by gregoire on 6/20/22, 4:37 PM with 260 comments
by johnny313 on 6/20/22, 7:21 PM
This is a key observation. Every incredible team and inspirational idea eventually has to make the unit economics work. The longer it takes for a leadership team to realize this and prioritize it, the more difficult it is for people (ICs and managers) to internalize the changes that need to be made. Worst of all is when the shift happens because runway is getting short, and "get rich quick" projects become the focus instead of building a good product.
> ...you must understand what your company needs to do to be sustainable. It very likely is different from what they’re doing now, and may come with unexpected ethical compromises.
This sounds like a difficult situation, but is certainly something people should think about. Things can get weird when a company is running out of money.
by jenny91 on 6/20/22, 7:15 PM
Maybe unions and workers having more control could curb it? But in such a late stage it sounds almost impossible to achieve.
Cars are certainly a problem, but technology has by and far been a great thing, and I would question whether the gaming is really such a positive industry in the end either.
by mikl on 6/20/22, 6:26 PM
I wish people better understood what taking VC money means: trading control for money. While employees might _feel_ the company is still theirs, that’s only true to the extent that they hold majority control of the board of directors.
It’s certainly possible to take VC money and keep your original vision intact. But only if your original vision works well enough to keep your shareholders happy. Failing that, the board will push management to compromise with the ideals as much as needed to get a return on investment.
by woevdbz on 6/20/22, 8:48 PM
A single company, especially one that is not generating monopoly/oligopoly profits and is still dependent on funding, is not really able to: unionizing creates a steep competitive downside on the capital market that is not offset by enough employee retention benefit to be worth it, and that alone creates existential risk for the whole company. Long term, it simply helps another competitor to come up without a union.
Systemic problems need systemic solutions. It saddens me a bit that people want social change so much but dislike politics so much more that they take up the wrong fight, and then retreat to something like making videogames, which frankly as an industry has an even worse track record than tech in terms of respect for its workers.
I hope OP changes their perspective and fights a wider fight, either on behalf of a party or of a larger union.
by slively on 6/20/22, 6:16 PM
by hutch120 on 6/20/22, 11:30 PM
I guess we now have some more insight into why this occurred.
> "In order to use most Services, you must register for or authenticate into a Mapbox account. When you use our application program interfaces (APIs), including our SDK Registry/Downloads API, each request to an API must include one of your account's unique API keys."
by erlich on 6/20/22, 11:59 PM
Especially for a startup that had struggled to find market fit, the last thing they need is a union.
Companies are not democracies and setting up a union is a hostile action. It basically says: here are the things we want and if we don’t get them we all stop working. If you want to run the company differently go setup your own company or buy some shares.
by thinkingemote on 6/20/22, 9:20 PM
It's hard to know one way or the other. Might be nice for employees to identify themselves.
Personally I was intrigued with the formation of the union and knew that many of their employees were quite liberal:
The company evolved from something called Development Seed - basically a progressive humanitarian and development focused company. It is different from most SV companies. And based on open source and open data. Them stopping key open source projects and charging for use of just their mapping JS library (not data usage, any use of the code anywhere) was shocking.
I'd love to hear from an original principled humanitarian employee on what happened to the company and/or them. Maybe money is better. Maybe they left?
We don't hear much about the union at all. We assume from the usual SV unions that it was all about identity, inclusion and diversity but perhaps it was more about this conflict of their humanitarian roots and money.
by Brystephor on 6/20/22, 7:21 PM
To be clear, I did receive an offer and passed.
by tarkin2 on 6/20/22, 7:08 PM
The whole story reinforced the idea that if you build a company with value but no profits eventually you either abandon it as a business or give control to VCs, and if you had any emotional or political investment in the company you will be disappointed.
by sbussard on 6/20/22, 10:16 PM
It’s that belief that still keeps me from going that route even while working through a regular career for several years. If the project succeeds, well you’ve already sold it to the people who ru(i)n the world. Bootstrapping is so expensive but you diversify power in tech. Don’t sell out!
by tiffanyh on 6/20/22, 8:26 PM
Call me crazy, but taking such a drastic move as unionizing shouldn’t be trivialized into just being an “experiment”.
EDIT: why the downvotes? Why not simply reply with your thoughts so that we can have a thoughtful discourse.
by tinco on 6/21/22, 4:56 AM
Definitely a heavy thing to have show up on the first page of your Google results, and I cross referenced with his LinkedIn it was definitely him, so I would expect him to address it somewhere. But nothing, never a public apology or even a statement, nothing from Mapbox. That was so crazy to me, surely whoever interviewed him did a minimal background check, and they just thought it was ok? It felt really off, so I found a different technical solution and never talked to them again.
by iamleppert on 6/20/22, 6:53 PM
by astrange on 6/20/22, 11:46 PM
All these things are correct except for the ruin cities part - that’s a US city planning problem.
Japan, everyone’s favorite high public transit country with a lot of demand for maps, has a higher car ownership % than the US. They just discourage using them for personal trips and commutes via small roads, toll highways, expensive parking etc.
But once you’re a family or want to go somewhere low density and take some luggage, it’s hard to beat them.
What it looks like to me is this guy wanted to work at a geospatial PBC but didn’t know such a thing existed.
by reocha on 6/20/22, 9:10 PM
by talos on 6/21/22, 2:07 AM
Browsing the old union website (https://www.mapboxworkersunion.org/) almost all of the supporters of unionization were on the engineering side of the house, much more than I'd expect if you randomly sampled the org for job titles.
I wonder why that is?
by tschellenbach on 6/20/22, 7:49 PM
by Helmut10001 on 6/21/22, 4:06 AM
by prescriptivist on 6/20/22, 9:04 PM
by kfox2010 on 6/21/22, 1:29 AM
And then end it with:
> "The skills and connections I developed at Mapbox set me up for a smooth and satisfying career transition."
So do you have a career or not?
by worik on 6/21/22, 6:57 AM
Sigh. Profit is good. Profit is necessary. Profit is not a great motivator IMO. It motivates, but alone it motivates the wrong things the wrong way.
Money is my only motive available to me at the moment, and I am sad about that.
by dougSF70 on 6/21/22, 8:07 AM
by brundolf on 6/21/22, 3:33 AM
by rahulnair23 on 6/21/22, 11:43 AM
> Technology is fundamentally neutral
It is in the same way guns are fundamentally neutral. You can't view it without context. Include that and it is clear that tech (or guns) isn't neutral at all.
by donohoe on 6/20/22, 9:30 PM
Or to put it another way, is it not a good idea for me to move to a different provider for basic mapping services?
by worldmerge on 6/21/22, 3:25 AM
by jjmorrison on 6/20/22, 11:41 PM
by draw_down on 6/20/22, 4:43 PM
Did they create products? Features? Internal tools? Design guides/system? Any actual work? Or just agitating for a union that their coworkers clearly did not want?
by xyzzy4747 on 6/20/22, 6:04 PM