I don't understand why "4. Stay at your company and try to change culture within by organizing collectively, either through the guise of a union or informally" isn't also something you are free to do, besides that you think doing so is not "do[ing] something positive to the society", but is instead "becoming a bunch of cry babies."

Also why is 3 binary? If I am a minority investor in a company, I am not free to criticize the management? I have to buy the majority of the company and fire the management?

It kind of seems like you don't actually understand that soft power exists. The canonical book on this within organizational politics is "Exit, Voice and Loyalty". Have you ever had a social interaction in your entire life? Not everything is an ultimatum, some things are conversations.

To accomplish (4) you have to become a sociopath and sociopaths won't attempt to substantially improve culture for its own sake because they lack empathy.

Most employees never consider starting their own company, so we can strike off (2). Buying SpaceX is vanishingly unrealistic, so discount (3). My impression of working at SpaceX is that the options for employees are:

1. Keep working at SpaceX - work on truly innovative technology with a lofty mission. The work environment sucks, you work 100 hour weeks but the _work_ itself is great. Your work might land on Mars this decade.

2. Join another startup (Relativity, Firefly, Rocket Lab, etc) - no proven track record of success or work on smaller scale (but successful) projects. Work hours and culture are variable, but there is a general sense of urgency. Your work is not landing on Mars this decade but could still change the aerospace industry in smaller ways.

3. Coast and enjoy life with your family (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Blue Origin, etc). Work 38 hour weeks. You will get the chance to work on large prestigious projects. Your project is regularly in the news for being over budget and late. There is no sense of urgency. You have complete job security.

Unions are when employees get together to demand better working conditions. The only people who should be afraid of unions are those who hold capital.

It's a free market. Find another company who values your skill.

Since it's a free market - why shouldn't a group of people work together to improve their lot in it?

A free market is, by definition, free of collusion.

People with large capital don't need to collude - they already have tons of power as individuals :)

It's like the term "free market" is a thought terminating cliche or something.

The term was coined to refer to an absence of gatekeepers charging for access, though collusion is often pretty similar.

There are already systems in place in companies for you to do that. If you want to bring Unions in to the picture it means

1. Your opinions are not useful or valuable.

2. The company is poor at adapting good ideas through existing channels.

In either case you should leave the company and find another one.

Why should I be compelled to use the systems someone else designed? Who is so wise and righteous that their external control over my decision to join or not is justified?

Because the system is designed mostly by founders who built the company from ground up and had the maximum skin in the game. Employees have minimum skin in the game, never have full context on things and are easily replaceable. You are always free to start your own company according to your own rules.

A free market implies a freedom to unionize and strike.

Sure. Also for the employer to fire employees for doing that. So doing it is stupidity instead of just finding a better company that values your skill.

Well no, because organizing is legally protected.

Keep in mind these legal protections actually made unions weaker, so be careful about what you wish for.

Hell yeah.

Or just take over the company. That is easier.

Unionizing is not lame. It's about a balance of power between owners and workers.

If you want balance of power improve your skills and get job in a company that values you more. There would never be perfect balance of power. It's not real life.

It's not about perfection, quite a misnomer of an argument imo. You would be the kind of person that 100 years ago would probably be against woman getting the vote - "It's not about equality, that's not real life"

No. I would be saying them if they want to vote, move to a country which values them and give them the right to vote.

Just like millions of people ditched communist countries and moved to USA.

You are changing the goal posts. On an individual level that might all be fine 'in a perfect world', but moving somewhere else, improving ones skills, not a given at all. You sound bitter and lack empathy.

If the problem is big enough for you, you are perfectly capable of changing company or country. If not, it's not important for you or you don't care enough to put in the work.

Now that comes across as some perfect utopia. Maybe certain people don't want to stick their neck out in fear of losing job, which is not possible since they have to support a family. Etc. You live in a hypothetical dream world.

If you live in fear of loosing job you have far more important things to work on first than changing company culture.

Alternatively we unionize and see that balance of power happen.

It’s funny all this anti union speak and then when companies are faced with it suddenly their purses start opening up.

I used to have a dim opinion of unions because of some media and some political views. Now I would describe it as much more nuanced.

In working with some public sector unions though, arguing for management, I've actually seen very different focuses in play: namely efficiency. The unions with whom I work are definitely about fair labor practices, and pre-decisional input, and that is just common sense though. In working with them I was very impressed with what I saw. They never talked politics, only members, and issues confronting them regarding efficiency which was in their agreement with management.

Now, on the other hand, had a neighbor that was high up in leadership of a national union. He never talked with me about efficiency, or his members, just continual rants around a specific political party, and how he was attending political events from his political party.

I will ride the down arrow roller coaster with you. People can make a choice about where they work. Companies are not democracies. Organizing unions is a fast-track to a closed location, relocated factory, or loss of a job.

Companies exist to make profit. Unions extract profit at a disproportionate rate to the value they provide. Every business owner knows this. People who think unions add value are drinking the kool-aid. High performers are not rewarded because the ocean is now higher.

If you are an average performer, you definitely want a union. If you're a high-performer, unions are a form of arbitrage for your salary.

You might want to do some reading on why unions came about in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

Unionizing is pure free market. Workers are holders and sellers of labour (which free market advocates typically class as a commodity). They bargain for the best contract in exchange for that labour. Why is a worker's optimization of their commodity lame and negative, whereas a company's optimization for profit is not?

"cry babies who think they deserve everything without doing any work"

yes, that's exactly what's happening, and precisely the reason why unionization happens. very perceptive of you.

Username checks out I guess. This is an extremely low-effort comment. It seems that you would _prefer_ to live in a society where job security is so fragile that a well-meaning letter can get you fired?

What makes you think all companies are like that? Get a job in a company where you won't get fired in a well meaning letter.

You mean, a company where the workers have more power? A unionized company?