Hacker News Reader

I appreciate the thoughtful comment. And I wouldn't dispute that we believe that lifetime employment by a single company is unlikely to be offered or accepted in today's world.

But Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees. We're not pro-corporation or pro-employee; our point is that work is a voluntary relationship where both parties should benefit.

> Dan Lyons is misrepresenting us when he implies that we believe that employees should be loyal to companies even though companies show no loyalty to employees.

I didn't read it like that. It's pretty clear from your statement (even taken out of context) that you expect lower loyalty on both sides.

On the other hand there are bosses that would like loyal employees, even though they're not loyal themselves. They may even get a simulacrum of loyalty, as the fear of unemployability increases with unemployment itself. (Unless we take rather drastic measures, unemployment will continue to rise. Next in line are drivers.)

Beneficial mutual relationship under Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is great, but we must not forget that some people, organization, or even countries, may have no comparative advantage. What are we to do with them? We can let organizations and countries collapse, but surely we shouldn't just let people die?

Finally, it's not clear that work is really voluntary when the alternative is not being able to eat: employers face this conundrum much less often than employees do. There's a fundamental asymmetry there that when strong enough turns "voluntary" into plain old blackmail. (As a white male programmer, I don't believe the asymmetry I face is that strong. The neighbour who works at Starbucks however…)

The issue of what individuals who lack currently marketable skills should do is a tough one. Note that I didn't say unskilled...skills that once were valuable can become less valuable quite rapidly in our fast-changing world.

Since we can't predict the future, we shouldn't blame those individuals who were unlucky enough to have invested in now-worthless skills. As a society, we need to understand that investing in re-training so that someone can find a new job is far better and less expensive than either putting someone on the dole for the rest of their life, or letting people "die in the streets," which is as nonsensical as it is callous.

Note that re-training may not be enough, if structural unemployment is still significant. To describe this problem, I like the analogy of feeding dogs in a desert island:

1 desert island with nothing to eat, 100 dogs. Every day, a chopper comes in and drop 95 pieces of meat. 95 dogs can eat, the 5 slowest are left starving. A dog trainer sees that, and decides to train the slower dogs so they can eat. And they do. Now 5 other dogs are left starving.

My current take on this is, employment is overrated. We should find other ways to live our lives.

I think the realization of this reality is one of the things driving the basic income movement. I will be very curious to see if that experiment works out. I honestly don't know if it will or won't.

While we're at it, there are 2 kinds of proposal for guaranteed income:

Basic income tends to postulates that humans have needs they deserve to satisfy (food, shelter…), even if they don't have any marketable skills. Basic income is a kind of charity.

Salary for Life tends to postulate people are productive, even if no money is involved. An elder couple looking over their grandchildren do something useful, even though they're explicitly paid for it. Unemployed people don't just slack off, they often work for free. Work deserves income, and that's what Salary for Life is: not charity, but the recognition of one's worth to society.

There are also practical differences: Basic income tends to be financed with income tax. Salary for Life proposes to be financed with "Non-wage labour costs" (yuck, what a crappy name).

Finally, basic income is mostly compatible with capitalism, and can only increase as much as the need for labour decreases. Salary for Life on the other hand is inherently socialist, and mostly needs the abolition of lucrative property (you can still own your house and your stuff, but you can't rent a house or own a factory).

I'm going to have to check out Salary for Life. I can see that there are nuanced differences.

For reference, this is a transliteration from French: "Salaire à vie". I'm not sure there are many discussions of this in English.

Do you address the power imbalance between employees and employers? Do you address that an employee in such a culture is viewed as a disposable resource and no loyalty towards them is necessary, no matter what they do?

Or do you address that corporations are run by people, who each have lives and that those who are older, female or who gave young families they must support and who they want to spend time with don't feel they are in such "voluntary" work forces? What about corporate cultures where if you say no to ridiculous work hours (often unpaid) or unreasonable demands will be "graduated" from their role?

Or have you addressed the disruption to someone's life when they are forced out of a job, or the feelings of worthlessness they often feel, or the injustice that is often done to them?

Your views appear to promote toxic corporate cultures. Frankly, they are designed for people who are highly mobile and who have as much power as their employers. You don't appear to address any of these things.

1) We do specifically address the power imbalance between employers and employees. Because managers typically have more power in the relationship, it is critical that managers take the initiative to prove themselves trustworthy. Now that talent mobility has increased so much, employers who continue to treat employees as disposable are going to have a hard time attracting the best talent.

This doesn't mean that all companies will behave in an enlightened way, and there are cases where employees who lack specialized and valuable skills will still be treated badly.

2) There are also corporate cultures that place such high demands that they have negative impacts on employees' health and happiness. The purpose of our book isn't to defend all corporate employers! Its purpose is to lay out a plan for how corporate employers who believe in our ideas can build stronger, more mutually beneficial relationships with employees.

3) Losing a job can be devastating, both to your financial life, and to your health and happiness. It doesn't help that the social safety net in the United States is stingy and inconsistent. But unless you prohibit employers from laying off employees, I really think this is more a matter of government policy. And preventing employers from firing people always has unintended consequences, such as discouraging any hiring, and encouraging black market, off-the-books work.

Have you actually read our book, or even one of our many articles? I feel like you're judging me based on Dan Lyons' editorial, which as I've already pointed out, quotes exactly 6 words out of the entire book.

Broadly speaking, capitalism works because it is a voluntary exchange mechanism. It doesn't work perfectly, which is why we should strive for things like educational reform (to give everyone a chance to get a good education). But no system does.

Thinking beyond the best or the top ten percent should change some of the perspective. Not all workers will be of "the best". Most will be middlings. It's the middlings who need to worry about power imbalances and who take jobs with lousy bosses and put up with lousy coworkers.

True, top talent has less to worry about since any setback in employment is easily reversible. Many (most) don't have that luxury. These are the ones for whom the new economy is angst inducing and a bit intimidating and who look back with fondness and melancholy at the old less tumultuous economy before the new management style took over.

> It's the middlings who need to worry about power imbalances and who take jobs with lousy bosses and put up with lousy coworkers.

In my experience, many people (I don't like the word 'middlings' for some reason) think job to job instead of about a career. And then they have job problems.

Likewise, many people think paycheck to paycheck instead about longer-term finances. And then they have cash flow problems.

Isn't part of the solution to get employers and employees to talk to each other in terms of career trajectory, professional development, and skills marketability?

Couldn't part of the power imbalance be solved by getting employers to think again about giving out dead end jobs in dying industries? Right now we put the onus on the employee to recognize the problem and demand a better deal. Assuming automated freight trucks become a thing, shouldn't trucking companies say, "Hey, work for us. We'll have you trained for better jobs by the time the truck drives itself!"?

What "better jobs" are you thinking of that a typical truck driver could be realistically trained for? It reminds me of when the US steel mills closed in the 1970s and 1980s and people said -- "we can just retrain these workers for a lucrative computer career!". Didn't really happen. The elimination of unskilled/low-skilled labor through automation is major problem for society that is only going to get worse.

One of the big challenges we face as a society is managing these kinds of transitions. In 1900, the majority of Americans worked on farms. We managed that transition, but we had decades to do so. If self-driving cars eliminate all driving jobs in a single decade, the dislocation will be immense.

This is where government action will be required; this is a society-wide problem that needs a society-wide solution.

Exactly - thank you. You wrote this more succinctly and clearly than I did! That is precisely my concern.

I guess I'll read the book now if it isn't too expensive (or even available in my region!), but I think many of these ideas about mutually beneficial employment only really works where power is relatively well balanced - in other words the employer can't get rid of you or treat you badly because you are irreplaceable it very hard to replace, and the employee has loyalty towards the company.

The instant this changes, then one party will often be largely unfairly affected.

The hope is that as talent mobility increases, the power imbalance will ebb. But it is rare for the power to be perfectly balanced.

"But it is rare for the power to be perfectly balanced."

That's the difference between the powerful and the powerless. The powerful thinks the imbalance is a fact that will never change; the powerless thinks that must change.

The problem in corporate world nowadays is that the powerful people disguise this difference all the time. For example : "hey, you can negotiate your salary and if you disagree, you have total freedom to go somewhere else. How powerful you are !"

I'll sure read your book, but I'm under the impression I'll see another, maybe very sophisticated disguise...

(yes you can call me a "socialist" (in the European sense) :-) because all of this is super political in fact)

You're absolutely right that too many corporate employers take a "check the box" approach to being good employers. They strive to do well in rankings and to develop a good reputation, rather than focusing on treating people well.

But the bigger issue is that people have ended up in a position where they are powerless. And that is because the system doesn't see them as valuable. In an economic sense, unskilled labor isn't that valuable. But in a philosophical sense, those human beings are part of a society that should be looking out for them.

The best instrument of change in this case is government action (which I suppose means that holding this opinion also makes me a little bit socialist).

The root cause of the problem, at least in the United States, is that our educational system (aided and abetted by institutional discrimination and/or neglect) has failed to give many of its citizens the skills and knowledge they need. Furthermore, the social safety net is both inconsistent and insufficient.

As a mere business book author, I have a hard time tackling such problems, though I've certainly offered my opinions.

I recall an example, a bit fuzzy, so I might be off on some. Over at Zappos, someone was great at their QA job (or something, bug good at it never the less), Zappos were able to improve process and this position and person were made redundant. Not her fault, but you cannot fault the company either. However, I do find fault in not training this person for an alternate path in the company. Of course it's easier to just hire someone new to fill in a new role then it is to retrain. Govt needs to incentivize retraining.

Talent mobility will improve things for top talent wherever you are; but talent mobility will hurt you if you are not top talent unless you live in the lowest cost place to hire people. In other words if you are not top talent things are going to get worse not better.

The whole point of software engineering is to automate yourself out of a job.

When social safety net works, then people without top skills can still work away from bad employers. They may even try to start own business as they know that if they fail, the landing will be soft.

The situation when a person has to accept intimidation or even abuse at work is not much different from slavery.

Your first point is telling. Talent mobility has increased among young software developers. Dan Lyons was not a young software developer; he was an older employee on the business side of the enterprise.

It's possible (though: see game development companies for counterexamples) that abusive management of technologists at technology companies will be self-defeating, and that those companies will find themselves locked out of the talent market. But the story Dan Lyons is telling seems pretty well aligned with, for instance, reporting about Amazon's or Yelp's work culture: if you're not a young or elite technologist, management can in fact abuse you with impunity.

Employers with short expected employee timelines leads to a culture of highly disposable workers for the majority of employees, since most employees are less powerful. Not everyone can leave in two years to work for Google, Facebook, etc.. due to children or wanting to have a life outside of work. This culture and the disposability of employees leads to high demands and negatively impacts employees' health. If the employee doesn't meet the demands they can be disposed of in this exploitative relationship that is now couched as being the new normal and to be promoted.

I agree with point 3) people should have a safety net. Maybe some of the problem with this culture would be mitigated, since people would have a net to fall back on and wouldn't fear for their survival. But this plan also costs money. So companies with this sort of work culture should be paying the taxes to support the employee they laid off. Once you take the increased taxes into account, then you might see a more rational approach towards the average employee that is thrown out instead of retrained. Does the hyper libertarian mindset take into account this negative externality? Or do they simply try to dodge their taxes in offshore accounts or move their headquarters to avoid paying the tab?

Sadly, many (thought not all) corporate executives see their sole responsibility as maximizing shareholder value. Coordinated government action would likely be more effective than relying on the goodness of people's hearts. The problem is that those who behave responsibly handicap their own financial performance; it's hard to ask people to voluntarily act against their own economic interests.

It's good and fair that you have been able to lay out your real position in this discussion to people who haven't read your full text. Your comments certainly deliver a much more sensible and reasonable perspective than the article would indicate. I especially agree with 3, the corner cases of behaviour on both sides (labour & capital) can be mitigated and controlled with policy and law. Capitalism and socialism both seem to fail as you start to skirt their extremes. From the outside it seems like the USA needs a little bit more government intervention in industrial policy and also in labour regulation. Perhaps the rise of insurgent candidates for President is pointing that the mass of the Demos in the USA is hankering for a bit of this?

While I have sworn a vow not to write specifically about the US election, it is clear that one of the things buoying certain insurgent candidates is the feeling of less-educated working class white Americans that their position in society has been declining.

The thing is, they are right; their relatively unskilled labor is no longer valuable to the system (especially when equivalent labor is available at a fraction of the price in other countries). Where they are wrong is the belief that isolationist and anti-immigrant policies will restore a happy time when blue collar workers without a college education or special training could have secure, well-paid jobs that would allow them to live a comfortable middle-class existence.

I think you are right, but for the sake of social stability some sort of more equitable bargain must be struck. The alternative model is visible in Mexico City and San Palo; office commutes by chopper or kidnap and ransom risk every day !

Yes, inequality is self-limiting. Either the haves realize that they need to avoid tearing apart the fabric of society, or the have-nots realize that they represent the majority of the people, and rise up in revolution. The former is a lot less bloody than the latter.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. If I may also respond:

1. That doesn't necessarily follow. In any economy there will always be talent, but the issue here is that you refer to the "best" talent - surely such a scenario you give also implies that once you are no longer the best talent, although you were so at one point, you can be perceived as no longer so and this you can be replaced?

There will also always be those who strive hard but have average performance no matter what you do. I don't see how you cater for anyone other than a relatively small proportion of high achievers.

That said, I don't see that it's the case that companies will ever have a problem recruiting new talent despite what they did to previous employees. There is no way of new employees to know how a business treated previous employees till they work for them, unless they know someone inside the company already and that's rather unlikely in my view.

2. That's a worthwhile aim, I guess I think some of the viewpoints about corporate culture in general that you wrote in your comments seem hopelessly naive and would foster toxic work practices.

3. It works fine in other cultures. In Australia we have incredibly high employment, and unless you work for a small business employer you can only be fired for cause, otherwise you must he made redundant which means your role cannot be fulfilled for at least a year.

The consequences of this are that employees cannot be unjustly removed and that employers need to clearly document what they have done to help the employee correct and improve their performance.

A side effect was that bullying someone out of a job became a tactic for having them leave by lower and middle managers. We now have stringent legislation that enforces proper investigation of claims of bullying by HR departments. This now happens - because the legislation penalises directors if it is found the issue is not addressed satisfactorily. I have personally seen that this is working - in my last role the colleague who took over my job was bullied by a middle manager, so he put in a bullying complaint to HR, who were forced to act very quickly through mediation and the bullying almost immediately stopped. The one being bullied got on with his job and company productivity improved.

This would never have happened unless it was legislated for.

As for companies not hiring - they still hire workers, but tend to be careful I their screening process and the legislation allows for a probation period where the can let the employee go and don't have to give cause. This can't be longer than 6 months, but it can be negotiated downwards if they really want the employee.

It works really well. Australia's workplace relations laws are very strong, and whilst there is black market, off the books employment this is quite low and we have fairly effective detection and enforcement of such practices.

4. I haven't read your book. I'm thinking of purchasing it to read it so I can better understand your ideas, but so far I have made my comments based on your comments on HN. If I've unfairly characterised your views I obviously apologise, but the comments that formed my view are on HN.

I'd love for you to read the book and provide an Australian perspective. I do think it's interesting that preventing employees from being fired resulted in an uptick in bullying. I've read about similar things happening in Japan. One senior employee was forced to work on an assembly line in an attempt to convince him to quit. It sounds like the anti-bullying legislation has been helpful in this regard.

The one major point in your latest comment I'd disagree with is that companies will never have a problem recruiting new talent regardless of what they did to previous employees. Here in the US, most employees check services like Glassdoor where employees and former employees rate company behavior; the companies with bad reputations suffer certain consequences. (Of course, some companies offer so much potential wealth that employees ignore the poor working conditions, but that doesn't mean people are unaware of those working conditions.) How do people in Australia learn more about what it's like to work at a potential employer?

If your company strategy depends on having the "best" talent, then yes, you should replace former best when they are no longer the best. Think Olympics or professional sports as the canonical example.

If your company strategy can work with the vast majority of talent and where some job/company-specific learning is in play (which is the vast majority of companies), then you would naturally prefer an experienced employee to a rank novice. That gives some power advantage to the incumbent employee over a walk-in applicant.

If your company strategy can use nearly anyone and there is no significant learning on the job, then incumbent employees are competing on fairly equal ground with new applicants and it can become a race to the bottom, but it also requires the lowest amount of investment on the part of the employee.

Your job as a prospective employee is to understand what type of company you're considering joining, and to get yourself in the right place on that spectrum, where right is a function of your abilities, aspirations, and preferences. Some like the battle to be the very best. Some like the idea of a lifetime of learning and stable employment. Others prefer (or have thrust upon them) a job where not too much is demanded of them in terms of job-related learning and development.

Unfortunately most Australian employers can easily work around #3 by just employing staff on short fixed term contracts. Then they're under no obligation to renew them.

In theory they have to offer permanent employment after a certain time, but there are lots of ways around that. I worked as a casual staff member at a university here for 8 years and they just shuffled me to a different department when I got close to that point. Didn't bother me as I was both working and studying there at the time but the "casualisation" of staff that want permanent roles is rampant.

This is true - the casualisation of the workforce is a real problem. If Labor ever gets into power I hope they recognise this as a problem and make it harder to use this loophole.

The best way of handling this, I feel, is to only allow a percentage of any business to be casualised, unless special dispensation is granted. Also, there it should be financially more expensive to follow this tactic - this way those of fixed contracts get compensated for the risk of their employment ending, and employers have an incentive to employee more full time employees.

Sadly, this is true around the world. Job protections tend to help incumbents, and result in an "underclass" of "temporary" workers. This even affects public sector jobs in the United States.

It's like squeezing a tube of toothpaste; squeeze in one place, and the laws of economics cause the paste to come out in another.

> I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations.

Then why did Lyons cite grandparent's book as though it supports his worldview? Why did he sandwich quotes from the book with paraphrasing that doesn't represent the book at all?

> That is the heart of "The Alliance" - an acceptance the world has changed, and making it work for you.

Are you preaching to grandparent about what his book is about? That strikes me as strange.

> Rather than defend against a perceived attack, I think a policy of agree and amplify makes sense.

The reply (not mine) was not a defense. It was adding a new point of view to the conversation; that this disagreement might be mostly involve a mismatch on what abstract words like "job security" mean. It's implied that progress might be had if people broke down and discussed details a bit. Like, "is it a good idea to assume a company will be around for 50 years?"

Your idea of "vocabulary misunderstanding" is similar to what the philosopher Wittgenstein calls "language games". He believes that it is the duty of the philosopher to help clear up the misunderstandings present when two people are trying to communicate with the same vocabulary but are actually playing different language games. It's been a long time since I studied him, but I think that I can at least recall this much correctly. :) You might be interested in reading more by him.

How much formal logic does he use?

>Dan Lyons idealises a world in which people worked their whole career for one company, had a slow progression of minor promotions and pay rises & retired to a gold watch they took to Florida. That reality makes me personally want to buy a chair, some rope and to Google how to tie a noose, but my view is certainly NOT universal, and I need to accept and recognise that.

I think the angle you're missing on this sort of job is that it's perfect for someone for whom their job is not their self-identity. In the tech realm today, a lot of people really tie their identity to their work, and for them, this sort of job is really bad. However, there are lots of people for whom a job is just a paycheck, and their passion lies elsewhere. Often that passion is in an area where significant money just cannot be made (family is the most obvious one, but there are others.) I've worked in public service in the past, and you see lots of people that have been working the same job for 10, 20, or even 30 years. When you talk to them, it's clear that the job is fine, and they enjoy it, but what they really care about is their kids, or the dogs they walk at the local shelter, or whatever their passion is.

On the contrary, it can also be that those who stick to the same job for 10, 20 or 30 years, care for the job rather than jumping ship. They care for serving the public, through government or through the private sector.

I don't think this is about passion, I think it's about a culture mis-match. Lyons is looking for a place with stability, and that was not HubSpot. In this case it was probably HubSpot's error in hiring him in the first, as they have a very clear opinion of their culture. I think Lyons would not have been happy at any tech company, the fact that he considers a company that was a year away from IPO, and almost 10 years old when he joine, to be a startup says he has no idea what he was getting into. It's understandable, and most people don't know the culture of the company when they apply for a job.

On a side note: public service is the last place I want somebody who doesn't care about their job.

Your last statement is incorrect - they care about their job, but are not passionate about it.

Your statement inadvertently highlights the point on language which is being made in the article and in this thread.

Lack of Passion != disinterest.

I'll agree with your last, but your first statement is as incorrect as well. How do you know they care about it?

If somebody is passionate, then they certainly do care about it, but you are correct lack of passion does not equal lack of care, so I'll revise my statment.

Public service is the last place I want somebody who is not passionate about their job.

If “maximise skill development” were really so central, I would be much happier with the working environment.

I think that would involve some combination of:

* Choice over what kind of tasks you work on

* Freedom to spend some extra time on a task, both to get it to a level of quality you are happy with and to use the opportunity to learn the domain in question a little better

* Blocks of time to work on a maker's schedule; to read, concentrate, and work with minimal interruption from coworkers

These things benefit not only the happiness and well-being of a software engineer (which is where I'll focus since that's what I am and this is hacker news) but also his/her ability to learn and improve over time.

In the short term, these things might make you less valuable to the business by not being at the constant beck and call of others, and taking longer on tasks.

In the long term, I think they would more than pay for themselves for all concerned. If I were offered these sorts of improvements to the working arrangement in exchange for a pay cut, I'd be very very interested.

Honestly, I think too many people take their situation as a given and don't look at it as something they can change and improve for themselves.

> * Choice over what kind of tasks you work on

At a high level, you already do that by choosing one job over another.

> * Freedom to spend some extra time on a task, both to get it to a level of quality you are happy with and to use the opportunity to learn the domain in question a little better

That should be in your schedule estimate. When the PM asks "How long will this take?" the duration you tell them should include time to understand what you're doing and make it nice.

> * Blocks of time to work on a maker's schedule; to read, concentrate, and work with minimal interruption from coworkers

I don't exactly understand what this means. Block off time in your calendar and turn off IM and email. If that doesn't work, go to an empty meeting room or somewhere else quite where people can't find you and work from there.

You're right, of course.

My experience has been that the social norms and cues in the workplace are generally stacked against people doing these things, and in the past five years seem to have moved farther away from these ideals rather than closer to them. Maybe that isn't really the trend; that's my perception of it though.

Maybe I just need to do a better job of finding the right arrangement. It doesn't seem like an easy topic to address in the hiring process though. I find that I only really learn what the environment is like by working in it, and even that can change from team to team or month to month.

Pretty simple.. Improved productivity from this new era of employment at will should lead to wealth which provides guaranteed basic incomes.

Basic income is welfare 2.0. It's not going to lead to human happiness.

The economy itself is an "actor" on this stage. It's going to make choices about who can afford what. It's going to reward those who reduce inefficiency, those who find new growth paths, and if not that, it will build reserves to help it through lean times.

In that system, people who don't "add value" are a carrying cost, and the system will try and reduce them.

The system we have, can not be expected to spend its surplus generously, or happily.

I'm not sure I follow, what are the reserves? If we are talking about the entire economy as an actor, a number in some magnetic tape can't be. Neither can be food or infrastructure unless it is properly preserved. So my guess is that the right reserve would be a people. People that aren't adding value today, are excess capacity that can be used during bad times. Guaranteed income is one way of maintaining that extra capacity.

Also, I'm not sure that anthropomorphizing the economy, while interesting, is the right level to think about this.

For everyone with a stake? I still see clear winners and losers in that scenario.

If that happens it will be a fight.

Do you have a cite for being the 70's paradigm: "the business will employ you no matter what you do or how bad you are" - the classic 1970s Union paradigm

No Union protects employees no matter how bad they are.

No Union protects employees no matter how bad they are.

Uh, not quite. How about union-represented employees who kill people? We continuously read how Police department unions defend cops who kill unarmed citizens:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-poli...

Once of many examples from the article:

"Hector Jimenez is one Oakland policeman who was fired and reinstated. In 2007, he shot and killed an unarmed 20-year-old man. Just seven months later, he killed another unarmed man, shooting him three times in the back as he ran away. Oakland paid a $650,000 settlement to the dead man's family in a lawsuit and fired Jimenez, who appealed through his police union. Despite killing two unarmed men and costing taxpayers all that money, he was reinstated and given back pay."

Nope, not even a tiny bit.

There's a difference between the rigor required for an online discussion, and the rigor required for a formal paper. I knew some of my post would miss the mark - and by a very WIDE margin - because using very simplistic, stereotypical cultural lingua franca makes the general point easier to make, but lacks pretty much any rigor.

Viewing it more as a starting point for discussion - and trying to see past the many bad parts - is all I hoped for.

The very often do and did! Read about the history of the Telsa Fremont factory when it was GM, or teacher's unions for cases like Mark Berndt, etc.

The usual story told about the Fremont NUMMI plant is that it was a disaster (drug use and prostitution occuring on the grounds) under GM and that when it was taken over by the Toyota joint project with the same work force (and union) became highly productive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI#History

In this telling it's the GM management who are incompetent, not the line workers. Clearly that's not the version you're selling though.

Both examples are pretty disingenuous.

Have you ever worked in a union shop?

Unions are democratic institutions that rely on precedent, so it's really essential to defend employees all of the time.

> I don't think Dan Lyons misrepresents your ideas, but rather I think more fundamentally he doesn't share your vocabulary, worldview nor expectations.

Pretty much the #1 asshole behavior on the Internet is criticizing other people's books/studies without having read them. Chris is right, this reflects extremely poorly on Lyons.

I suspect the reason that Dan Lyons mentions "The Alliance" is that we cite some of HubSpot's programs in the book. Specifically, we mention HubSpot's "Learning Meals" program, which encourages employees to take smart people outside the company to lunch. HubSpot will pick up the tab as long as you share what you learn with the rest of the company on the intranet.

This is pure speculation. You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him.

Lyons worked for a company that has an abusive culture. They recently had two top people in management leave because of unethical behaviour - and you observed and promoted aspects of such a culture in your book.

I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.

I didn't criticize Dan's book, or say that his statements about HubSpot were inaccurate. (Note that I'm not saying they're accurate either; I haven't worked there!) What I did do was to point out that his op ed does not accurately reflect what I wrote on my book. I don't believe this constitutes mischaracterization on my part.

HubSpot fired two senior managers because they tried (foolishly) to use deception to obtain copies of Dan Lyons' book before it came out. You seem to be implying that our book promotes such unethical behavior. Again, I'm unconvinced that describing a program for allowing employees to expense networking lunches constitutes encouraging an abusive culture.

Dan Lyons didn't mention expensing lunches in that article. You are speculating why your book was mentioned. The issue you seem to have is the bit about your "tour of duty" concept, which it looks like was indeed mischaracterised (I have to read your book to know for sure). But apart from that I'm not sure what can really be stated as anything else than fair criticism in that article - and by which I mean he disagrees with your ideas and critiques them.

> You seem to be upset that Lyons has mischaracterised your work, yet you also seem to be happy to do the same to him.

Not even close. Speculation is fine as long as it is labeled as speculation ("I suspect..."). It's nothing like what Lyons did, which is to misleadlingly paraphrase the contents of a book.

> I think that you are getting just criticism, and you are taking it quite badly.

I think his complaint is totally understandable, and I find the personal nature of your criticism bizarre.

So if I say Nazi Germany did a good job building highways I'm promoting Nazi ideology?