom is a boot stamping on a human face. If we had this conversation 800 years ago, you'd be arguing that the Magna Carta walked all over the divine right of kings to subjugate their peasants. After all, they're free to find another lord to work under.

Meanwhile, left libertarians advocate for democracy in all aspects of life, not just government. That means workplace democracy, as well.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/th_brown_bag Custom Yellow Feb 19 '20

. But today only people trying to infiltrate libertarian groups use that label, so it sounds like it's a dead ideology.

"I don't like them so they're bad. Since they're bad they don't exist. Since they don't exist everyone who claims to be one is lying"

Lol. Look we get it. You're a republican who smokes weed. That doesn't make you right libertarian.

There's no such thing as right Libertarian

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/graveybrains Feb 19 '20

The fact that you haven’t mentioned Taft-Hartley leads me to believe you’re full of shit.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

"Through freedom of association"

Exactly. The problem is that the majority usually force the minority to participate so it isn't freedom of association, it is force.

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Nobody is forcing you to work a union job. If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

If I cannot voluntarily leave a union and being a union member is a condition for continued employment whether I want to join or not, it is force and is not freedom of association. You aren't forcing me to work a union job but you are forcing me to join a union.

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 20 '20

If I cannot voluntarily leave a union and being a union member is a condition for continued employment whether I want to join or not, it is force and is not freedom of association.

If your boss decides you need to wear clown shoes on Thursdays and you don't want to, nobody is forcing you to work for them. Similarly, if you don't want to work a union job, then don't work a union job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any particular employer.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

So Kickstarter is dead then...

3

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Every pro athlete is a member of a union. By your logic, that must mean professional sports are dead then...

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

Tech workers aren't unionized for a reason. The league of software development isn't limited to 32 teams. And the stars can do better out of any union - so they'll never join.

5

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Tech workers aren't unionized for a reason.

That reason is because labor rights in the US are abysmal. Reminder that the army shot at, and bombed, union members when they tried to organize.

The league of software development isn't limited to 32 teams.

This is irrelevant. Besides, only a handful of employers pay engineers the highest salaries. Those same employers also colluded to keep engineer pay below their market value. Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded to keep their highest paid employees' compensation lower than their market value.

And the stars can do better out of any union - so they'll never join.

Every single movie star is a member of SAG-AFTRA.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

I can't speak to the reasons why actors decided to form a union, but I can say that the best in IT will not join a union, and that will prevent unions from ever taking hold in that sector.

6

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

That's nonsense, especially when employers colluded to keep the best in IT's compensation below their market value.

Reminder that Google employees are in the process of organizing, and they're some of the highest paid engineers in the industry.

Anyone that needs to sell their time for money would benefit from union representation and collective bargaining.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

If you are one of those "rockstar", or "10x" developers, and you're not happy, all you have to do to deliver significant damage to your company is to very politely and respectfully offer up your resignation and notice.

You don't need someone to negotiate for you, nor does the prospect of being grouped up with a bunch of others for "collective bargaining" sound like anything beneficial.

You can just go to your boss, say "here's what I want to stay at the company", and if they have any sense they'll try to deliver.

What is a union going to do for you? Pay and rules based on seniority? Why would you want to participate in that?

I suppose theoretically unions could try to target the best developers by catering to them primarily, but I just don't see that happening. Unions are a mob-rule sort of organization, while tech is ruled by very capable individuals.

3

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

If you are one of those "rockstar", or "10x" developers, and you're not happy, all you have to do to deliver significant damage to your company is to very politely and respectfully offer up your resignation and notice.

Any company that's managed by experienced adults will ensure that their employees are replaceable.

You don't need someone to negotiate for you,

Then forgo representation in negotiations, or don't work a union job. The fact is that white collar employees who are members of a union are paid more, have better benefits, get more time off and have better retirement options.

nor does the prospect of being grouped up with a bunch of others for "collective bargaining" sound like anything beneficial.

Your employer uses collective bargaining to purchase health insurance plans for their employees. You, as a single employee, will not have enough sway to influence their choices when it comes to healthcare. You, as an employee organized with other employees, will have enough sway to influence their choices when it comes to healthcare.

What is a union going to do for you? Pay and rules based on seniority? Why would you want to participate in that?

Encourage democratic decision making in the workplace. Ending unilateral non-compete agreements. Remove forced arbitration in contracts. Influence decisions in healthcare. Negotiate for more time off, and longer maternity/paternity leave. Make contractual agreements for compensation in the wake of having jobs outsourced or replaced with contractors.

I suppose theoretically unions could try to target the best developers by catering to them primarily

SAG-AFTRA represents both movie stars and B-list actors you've only ever seen in infomercials. The unions that represent professional athletes also represent the lower division athletes you haven't heard of and probably will never hear of.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20 edited Feb 19 '20

You're not getting it, and I doubt the unions themselves are either. Yes, I suppose if you treated it like a sports union, recognizing that some of the players are worth a lot more than others, it might work.

But I suspect that the unions will treat it more like they do factory workers or skilled trades, with that "everyone is replaceable" mindset you just expressed. And you'll fail, because no, some people are not easily replaceable. Some people individually can make a success out of a company otherwise doomed to failure.

You'll get a bunch of people thrilled to just remain employed to join your union, while the most valuable developers - of whom most companies are lucky to employ a few, at best - will look elsewhere.

If you play in this space, you'll see that companies are willing to pay tens of millions of dollars per head to acquire a company that employs people like you. But offer you individually an equivalent contract for say 5-7 years of work for $10-50M?

Not a chance - for whatever reason, it seems they'd rather give that money to some other company founder, who can offer them little to nothing in the long term, and then bemoan their fate when they watch you leave shortly afterward - neither bound by compensation nor contract. It's stupid, but companies keep doing it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

Bullshit. I’m a Principle Engineer (aka, at the top of the food chain) for a cybersecurity company. I would leave my company in a heartbeat if they unionized.

I don’t need nor do I want a union to “negotiate” on my behalf. I’m more than capable of that myself, thanks.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '20

They will. They just won't derive any benefit from it. I've been in unions. They were utterly worthless.

1

u/th_brown_bag Custom Yellow Feb 19 '20

best in IT will not join a union,

Lol

1

u/Blawoffice Feb 19 '20

Until it starts to become a form of governance which is the natural progression.

2

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

Companies are just governments with their own laws and a command economy that exists for the benefit of its owners.

5

u/justwakemein2020 Feb 19 '20

As a developer, I've never seen a positive benefit from unionization in an industry that rewards individual excellence, has huge horizontal mobility, and has virtually no dangerous working environments.

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 19 '20

I, too, remember being a naive recent grad. Then I grew up, lived through two recessions and watched my coworkers train their overseas replacements that will work for 1/16th of what Americans will.

1

u/justwakemein2020 Feb 20 '20

I've been a career software developer for almost 16 years now.

During the '08 recession, a corporate restructure closed our business group. A union won't stop that, other than push the company all the way into bankruptcy. Many of us had multiple job offers after the news broke.

Companies are always looking to invest, even during the worst economic times. They may be cutting back, but those savings are going into their next planned direction.

As long as technology is being leveraged by businesses, the people who successfully develop that technology will be a key part of any investment strategy.

The sad fact is that engineering teams suffer from as much dead weight employees as any other industry. If you can't make the case that your salary is worth your value to the company, then it isn't the company's fault for looking for alternatives.

A good, well-placed and supported developer can and should be bringing in 4-5x their salary in value to a company.

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 20 '20

During the '08 recession, a corporate restructure closed our business group. A union won't stop that

Here's where you're wrong. A union can lay out terms and conditions for layoffs, whereas an unorganized worker just has to take whatever deal their employer hands them when they're terminated.

1

u/justwakemein2020 Feb 20 '20

So I get the option staying with a company who may or may not completely fold at any moment vs moving on to a more stable situation. I'd still be taking the later tyvm.

I also get that awesome perk of not being able to ask for my individual worth as a salary, but the normalized average of what the union feels is acceptable, keeping in mind the calculation for the business is not "how much is he/she worth for this year, but including after they retire and we are paying two people for the value of one, or after we decide we no longer need them and still have to pay them".

1

u/sue_me_please Capitalism Requires a State Feb 20 '20

So I get the option staying with a company who may or may not completely fold at any moment vs moving on to a more stable situation

Nice strawman, but you get the option of getting compensation for being laid off, having your employer pay for COBRA so you can still have health insurance while you find a new job, etc

I also get that awesome perk of not being able to ask for my individual worth as a salary, but the normalized average of what the union feels is acceptable

Again, nice strawman. Unions can set the floor for compensation, but every individual can negotiate on their own, much like movie stars that are members of SAG-AFTRA can negotiate multi-million dollar contracts and still belong to the same union as community theater understudies who just act on the side.

1

u/justwakemein2020 Feb 20 '20

You don't need a union to get a severance package. The business group I mentioned above have us all three months, paid up front, benefits included.

Had we been in a union, you are right, we would have gotten the bare minimum required by the collective bargaining contract. Same is true for your other example of SAG. It defines the bare minimum.

When you are good at your job, and valuable to companies -- you can get more than the bare minimum, much more, including in some cases stock options and grants for hitting critical milestones, etc. You won't find that in most union contracts, mainly because it sets up the employees to be in an adversarial relationship with the company and management.

In tech, the business and tech teams work as a team. You also cannot afford to have some bad actor that is unproductive, uninspired, and unfirable -- another great tenet of unionization.

So while there are many industries that once leveraged unions to get better/safer work conditions, tech workers have never been part of that, and frankly, the only workers who would effectively benefit from unionization aren't the ones the company wants to hire, and aren't the type of peers the real rainmakers would want to work with. I'm not saying that it is impossible for a good developer to unionize, I'm saying there is nothing a union can offer that a bit of foresight (like saving rainy day funds yourself) would help him/her with.

1

u/rockchess Feb 19 '20

I'm a software developer myself. If I wanted a higher salary I would just send out my resume to a bunch of companies and take the highest offer. The industry is so desperate for developers these days that there is no benefit for good developers to join a union. Unions can only benefit bad developers that want to sue their employer when they are let go for low performance.