You don't need US style unions to achieve any of those, as history shows. Workers should have the right to form political organizations, yes, but forcing your colleagues to join your political organization doesn't make sense.

Nobody is forcing you to work a union job. You're free to apply and work wherever you want.

Right, which is why there are basically no unionized software engineering jobs in USA. I'd rather not be forced to change jobs just because you want to join a union. Your love for strict unions means that most people who want a software union isn't allowed to get one since most of their colleagues don't want one.

I mean, by definition, if someone's workplace voted to unionize, most of their colleagues would want one, because it takes a majority vote in an NLRB election to unionize a workplace.

> with 46 employees voting in favor of the move and 37 opposing it.

37 people voted against unionization of kickstarter, that is 37 people who were forced to join a union against their will. "Nobody is forcing you, except if a majority of your colleagues wants to force you of course..." isn't a good argument.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/technology/kickstarter-un...

46 vs 37 is most colleagues. Nobody is forcing you to stay at a job where management makes decisions that you don't like, and similarly no one is forcing you to stay at a job where it's your coworkers making decisions you don't like. This is what democracy looks like.

Business isn't a democracy and it shouldn't be one.

Why not?

Because most companies are private enterprises started by some entrepreneur that had some vision for the good/service that is being produced.

Presumably, you and your employer entered into some contract in which you are compensated for your labor. If you find the terms unconscionable, perhaps you should petition your legislators to change the labor laws (this is where democracy is appropriate).

As an aside, I do not understand where the notion that <something> + democracy is always going to be better than <something>. I never would have thought back in college that banding together with my fellow physics majors and demanding what we're taught and how we're graded would produce better outcomes; I choose my school/department because of the reputation resulting from the faculty's decisions. I imagine the same goes with most employees at most companies - a lot of engineers want to work at FAANG because of what <ceo> is doing. Democracy works well for things you can't opt out of, like society. I doubt Apple products would be as good if Steve Jobs let every engineer into the boardroom.

Because management isn't always what it's cracked up to be, and it would be a nice recourse for workers to have some leverage to push back against questionable business decisions. Have you ever worked somewhere where mgmt. overruled engineering concerns with disastrous consequences? [0] Perhaps workplace democracy is too radical, perhaps a workers' union won't make the right business decisions that management can- or sometimes they do [1]- but it'd be nice to have some way to voice dissatisfaction with the direction a company is going besides some easily-ignored questions at all-hands. Maybe a channel directly to the board? Well, turns out there used to be something called an ombudsman. [2]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23535292

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13986889

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22367243

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718336

I won't contest that history is not replete with examples of management failing to listen to warnings from their employees, but the leadership model most places employ is effective because history is also replete with management staying the course even when under doubt and achieving some measure of success.

Also, if the consequences to decisions were always attainable a priori, I doubt management would make bad decisions. It's easy to look at Microsoft and say Ballmer dropped the ball on mobile, but then again they still don't have a competitive product to iOS or Android and are doing well. Was Ballmer wrong/right? Is Nadella wrong/right? It was hard to say in 2007 and it's still difficult to say in 2020.

The Audi example is only a good example in that management is listening to a group of employees who are advocating for a position in which the market is already trending (which also happens to have substantial environmental benefits). We wouldn't applaud BP if they opted to do more drilling at the request of their oil rig workers.

For whatever reason, who ever was responsible for putting your manager in place trusts that person; you can appeal to your manager if you think they are making a bad decision or you can appeal to their manager that you think they are ill suited to their position. After that, you've exhausted your options at that company and aren't owed anything further. I would strongly suggest to any job seekers that if having a seat at the table is important to you, assess that when you are interviewing. Find or start a company in which that is the culture.

Now I do have to caveat all this with that I am 30, no kids, and live in decently sized market for tech. I may be more cavalier with my "if you don't like it, then leave" attitude. I find the ombudsman position interesting and was unaware of the history around it and HR. I will have to look into that more, thank you for the knowledge.

The way I see it, tech as exemplified by Silicon Valley has an unique culture that portrays itself as cutting-edge, on the side of progress (not politically, though there is that too), open to experimentation, and empowering. At least, that's how the rhetoric is shaped.

And yet, despite startups' attempts to introduce concepts such as transparency, "radical candor", "employee wellness", even radical experiments like holacracy, etc., at the end of the day the core of these businesses are the same old corporate structures.

And amidst the high-paced, high-stakes froth of move fast and fueled by the promise of dumb money, many firms end up having mgmt. that shall we say, are more susceptible to mistakes, and persist in them despite discontent from the rank and file. And despite performative attempts to promote open discourse and welcome questions, they often don't listen to that discontent. So those truly unhappy just jump ship. Which is fine to some extent, but it just feels like it's contributing to an unsustainable throwaway culture.

> After that, you've exhausted your options at that company and aren't owed anything further.

> I may be more cavalier with my "if you don't like it, then leave" attitude.

But what about the end user? The customers who will be failed if the company does? And what about the product itself? If someone who works on it feels like company leadership isn't making the right choices, and if their concerns are echoed by a good amount of the workforce, shouldn't they at least be given the chance to appeal to the board?

It just feels highly hypocritical that an industry that sees itself as so forward-looking and enlightened, so flexible and boundaries breaking, just ends up conforming to the same corporate fiat structure at the end. It really belies the messaging of being able to "make a difference."

> The current 40 hour workweek we enjoy and the weekends we have off are because of the organized labor movement in the US.

Arguably it was achieved first and foremost because increase in productivity caused by capital investments actually made it economically possible.

I mean, I don't deny that 19th century capitalists required a little bit of a "push" for it to actually happen, but it's debatable if it was actually necessary and wouldn't just happen naturally.

> class consciousness

That's a part of political opinion, that I just don't share. I was born in family of a blue collar family of a coal miner and school janitor, now I'm a intellectual worker, and in a way I already joined "evil capitalist class" and hope to entrench myself in it even more with time.

Thinking in people having assigned "classes" is just so a low-resolution way to look at complex reality, that it is just not helpful.

> If your choices are between working for one of several capital-owned tech conglomerates, or accepting their money for the runway to compete in the current business climate, can you really call that an even playing field?

I just don't think labor organizations help with anything. What helps is having more options (competition), better social mobility (access to education and knowledge) and general economic prosperity that allow entrepreneurship (taking risks). Labor unions typically work against all of it.

I do know that field is not level, but I just think naive ways to trying to level it make more harm than good.

> Arguably it was achieved first and foremost because increase in productivity caused by capital investments actually made it economically possible.

> I mean, I don't deny that 19th century capitalists required a little bit of a "push" for it to actually happen, but it's debatable if it was actually necessary and wouldn't just happen naturally.

Well, given that, with the subsequent increases in productivity since then, the work week could could easily be reduced by another day (32 hours work week), but no such change has yet happened naturally, I don't see why you would believe that it would have happened then either.

> I just don't think labor organizations help with anything. What helps is having more options (competition), better social mobility (access to education and knowledge) and general economic prosperity that allow entrepreneurship (taking risks). Labor unions typically work against all of it.

And yet, before mass labor organizations you had children being forced to work, and everyone working longer hours for 6 days a week, with no worker safety laws to speak of; and, with the hard struggles of labor unions (which included getting shot by US military forces!) you live in a world with worker safety regulations, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, etc.

Basically, I think your post shows exactly what class-consciousness does for you. Most working-class people can see very well how stacked the deck is against them, and have few illusions about how explicitly the current system is working to keep them down (their biggest illusion is that they can't do anything about it, or that it's foreign workers' fault - both of these the result of explicit propaganda/PR efforts). But if you manage to move into the capitalist class, your perspective often changes, as your seems to have, and you start believing the system as it is works well, and actually start to work for it - like you are here, trying to convince people that unions would be harmful for our own interests.

To be clear, I am in no way accusing you of not believing what you are saying! I am just pointing out that it is exactly an example of class-consciousness at work: since you are part of the capitalist class, you believe more in the good of the capitalist class as the one likely to bring the most benefit to everyone. Myself, part of the working class, believe that the good of the working class will bring more overall good in the world.