Amazing how employees can join together to force an entire board to resign in the interests of their CEO, but as soon as it’s about their own interests that’s absurd and naive
https://mastodon.xyz/@hughrawlinson/111470385795321317Open linkView original on sh.itjust.works359
Comments13
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.
How do you better fund unions besides raising dues?
By getting the dues matched by the government. Go march for that✊
Percentage-based dues would naturally go up with wage increases. In some countries unions receive government subsidies though
In my country I can sunstract union dues from my taxes
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.
Get the employees higher salary, and take a cut out of that
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.
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.
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.
Board members are selected by the shareholders. In this case Microsoft owns 49% of the company, so they probably had something to do with it.
The board governs the open Ai ngo not the for profit, which allows investment, though the ngo owns the for profit.
So any investment in the for profits doesn't necessarily impact the board.
An article from before the CEO returned:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/business/dealbook/openai-corporate-governance-altman-board.html