8 ms·

LinkedIn says Fastmail has 116 U.S. based employees. I may be completely off base here, but if you're that small an org and employees feel the need to form a un

by mvexel 3y ago

LinkedIn says Fastmail has 116 U.S. based employees. I may be completely off base here, but if you're that small an org and employees feel the need to form a union, wouldn't that indicate a significant problem with company culture?

morvita 3y ago
There's power in bargaining as a collective, whether you're a collective of ten or ten thousand. Either way, it helps with the power imbalance between employees and management.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  There's also cost in coordination and agility--this is fundamentally true of any new bureaucracy, company, system or process. I'm reading this as a sign of cultural stress unless we have evidence to the contrary. (EDIT: I didn't realise Fastmail has almost 1,000 employees, with many remote. That comes closer to where structure is merited, though I'd still argue that this points to dysfunction in the U.S.-HQ bridge given only the Americans are unionizing.)
  - zbyte64 3y ago
    The kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind Take this to an extreme: a start-up. A union is overly bureaucratic. I’d wager a union doesn’t start making sense until the lowest-ranking employee ceases to have on-demand access to senior management.
      - givemeethekeys 3y ago
        That's quite small. Having worked at a few companies in the 30-50 employee mark, while it is true that I could speak to management almost any time, it was also obvious that they were very busy.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > companies in the 30-50 employee mark, while it is true that I could speak to management almost any time, it was also obvious that they were very busy Sure. But if you had a grievance, you could voice it. And if you needed to pull some like-minded coworkers together to underline it's shared, that could be done ad hoc. If a 50-person company needs a union (because e.g. management refuses to listen) that's a problem. That's my point. I don't know where the delineation is. But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction. For the same reasons a middle-management layer or expansive C suite, below a company of a certain size, is a sign of dysfunction [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
        coldpie 3y ago
        > But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction. FWIW I don't think that's obvious at all. Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone and protect themselves and future employees against potential changes in ownership or a downturn in company health.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone I'm not arguing it couldn't be done, nor that it doesn't have benefits. Just that it has costs, and those costs at a small level should outweigh the benefits. While they're doing that, and maintaining that structure, they could be doing something else. (Something more enjoyable and lucrative.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dboreham 3y ago
> Fastmail has 116 U.S. based employees Wow. Considering they're not a US-based company this seems amazing (yes, I'm aware that unicorn startups need a zillion people because...reasons, but this is Fastmail not a unicorn).
Vinnl 3y ago
According a toot posted today, they have 50 employees: https://mastodon.social/@fastmail/111585249083411392 https://mastodon.social/@fastmail/111585249083411392
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
If they're generating massive profits and not receiving proportional compensation then collective action can produce a fairer outcome.

by mvexel 3y ago

morvita 3y ago

There's power in bargaining as a collective, whether you're a collective of ten or ten thousand. Either way, it helps with the power imbalance between employees and management.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
There's also cost in coordination and agility--this is fundamentally true of any new bureaucracy, company, system or process. I'm reading this as a sign of cultural stress unless we have evidence to the contrary. (EDIT: I didn't realise Fastmail has almost 1,000 employees, with many remote. That comes closer to where structure is merited, though I'd still argue that this points to dysfunction in the U.S.-HQ bridge given only the Americans are unionizing.)
- zbyte64 3y ago
  The kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > kind of coordination that requires less representation does not have your interests in mind Take this to an extreme: a start-up. A union is overly bureaucratic. I’d wager a union doesn’t start making sense until the lowest-ranking employee ceases to have on-demand access to senior management.
    - givemeethekeys 3y ago
      That's quite small. Having worked at a few companies in the 30-50 employee mark, while it is true that I could speak to management almost any time, it was also obvious that they were very busy.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > companies in the 30-50 employee mark, while it is true that I could speak to management almost any time, it was also obvious that they were very busy Sure. But if you had a grievance, you could voice it. And if you needed to pull some like-minded coworkers together to underline it's shared, that could be done ad hoc. If a 50-person company needs a union (because e.g. management refuses to listen) that's a problem. That's my point. I don't know where the delineation is. But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction. For the same reasons a middle-management layer or expansive C suite, below a company of a certain size, is a sign of dysfunction [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
        coldpie 3y ago
        > But there is very obviously a point below which unionization is a sign of dysfunction. FWIW I don't think that's obvious at all. Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone and protect themselves and future employees against potential changes in ownership or a downturn in company health.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Even a small group of happy employees could form a union to set the current policies everyone is happy with in stone I'm not arguing it couldn't be done, nor that it doesn't have benefits. Just that it has costs, and those costs at a small level should outweigh the benefits. While they're doing that, and maintaining that structure, they could be doing something else. (Something more enjoyable and lucrative.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dboreham 3y ago

> Fastmail has 116 U.S. based employees Wow. Considering they're not a US-based company this seems amazing (yes, I'm aware that unicorn startups need a zillion people because...reasons, but this is Fastmail not a unicorn).

Vinnl 3y ago

According a toot posted today, they have 50 employees: https://mastodon.social/@fastmail/111585249083411392 https://mastodon.social/@fastmail/111585249083411392

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago

If they're generating massive profits and not receiving proportional compensation then collective action can produce a fairer outcome.