This article seems to point out that there are toxic internal communication problems at Kickstarter. All companies have that, of course. Does anyone know of examples where unionization created a better forum for communication? I know unions are powerful forces for rectifying inequality especially around pay disparity. But, is there evidence that they improve communication between management and individual contributors? I would assume adding an extra layer would worsen things.
And, I'm also laughing at the suggestion by Kickstarter that they offer mediation for employees looking to improve; that's a joke that a mediator paid by Kickstarter would ever fully be an advocate for the employee and not the company. That's an idea only a lawyer could love.
"Does anyone know of examples where unionization created a better forum for communication?"
If you're looking for a white-collar example, I think newsrooms and film sets fit the bill. Read any account of working in newsrooms or on film sets before unions contrast it with conditions today.
Without collective bargaining, line managers face pressures to get more effort for less pay out of workers. As the employee, you are _bargaining all the time_ and you _bargaining alone_. This can be extremely stressful, particularly when market conditions for the firm are in flux.
With a collective bargaining agreement, you are not alone in your bargaining and when a collective bargaining agreement is in force, you get a break from haggling over the issues it covers. Managers are largely unable to exert downward pressure on working conditions, so they face less pressure to do so from superiors. This leaves managers to focus on those issues employees generally want managers to focus on: obstacles to getting the work done, smoothing over interpersonal differences, ensuring efforts cohere.
"I know unions are powerful forces for rectifying inequality especially around pay disparity. But, is there evidence that they improve communication between management and individual contributors? I would assume adding an extra layer would worsen things."
Unions don't add a hierarchical layer, though American employers often try depict them this way.
The typical arrangement would be for one of your peers in the workplace to be elected steward for a fixed term, during which time they ensure the terms of the contract (collective bargaining agreement) is enforced and advocate for employees that management have accused of failing to hold up their end of the bargaining (a counterweight to HR/labor departments which represent the employer perspective before arbitrators or the labor board). You of course get a collective bargaining agreement by electing a bargaining committee.
Does anyone find Kickstarter’s conflating of corporate ethics and adherence to far left political positions disturbing? Diversity hiring, “salary equity”, and other such policies are extremely hot issues; nearly every time they are discussed here the threads have hundreds of replies and give the mods a run for their money to manage. Chief among these recent issues is the recent controversy around deplatforming of political speech. This appears to have bit the louder left wing folks at Kickstarter (banning of the nazi punching comic book), to which at least one such employee cried foul at since it violated their dogmatic political worldview.
If you’re going to allow your employee’s controversial political opinions to guide corporate policy, I’d argue it’s unethical to build a culture in which disagreement is not permitted. A substantial number of people disagree with these policies and want to debate them, you can’t just dismiss those people as having wrong ideas and push forward patting yourself on the back for being the ethical good guy.
it's difficult to manage the interests of the company vs the interests of the staff, it's clear here that both are not in line.You can't make everyone happy.
[+] [-] xrd|6 years ago|reply
And, I'm also laughing at the suggestion by Kickstarter that they offer mediation for employees looking to improve; that's a joke that a mediator paid by Kickstarter would ever fully be an advocate for the employee and not the company. That's an idea only a lawyer could love.
[+] [-] bwestergard|6 years ago|reply
If you're looking for a white-collar example, I think newsrooms and film sets fit the bill. Read any account of working in newsrooms or on film sets before unions contrast it with conditions today.
Without collective bargaining, line managers face pressures to get more effort for less pay out of workers. As the employee, you are _bargaining all the time_ and you _bargaining alone_. This can be extremely stressful, particularly when market conditions for the firm are in flux.
With a collective bargaining agreement, you are not alone in your bargaining and when a collective bargaining agreement is in force, you get a break from haggling over the issues it covers. Managers are largely unable to exert downward pressure on working conditions, so they face less pressure to do so from superiors. This leaves managers to focus on those issues employees generally want managers to focus on: obstacles to getting the work done, smoothing over interpersonal differences, ensuring efforts cohere.
"I know unions are powerful forces for rectifying inequality especially around pay disparity. But, is there evidence that they improve communication between management and individual contributors? I would assume adding an extra layer would worsen things."
Unions don't add a hierarchical layer, though American employers often try depict them this way.
The typical arrangement would be for one of your peers in the workplace to be elected steward for a fixed term, during which time they ensure the terms of the contract (collective bargaining agreement) is enforced and advocate for employees that management have accused of failing to hold up their end of the bargaining (a counterweight to HR/labor departments which represent the employer perspective before arbitrators or the labor board). You of course get a collective bargaining agreement by electing a bargaining committee.
[+] [-] malwrar|6 years ago|reply
If you’re going to allow your employee’s controversial political opinions to guide corporate policy, I’d argue it’s unethical to build a culture in which disagreement is not permitted. A substantial number of people disagree with these policies and want to debate them, you can’t just dismiss those people as having wrong ideas and push forward patting yourself on the back for being the ethical good guy.
[+] [-] lacker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henrygrew|6 years ago|reply