Kickstarter Defends Firings As Not Anti-Union, But Strong Criticism Continues (currentaffairs.org) 97
"Kickstarter's CEO Aziz Hasan sent an email to staff Friday, explaining why the company fired two staff members and laid off another who played an instrumental role in organizing a union at the company..." reports Motherboard:
Hasan insisted that the firings were related specifically to job performance issues, not union organizing. "We understood how these firings could be perceived, but it would be unfair to not hold these two employees to the same standards as the rest of our staff," he wrote. "It's worth noting that since March we've given raises to 14 people who have been public about their support for a union, and promoted three of them...."
In his letter, Hasan asserts that management believes a union would hurt the company and that union organizers have not made their complaints clear to the company. "The union framework is inherently adversarial," he writes. "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."
If Kickstarter unionizes, it would be one of the first white collar tech unions in the United States.
The magazine Current Affairs has a different perspective: When the union organizers were fired, Current Affairs happened to be in the middle of a Kickstarter campaign. As a left publication, we were appalled, and didn't want to publicly support an anti-union company. So we got together with our colleagues at Protean Magazine, Pinko Magazine, the Nib, and the Baffler (all of whom had done Kickstarter campaigns in the past) and released a statement condemning the firings and expressing solidarity with the union. We invited other Kickstarter project creators to join us on the statement, which hundreds did, including well-known creators like Neil Gaiman, Anita Sarkeesian, Molly Crabapple, and Richard Herring. Collectively, the creators on our statement have raised millions of dollars on the platform (my estimate is $10 million, but I stopped counting around 5). We were united in (1) appreciating Kickstarter's staff and the great platform they have created and (2) being firmly opposed to the company's anti-union activities and supportive of the workers' rights...
As our campaign took off and started to attract press attention, I received a message from Kickstarter's chief communications officer. He asked me if I would like to talk on the phone so that he could address our concerns.... We did not resolve anything on the conversation, but he said the company was thinking through how to respond and he would be in touch. Saturday, Kickstarter offered its response. The communications officer emailed me, and said he would like to share a statement from the CEO with the project creators. The statement said that Kickstarter:
1. Stood by its decision to fire the organizers, and would be dispatching its lawyers to fight their claims.
2. Would not voluntarily recognize a union even if the vast majority of workers signed in support of one.
3. Would not pledge to remain neutral on unionization, and would continue to actively oppose the effort.
The statement was the most blatant slap in the face imaginable to both the workers and the project creators. It says, in essence: drop dead...
For Current Affairs, it means that we now have to cease using Kickstarter for our fundraising efforts. Who can possibly partner with a company that is actively and proudly trying to union-bust? Why should we give 5 percent of our supporters' money to a corporation that will use it to hire lawyers and P.R. professionals to keep its workers from exercising their rights?
In his letter, Hasan asserts that management believes a union would hurt the company and that union organizers have not made their complaints clear to the company. "The union framework is inherently adversarial," he writes. "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."
If Kickstarter unionizes, it would be one of the first white collar tech unions in the United States.
The magazine Current Affairs has a different perspective: When the union organizers were fired, Current Affairs happened to be in the middle of a Kickstarter campaign. As a left publication, we were appalled, and didn't want to publicly support an anti-union company. So we got together with our colleagues at Protean Magazine, Pinko Magazine, the Nib, and the Baffler (all of whom had done Kickstarter campaigns in the past) and released a statement condemning the firings and expressing solidarity with the union. We invited other Kickstarter project creators to join us on the statement, which hundreds did, including well-known creators like Neil Gaiman, Anita Sarkeesian, Molly Crabapple, and Richard Herring. Collectively, the creators on our statement have raised millions of dollars on the platform (my estimate is $10 million, but I stopped counting around 5). We were united in (1) appreciating Kickstarter's staff and the great platform they have created and (2) being firmly opposed to the company's anti-union activities and supportive of the workers' rights...
As our campaign took off and started to attract press attention, I received a message from Kickstarter's chief communications officer. He asked me if I would like to talk on the phone so that he could address our concerns.... We did not resolve anything on the conversation, but he said the company was thinking through how to respond and he would be in touch. Saturday, Kickstarter offered its response. The communications officer emailed me, and said he would like to share a statement from the CEO with the project creators. The statement said that Kickstarter:
1. Stood by its decision to fire the organizers, and would be dispatching its lawyers to fight their claims.
2. Would not voluntarily recognize a union even if the vast majority of workers signed in support of one.
3. Would not pledge to remain neutral on unionization, and would continue to actively oppose the effort.
The statement was the most blatant slap in the face imaginable to both the workers and the project creators. It says, in essence: drop dead...
For Current Affairs, it means that we now have to cease using Kickstarter for our fundraising efforts. Who can possibly partner with a company that is actively and proudly trying to union-bust? Why should we give 5 percent of our supporters' money to a corporation that will use it to hire lawyers and P.R. professionals to keep its workers from exercising their rights?
adversarial (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: adversarial (Score:5, Insightful)
People like you sneer at unions but itâ(TM)s the only way for workers to protect themselves against management. Do you actually think the CEO has your best interests at heart?
Re: (Score:1)
You have a convincing argument. I am now in favor of your opinion... obviously.
Re: adversarial (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry man, not trying to convince anyone. Just ridiculing anyone who thinks labor conditions have improved lately. 'Cuz to anyone who has both studied history and worked in a production job, it's so comically false.
Study your own books. Work your own jobs. Awesome if you think I'm wrong. Make your own judgement. But... make your judgement after your have worked inside the capitalist machine for a while.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
40 years experience enough for you? I've seen expensive changes to make a machine more quiet so that the operator doesn't have to wear hearing protection. I've seen a stairway handrail changed (making it more difficult to use) because regulations demanded that it be built so that loose clothing couldn't catch on it.
Generally, working conditions are so accident-proofed that finding new ways to protect workers is a difficult undertaking.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And how does none protect oneself against unions? Many unions act to protect _themselves_, not the individual employee. Do take a good look at the abuses of modern teachers' unions for a prime example of the issue.
Re: adversarial (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The teacher's union my sister was forced to join failed to assist her in defending against a false claim of pushing a child. She was fired, couldn't afford medical care, and died as a result at age 57.
Unions exist for money and power, not to support their membership.
Re: (Score:2)
The insistence that layoffs be on a purely seniority basis is one such abuse. The ACLU has won a lawsuit over this, see https://www.aclusocal.org/en/n... [aclusocal.org] .Another is the role of the teacher's union, much like the police union, of hiding abuse by their members, See https://ricochet.com/608248/ar... [ricochet.com] for an sample. Another abuse is forcing union dues from non members. See https://californiaglobe.com/le... [californiaglobe.com]
A crime or abuse by one party does not excuse unrelated abuses by another party. Please, do not be juveni
Re: adversarial (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. Without unions, the 5 day week wouldnâ(TM)t exist....and the decline of unions has corresponded with the decline of reasonable wages, work conditions, etc, esp for the lower-skilled working class.
Unions hardly the only way (Score:3, Insightful)
People like you sneer at unions but itÃ(TM)s the only way for workers to protect themselves against management.
What utter bullshit. This is not 1912 NYC. At this point you have regulation after regulation, that workers can easily use to protect themselves against problems with management. We read about them being used all the time.
As a tech worker, over decades of work I have had NO problems whatsoever protecting myself against problems with management. Of course leaving is always an option, but in
Re:Unions hardly the only way (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not 1912 NYC. At this point you have regulation after regulation, that workers can easily use to protect themselves against problems with management.
And how do you think those regulations were created? Out of the goodwill on part of the politicians? With support from wealthy company owners?
The regulations were created in blood, by unions going up against wealthy corporate owners and often paying for it in lives, until the politicians could not ignore it.
And look at what is happening in the US now. Look at the desire to "cut the red tape". You're saying unions are not needed. Who will stand in the way when the "red tape" making sure workers have any kind of power against employers is removed?
I have had NO problems whatsoever protecting myself against problems with management
Using leverage of laws that unions got passed in your favor. Unions you now dismiss as worse than useless, as the government acts to remove that leverage from you.
Re: Unions hardly the only way (Score:2)
From what youâ(TM)ve said, it seems that unions have done what was needed to protect workers and are now obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
If laws were static and never changed once in place, definitely.
One of the first things Trump wanted to do was remove all the legislation unions have literally shed blood over getting implemented. Slashing it all, removing worker protections paid for in blood.
What stands in his way? All I can see is unions. Other politicians don't seem to care. It doesn't affect them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Unions hardly the only way (Score:5, Insightful)
What utter bullshit. This is not 1912 NYC. At this point you have regulation after regulation, that workers can easily use to protect themselves against problems with management. We read about them being used all the time.
For a narrow set of issues related to health and safety and now related to sexual harassment. In 2019 you are 99.9% safe from exposure to toxic fumes in the workplace. However, you are not safe from companies suppressing wages with unofficial non-poaching agreements, intentionally creating overtime to lower your effective hourly wage, and playing games with definitions (e.g. independent contractor) to allow them to use firing as a tool for balancing workloads vs. staffing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're example of using Teachers union is utter bullshit. I know you have your head up your fucking ass but Teachers have recently won disputes by going on strike.
But I guess GM workers going on strike is considered by you frivolous. Even though they went a decade without a raise in order to help GM.
Take you head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live, where people aren't free to quit a job? Involuntary servitude is illegal in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
People like you sneer at unions but blackmail is the only way for workers to protect themselves against management.
There .. fixed that for you.
Because that is what unions have become .. legal blackmail. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you know how I protect myself?? I find another job. Always have, always will. I stand up for myself instead of cowering behind a mob.
As for the CEO having 'your' best interests at heart, why should he, that's not his job. His job is to run a company, not pay attention to sniveling little spoiled brats that can't stand up for themselves.
And when did any union employee ever have the companys b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: adversarial (Score:4)
Union or not, I think everyone should have someone they can turn to that will advocate their concerns to management. In a healthy business, this should be your boss, but having a "workers' advocate" might bring a lot of benefit with it, too.
Unions do this job and more, and it's the "and more" that can sometimes be trouble. If the company you're working for isn't profitable because the union's demanding too much and striking if they're not getting it, you run the risk of the company moving or even folding altogether. That's not to say unions are inherently bad, far from it I think they're quite important in a lot of industries, just that sometimes they're too ambitious for their own good. Like how a good CEO will consider the well-being of his workforce and not just his current profits, a good union will also consider the well-being of the company and what's best for workers long-term.
I don't know much about the UAW, but from what I've heard about their ongoing strike (which I actually get to see on the way to work every day, I live near a GM plant in Michigan), their workers took a voluntary pay cut when GM wasn't doing well and are striking because GM never reverted that pay cut when things got better. That's a perfect example of what a union should do in my opinion: they considered the long-term implications back when GM was struggling and recognized that the pay cut was necessary to keep GM from closing plants, then they recognized when GM was being greedy when things got better and demanded a return to the status quo. I'm sure there's more going on I don't know about, but at a surface level, that's exactly what the union should have done, and good on them for doing it.
Re: adversarial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My whole group was laid off in August by Symantec. We were profitable and also contributed to other groups. The business sense that it made was to meet next quarter's numbers so they can close a deal with Broadcom and make the execs a lot of money. It does not make any sense to the shareholders that want to make money on Symantec stock.
Re: (Score:2)
even just for all the redundancy payouts
So....why do you assume that poster got those?
They aren't required in much of the world. Such as the entire United States.
Re: adversarial (Score:1)
As restructuring costs rather than BAU they can also go through different line items in the accounts which may be relevant to the terms of a deal.
I doubt this was the official explanation by management so there would almost certainly have to be at least some speculation by the poster or whoever's told him that was the reason but while it wouldn't be good business it isn't ridiculous to suppose that a situation like that could be short term beneficial to the management.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe they even have enough employees to warrant union talks. Most of these people have to be managers or some other paper pushers. Not like its people working 12 hour shifts in front of a blast furnace in the summer.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these people have to be managers or some other paper pushers.
That is part of the problem. Managers were involved in union organizing, which is illegal.
That is why Kickstarter is refusing to recognize "signature cards": because employees may have been pressured into signing.
Instead, they are asking for a secret ballot, which seems reasonable.
Re: adversarial (Score:2)
And dont forget, not necessarily in this ca see of course, unions get caught faking signature cards all the time too
Firing is not inherently adversarial (Score:2, Informative)
Being released form a job is NOT inherently adversarial.
Sometimes there are budget issues and some beloved and useful people have to go.
Sometimes whole roles just change and some people do not fit elsewhere.
Sometimes someone just cannot do the job they were hired for - even that does not have to be adversarial, as often the people realize they are not being productive in their work, and are not surprised or even mad about being let go.
"What are you going to do to show that we are not in an adversarial relat
Re: Firing is not inherently adversarial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And sometimes unions are not adversarial
Many European unions are non-adversarial. For instance, German unions work closely with company management, and strikes are rare.
Re: (Score:3)
Being released form a job is NOT inherently adversarial
While this is true, I would argue that when one worker is fired for attempting to form a union, management has decided that it's in an adversarial relationship with ALL of its workers.
Of course, if there were proper legislative and regulatory protections for workers, unions would be unnecessary and we wouldn't have to worry about the negative aspects of them.
Re: (Score:2)
People who attempt to start a union chapter generally fall into 2 categories: Members of the union but not of the company, attempting to expand the union, and Malcontents who spend a large part of each workday badmouthing the company.
Malcontents hurt any company they work for and should be fired as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I would very much like unions to be unnecessary, but as long as the government fails to protect workers they are a necessary evil. Sometimes people are malcontent for a legitimate reason.
People who work in industries without unions tend to fall into two categories: they are skilled and sought after and therefore have the leverage to negotiate without a union or they are easily replaceable and therefore get wholly exploited by their employer. Most people who fall in between those two categories rely on union
Re:Firing is not inherently adversarial (Score:5, Insightful)
> Being released form a job is NOT inherently adversarial.
"released from a job"
When you adopt the euphemisms of the exploiter class, you are exhibiting internalised oppression [wikipedia.org]
PS: note that when your boss sacks you with a friendly smile, he's still sacking you. And when he graciously permits you to use his first name, it's because he wants you to think you're friends and that your interests align with his - not because he is your friend.
Employment is inherently adversarial. And profiting from someone else's labour (i.e. paying them less than the value that their labour adds to the good or service) is inherently exploitation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When you adopt the euphemisms of the exploiter class, you are exhibiting internalised oppression
I 100% agree.
PS: note that when your boss sacks you with a friendly smile, he's still sacking you.
I also agree.
And when he graciously permits you to use his first name, it's because he wants you to think you're friends and that your interests align with his - not because he is your friend.
That I disagree on: the use of first over last names is a recent but strong social trend. These days bucking the trend would j
Re:Firing is not inherently adversarial (Score:4, Interesting)
"you can't pay employees precisely the value that their labour adds because then you'd always turn a loss."
That's what's called Revenue. What you charge to produce a good or service. What enables you to pay an employee is the very fact that you charge for their work. Something you should look up.
"Employees cost more than their salary: there's all the overhead too like the cost of the building, the support staff who never add value to a product, such as security, door staff, receptionists, janitorial staff, facilities, IT support, accounting, HR and recruitment, legal and so on and so forth."
You are mixing costs. Employee costs are their salary and benefits. A facility is not an Employee cost. You need a place to make the goods and services you provide. This would be a separate cost unrelated to the Employee.
"Support staff" are part of the operations of a business. Necessary for supporting THE BUSINESS. The fact you bundle all this together and label it as Employee costs shows how incredibly stupid you are. You do not know the first thing about accounting and finance, nor about how a business runs.
Do some research before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop.>
No.
You know nothing about accounting and finance and are pulling bullshit out of your ass.
I know enough to spot when two numbers don't add up to the total. That's enough in this case. I've also seen enough utter bullshit accounting in real companies to know a considerable number of the common flaws/stupidities.
That's what's called Revenue. What you charge to produce a good or service. What enables you to pay an employee is the very fact that you charge for their work. Something you should l
Re: (Score:2)
> Being released form a job is NOT inherently adversarial.
"released from a job"
When you adopt the euphemisms of the exploiter class, you are exhibiting internalised oppression [wikipedia.org]
Concepts you are using (e.g. internalized oppression) are intellectually bankrupt woke bullshit, firing is detrimental to your well-being because paychecks stop. If you are independently wealthy, firing is no more adversarial than cancelling your lawn service contract, but hardly anyone is independently wealthy.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you're not implying you can't be friends with your boss? I'm still friends with my last boss after both of us left the company quite a while ago. God forbid people don't see the world entirely in workplace hierarchies. I can't imagine seeing the world like that, it'd be far too depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Determining to the penny what somebody's labor is worth is not possible. The choices are pay more or pay less. You appear to think that pay less is immoral, that pay more is morally demanded. So an employer should lose money on everybody he employs. Thus, the company would lose money at all times, be unable to pay its bills, and be forced into bankruptcy an
Re:adversarial (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, employment itself is inherently adversarial - Employers want to pay you as little as possible for your service, and you want to get paid as much as possible. (Especially if you take "pay" to include such not directly financial considerations as a pleasant work environment, flex time, and other benefits, all of which tend to cost your employer money and/or the satisfaction of treating employees like servants instead of business partners)
And the thing is, there are very few employers compared to employees, and they have a strong tendency to collude, if not outright conspire, to keep their costs low by way of non-compete, anti-poaching, etc. agreements. Especially for less-skilled positions where they can offer a "take it or leave it" compensation package.
Unions help tilt that power back towards a balance point, helping employees stand together to demand decent treatment and a fair share of the profit. We wouldn't have such luxuries as weekends, an only-40-hour work week, etc. without unions.
That's not employment you're describing. (Score:2)
Heck, employment itself is inherently adversarial - Employers want to pay you as little as possible for your service, and you want to get paid as much as possible.
(Especially if you take "pay" to include such not directly financial considerations as a pleasant work environment, flex time, and other benefits, all of which tend to cost your employer money and/or the satisfaction of treating employees like servants instead of business partners)
You're describing exploitation.
Re: (Score:3)
"Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it is the reverse" - often attributed to Khrushchev.
Re: (Score:1)
If I own a company that takes jelly beans and creates customized candy greeting cards, which makes me a huge profit, why do the workers feel they are entitled to a share of the profit? If they are paid the same as the workers in the building next door that sells regular greeting cards but don't have the 400% markup that my product makes, why would the workers feel they should be paid more just
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, employment itself is inherently adversarial - Employers want to pay you as little as possible for your service, and you want to get paid as much as possible. (Especially if you take "pay" to include such not directly financial considerations as a pleasant work environment, flex time, and other benefits, all of which tend to cost your employer money and/or the satisfaction of treating employees like servants instead of business partners)
Not everyone is out for everything they can get. In fact people ar
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they're getting paid "enough" that's generally true. It's also true that most people in America don't feel that they're getting paid "enough".
Re:adversarial (Score:4, Insightful)
''Especially if you take "pay" to include such not directly financial considerations''
This is primary reason that people come to work is a sense of accomplishment, appreciation and self worth in the good times.
You can pay better than anyone else, but if you don't provide an environment where employees are appreciated, engaged, and feel a sense of accomplishment regardless of the financial compensation, no one will work for you.
The pay brings them back in the bad times.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience (Score:4, Interesting)
In the years I was responsible for staff I found a fairly clear correlation between union organisers and poor work performance. I never had a problem with unions but the union leaders tended to have a few traits:
- They knew they weren't as valuable to the company as the average worker.
- Their attitude to work was all about how the company could benefit them with virtually no consideration of how they could benefit the company.
- Mild paranoia that other people wanted to get rid of them and the only way to protect their job is with union threats.
- Actively promoting an us-vs-them culture between workers and the company, often creating conflict for no good reason.
- They were often bullies, threatening other workers over union issues and causing grief for anyone who didn't share their view of "evil employers".
In short, union leaders are by far the most likely workers to create problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: In my experience (Score:2)
+1
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a problem with unions but the union leaders tended to have a few traits:
You just described middle management fairly accurately, perhaps they could be union leaders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and the atmosphere turns from being willing to unwilling to give back to the company.
Loyalty is a two-way street.
There was a time when the company had loyalty to its workers. It trained them as needed. It desperately tried to avoid laying anyone off. If a dumb-ass frontline manager was being an asshole, the company would send that manager off to get more training on how to manage.
That time ended about 4 decades ago.
Now, a company fires/lays off as the first option. Training workers? Fuck that, just fire them all and hire new "entry level workers with 5 years experience". Layoffs? The
Re: (Score:3)
my god. who hurt you?
I work outside of the USA and I am in a union. I have been in many different unions depending on what business I am working for. Here only the best are put in a position where they represent the rest of us. I am overall impressed with the skills and their engagement. If anything the representatives and leaders work twice as hard as many others. What you write is something I cannot relate to at all and must be unique to where you live.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
my god. who hurt you?
I work outside of the USA and I am in a union. I have been in many different unions depending on what business I am working for. Here only the best are put in a position where they represent the rest of us. I am overall impressed with the skills and their engagement. If anything the representatives and leaders work twice as hard as many others. What you write is something I cannot relate to at all and must be unique to where you live.
Americans are an incredibly gullible and stupid lot. You have to understand people who are anti-union fall into roughly three camps: Paid shills, selfish pricks, and stupid fucks. You have to understand worshipping businesssmen and capitalism is a fucking religion in america.
If you want to know why, america is one of the most corporately indocrinated in the world. George carlin said it best:
https://youtu.be/acLW1vFO-2Q?t... [youtu.be]
Go lookup "right wing think tanks" and things like Prager U. Large parts of Am
Re: (Score:2)
Go lookup "right wing think tanks" and things like Prager U. Large parts of America are one giant cult of religion nuts, christianity and capitalism.
Sadly, this is true.
There's a clear divide between the rational, fact-based people in this country and the "I'll believe in anything" people, and it often comes down to religion masquerading as politics and and politics masquerading as religion.
The right has become more and more divorced from reality, facts, and science as they cling to their Magical Man in The Sky and the Cult of Personality swirling around Donald Trump.
I've posted this before (it's not mine) but it explains a lot of the behavior of Trump
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You just described everyone in the USA who votes exclusively Republican or Democrat.
Stop with your "false equivalency" bullshit.
Re:In my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I never had a problem with management but managers tended to have a few traits:
- They know they aren't creating value to the company like the average worker.
- Their attitude to work is all about how the employees can benefit them with virtually no consideration to how they can benefit the employees.
- Actively promoting an us-vs-them culture between unions and the company, often creating conflict for no good reason.
- They are often bullies, threatening workers over minor issues and causing grief for anyone who doesn't share their view of "shareholder value before everything else".
Thing is, you have to remember that the company is all about squeezing maximum value out of employees without concern for how the employee feels about it, mentally or physically. Unions are the counterweight. Yeah, the union is not particularly interested in maximizing shareholder value - they don't need to be, management takes care of that fine. They are the check and balance ensuring this is not done at the EXPENSE of the employees. That the trade is done as fairly as possible.
And to do that they have to fully take the side of the employee. The company will not compromise unless it has to. Therefore the union has to be solidly on the side of the worker.
WTF Ads on slashdot now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sponsored content, with ads disabled? The first Ive seen this... fucking hell.
The "no ads" box never did squat for me. On the other hand I browse slashdot with JS off and it's a much nicer experience. Much faster overall. And no ads.
Re: (Score:2)
> On the other hand I browse slashdot with JS off and it's a much nicer experience. Much faster overall. And no ads.
Ditto. Agreed. ... except for the ads that are blog entries.
Synopsis is misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the CEO's statement, and I don't think Kickstarter said what they say it said.
But by all means set that strawman on fire.
I didn't check the rest of their argument because they lost my trust.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the CEO's statement, and I don't think Kickstarter said what they say it said.
I also read it, and I agree. The summary, quoting "Current Affairs", misrepresents what the CEO actually said.
Great example of garbage journalism.
I would agree (Score:2)
This wingnut misrepresented the CEO's statement. In fact, I'd suggest he straight up lied about its contents.
CEO: "If a majority of the staff in an appropriate bargaining unit votes in favor of a union in a NLRB election, we will fully respect that choice and negotiate in good faith toward a collective bargaining agreement".
Wingnut: "You have affirmed that your company: ... (2) Will not voluntarily recognize a union, no matter how many workers ask."
Now there's all sorts of nuance and complexity hidden under
Re: (Score:1)
Voluntary recognition is a technical term. It means to recognize a union without the need for a vote. "Wingnut" is exactly right; Kickstarter will not do this. They demand a vote and the union fighting for its right to exist using legal means.
Kickstarter also clearly and outright state that they do not want a union. They see a union as adversarial by nature. Those are their actual words.
Typical (Score:2)
Most companies can / will find something to fire you with if you do anything they disapprove of. Maybe your salary demands
are too high. Maybe you're too old and use the company insurance too often, or have too much vacation time at your disposal
. . . . who knows.
They know the loopholes of every law and policy and if they want you gone, you will be gone.
Retaliation is illegal as hell, but if they can find an excuse, any excuse, you'll be shown the door all the same.
The fact that the timing is coincidenta
Terrorism. (Score:1)
And sexist hate-speech, of course.
Yes, as a perpetrator.
Works well, if you act like your're the victim. Murderers should try that. :P
Weird (Score:1)
Why did anyone expect anything else (Score:2)
Coincidence, obviously... (Score:2)
"Kickstarter's CEO Aziz Hasan sent an email to staff Friday, explaining why the company fired two staff members and laid off another who played an instrumental role in organizing a union at the company..."
Oh I'm sure it was just a coincidence that 3 of the key people who helped organize a union were fired. Nothing nefarious here, kids, move along and remember, like the Prez says, "Only Terrorists Want Unions".
Re: (Score:2)
What the everliving fuck? Is that what working in the valley is like? Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and go work somewhere that isn't a hellhole, then. I work in tech and that has in no way described my experience--but I never made the mistake of working in California, either.
You
Not the first white collar union (Score:2)
I guess Vice has never heard of the Communications Workers of America [cwa-union.org].
Firing is anti-union? (Score:1)
Phrases like these. (Score:2)
"Union bust", "solidarity", "worker's rights". See that, and know that the source's bias excludes reporting complete facts; know that the bias is rabidly leftist.
Solidarity is what a mob has, rationality is what a mob does does have.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting study in hypocricy here. (Score:2)
The "Current Affairs" folks say "Why should we give 5 percent of our supporters' money to a corporation that will use it to hire lawyers and P.R. professionals to" (do something we disapprove of.)
Well. Why should people, as a condition of keeping their jobs, be required to give a large chunk of their salary to an organization that may also do things that they disapprove of, including using the money for political campaigns for candidates that they may disapprove of?
I wouldn't have a problem with unions if