Hugh (@hughrawlinson@mastodon.xyz)
mastodon.xyz
Amazing how employees can immediately join together in collective action to force an entire board to resign in the interests of their CEO (I’m talking about OpenAI), but as soon as it’s about their own interests that’s absurd and naive. #union
  • rastilin@kbin.social
    18·
    7 months ago

    It was easier because Microsoft had a budget and were willing to guarantee that those employees would get paid no matter what. If Unions were better funded they could guarantee the same.

      • bl4kers@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        Percentage-based dues would naturally go up with wage increases. In some countries unions receive government subsidies though

        • Sunforged@lemmy.ml
          1·
          7 months ago

          Dues would go alot farther too if union employees had a cap based on average member salaries. There is zero reason for union executives to be living a different lifestyle from the people they represent.

  • maegul@lemmy.mlEnglish
    7·
    7 months ago

    So much fucking this. I’ve said it else where, but I think the media and online talk about openAI and Altman was a great tiny little crucible for seeing the corporate and CEO cultism that dominates mainstream culture.

    Joining together for the CEO!! Whom everyone all of a sudden has some sympathy for. But laying off thousands of employees half a year earlier … business as usual!

    CEOs are just employees. Their value is as questionable as anyone else’s. It was just another layoff. Instead everyone revealed that we’re all closer to serfs.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    5·
    7 months ago

    Back in the day, joining a Union didn’t just mean the chance of getting fired; it meant a good chance of being thrown out of the house, arrested, or even shot.

    Join the Union, and if you don’t have one, start organizing.

  • quindraco@lemm.ee
    01·
    7 months ago

    I am very skeptical that’s even what happened, but I can’t find any articles frankly explaining what happened. For one thing, three board members were replaced. How? I mean that very literally. If the three who left simply resigned, some mechanism must have been employed to select and empower the replacements. And yet the article I just linked doesn’t explain the machanism in any way.

    The article I linked makes it clear at least one of the three, Sutskever, didn’t sinply resign. He was removed. How was he removed? It is a mystery.

    All I want is for someone to lay out what happened. I doubt I will get what I want.