Thread by @roybahat

Been thinking about labor organizing, in tech etc., and what it means now.

TLDR: Many CEOs have been able to ignore the skill of working with organized labor for a long time. No more.

And labor organizations will have to get better at being a boon to a company’s performance. ⤵️

Why labor organizing matters: It’s hard to see a good way for working people to get better outcomes (like turning bad jobs into good ones) without organizing.

It’s also hard to see how we provoke people to be more engaged in elections without organizing.

(Some may say “UBI!” or “education!” -- except that the votes required to move government organize in other ways before they vote. Enter… labor organizing.)

Why is organizing underdone? Mostly, I believe it’s a lack of familiarity among working people with the possibility of organizing, let alone the skills to do it. (I hear all the time… “wait, I could do that?”)

Also:
> “Deregulation” culture saw unions as another shackle on company success
> Sclerotic legal infrastructure makes it hard to be nimble
> Loss of previously-organized industries to other countries (in part because higher costs of labor, from unions)

That said, plenty of labor organizations have made their companies less successful -- and when those companies whither, who cares whether they’re organized?

We need a form of labor organizing that makes companies *more* successful (even if they spread the winnings more evenly across their people). Both labor and capital want companies to thrive.

Being able to be X billions rich vs. half-X billions rich is not the differencemaking incentive for founders, in my view… whether you can be a wild success at all, that’s the thing to care about. And it’s unclear today how labor organizations help a company succeed.

It was different in the Big 3 era when we perceived ourselves to be splitting a pie that was hard to shrink…

These days, the pie is always at risk of being taken off the table just as we’re splitting it. So our only choice is to grow and split the pie at the same time.

Are unions the right answer? In some instances yes -- they have superpowers.

It’s a problem that current labor law (and its treatment of unions):
> Focuses on W-2 employees
> Treats any mid-level manager as if they’re “the boss” when many are just as aligned with employees
> Organizes by company, not industry ...

Current law also:

> Focuses on physical workplaces (it’s much easier to organize a shop floor than a digital workforce)

> Precludes much local innovation because the federal “pre-emption” is so broad (though it also creates protection, so federal law should be a floor)

We also need alternatives to Big Labor.

Big Labor, like almost any big organization, often moves too slowly to respond to changing conditions, protects itself as an institution above too many other priorities, and too often defends its own (e.g., police unions).

Public unions are their own ball of wax, protecting members’ interests at the expense of other interests (e.g., the public interest!). At the same time, when there’s a monopsony buyer for certain occupations (teachers, police) it’s only fair to have a monopolist seller.

One way to organize your workplace: Unit -- unitworkers.com -- takes all the “how do I do that?” work out of setting up a union. Ask @jamieearlwhite anything.

(Workers can go independent union or affiliate with one of the already-existing unions. We’re a #proudinvestor.)

There are also plenty of good examples of non-union organizations, like @domesticworkers, or @OURWmt. @teamcoworker is great, especially once you have a campaign you want to run.

What about in tech? Why do we need to organize labor in tech of all places where many employees do so well? (Think high-paid engineers, etc.)

There are issues other than pay. Say, a company’s stance on climate, as per the Amazon organizers who made progress moving their own company.

There are people who work for tech companies other than employees. Uber and Lyft drivers, contractors cleaning offices.

Does the Amazon vote in Bessemer prove that Amazon is on the right track in how it treats workers? (No. It shows they out-executed the union on the organizing campaign. Though of course ultimately it does reflect the will of the workers.)

The idea that the Amazon vote proves Amazon treats its workers well is so wrong that even Jeff Bezos doesn’t believe it. (With respect to my colleagues at @progresschamber, their view that the union vote validates the Amazon approach seems off to me.)

https://twitter.com/roybahat/status/1383165128925794304

If you’re a CEO, the bar keeps going up for how you need to treat your people. Nobody’s impressed with free snacks.

The most talented people want a voice in what your company does. They may organize to get one, and you’ll need to work with that energy and not against it.

There are so many green shoots of new ways of organizing and courageous people (note: the vast majority of people driving are women and POC)… @tecollab, @techworkersco, @theworkerslab, @driverseatcoop, @AlphabetWorkers, @ksr_united, @GetFrank_com, @logic_magazine, and others.

We need labor organizations that, while pushing to share rewards more widely, make companies more successful. It should be possible. If you’re working toward that, hit me up.

And if you're a CEO trying to figure how to work with labor, we'd love to hear from you, too. There are good ways to harness the energy of workers' voices.