Was this an article about the disjunct between the rhetoric of contractor-economy companies and their reality, or about a dispute at We Work ? Because it seems to harp a lot on ostensibly immoral practices in the way the labor conflict was handled, but does so exclusively in the context of this single company and by focusing a lot on personal attributes and history of its Israeli founder.
Nothing WeWork has done differs remotely from any company using contractors or subcontractors. Cleaners in more or less every single building in New York work for a company different than the ones using the office space. And none are paid much better than these were. Most of them a good deal less than the janitors hired for in-house employment will be.
So why so much focus here, Gelles, rather than splitting off the implicit editorializing into a general article about subcontract mistreatment (with citations from more of the, oh, millions of companies who do it) and leaving a reasonably-sized factual article about WeWorks' dispute ?
Nothing WeWork has done differs remotely from any company using contractors or subcontractors. Cleaners in more or less every single building in New York work for a company different than the ones using the office space. And none are paid much better than these were. Most of them a good deal less than the janitors hired for in-house employment will be.
So why so much focus here, Gelles, rather than splitting off the implicit editorializing into a general article about subcontract mistreatment (with citations from more of the, oh, millions of companies who do it) and leaving a reasonably-sized factual article about WeWorks' dispute ?
I am failing to understand the use of the word "idealistic" in the header as applied to this start-up. When the founder came to the this country he sure didn't bring compassion with him so where exactly is the change the world ethos in practice? His world sounds like every other jaded money making shared office space I have ever used or visited, albeit with better coffee.
13
Tough break for the workers.
It seems like they fell between the cracks of WeWork and CBM. It seems WeWork pushed for some workers changes but didn't like what CBM offered. Then CBM terminated the contract and didn't abandon the no hire clause quick enough. Honestly, it doesn't sound like WeWork is being malignant here. They showed that by hiring on new staff who will be trained into their corporate culture, paid well, stock options (!?), etc. As sorry I am to see workers lose jobs here, I wouldn't apply the typical rich v. poor rhetoric to a case like this...
It seems like they fell between the cracks of WeWork and CBM. It seems WeWork pushed for some workers changes but didn't like what CBM offered. Then CBM terminated the contract and didn't abandon the no hire clause quick enough. Honestly, it doesn't sound like WeWork is being malignant here. They showed that by hiring on new staff who will be trained into their corporate culture, paid well, stock options (!?), etc. As sorry I am to see workers lose jobs here, I wouldn't apply the typical rich v. poor rhetoric to a case like this...
4
I love how all this New Age junk keeps backfiring on this generation. No matter how they spin it, business is business. Capital is capital. Labor is labor. And whiners are whiners. You want to clean toilets? This is the job we have for you, at this rate, until such time as we no longer need your services.
As for WeWork itself, they've got the world bluffed terrifically. Hammocks? Meditation spaces? Craft beer for free? Why not just motivate people to get things done instead of pretending they're vacationing at the Ritz?
As for WeWork itself, they've got the world bluffed terrifically. Hammocks? Meditation spaces? Craft beer for free? Why not just motivate people to get things done instead of pretending they're vacationing at the Ritz?
11
The thing to remember about "hip capitalism" is that it's still capitalism.
9
Simply put, there is too much 401k money in too few hands so the supposed financial masters of the universe shove money at "start-ups" like this. The masters get a commission on every transaction and have no social conscience. Smart Americans will put their money into safe U.S. treasury 401lk accounts and/or IRA CDs in their local bank and credit union. Time to knock these socially unconscious greedsters down to size.
6
If a job is worth doing it is worth a living wage. It may be time for a new unionizing movement in the country.
20
This article just shows that no good deed goes unpunished. Obviously WeWork should have just signed a contract with a new janitorial service after the contract with CBM ended. Instead the naive owners waded into the swamp of class resentment, guilt trips, and union politics. What a mess.
4
"When one protester reminded Mr. Neumann that his company was worth $10 billion, he waved the thought away, his hand swatting the air. “That has nothing to do with this,” he said, turning to the next question."
Journalists, at least, should be asking that very question. It's the very essence of the never-ending debate about capitalism and society - how is the pie sliced? And is the current pie-slicing fair?
Journalists, at least, should be asking that very question. It's the very essence of the never-ending debate about capitalism and society - how is the pie sliced? And is the current pie-slicing fair?
11
Without entrepreneurs like Mr. Neumann there is no pie. And as the article points out, the $10 billion valuation is a fantasy, a fact the workers chose to ignore.
By using only the WeWork example, the article misses an opportunity to expose the larger issue here which has been in place for a very long time: when companies subcontract work, those employees are often caught in a bind between their direct employer (the subcontractor) and the one paying the bills (i.e., WeWork). Many comparable examples abound on a scale far greater than WeWork. This isn't a new economy Millennial issue. It is a practice that has been in place for decades.
9
I found this part particularly amusing:
"...when he wanted to negotiate a raise, Mr. Castelan was stymied at every turn.
“When I asked WeWork for more money, they told me to talk to CBM,” he said. “When I asked CBM for more money, CBM said WeWork had to approve the raise. It was frustrating.”
This reminded me of an experience I had at college a long. long time ago. My college scholarship required I do part-time work. I got assigned to the cafeteria, run by Szabo food service. Whe we college scholarship students found out that the high school students working part-time there for Szabo were being paid more hourly money than we were, we complained to our college. We were told we needed to talk to Szabo. When we talked to Szabo, we were told they had nothing to do with setting our wages, it was the college that did so. We too were frustrated.
It makes me wonder how sub-contracting worked in ancient civilizations. I suspect much the same way. A corallary to "follow the money" is "pass the buck."
"...when he wanted to negotiate a raise, Mr. Castelan was stymied at every turn.
“When I asked WeWork for more money, they told me to talk to CBM,” he said. “When I asked CBM for more money, CBM said WeWork had to approve the raise. It was frustrating.”
This reminded me of an experience I had at college a long. long time ago. My college scholarship required I do part-time work. I got assigned to the cafeteria, run by Szabo food service. Whe we college scholarship students found out that the high school students working part-time there for Szabo were being paid more hourly money than we were, we complained to our college. We were told we needed to talk to Szabo. When we talked to Szabo, we were told they had nothing to do with setting our wages, it was the college that did so. We too were frustrated.
It makes me wonder how sub-contracting worked in ancient civilizations. I suspect much the same way. A corallary to "follow the money" is "pass the buck."
14
Didn't it occur to you that the reason you were being paid less than the high school students was because in addition to your wages you were also getting a scholarship?
From the article: "And as a spokesman for the altruistic We Generation, Mr. Neumann is dismayed that the union is demonizing him. “We care about this topic so much,” he said."
Why does the author write "spokesman for the altruistic We Generation" like it's an objective fact? Mr. Neumann, as portrayed in this piece, is a spokesman for his pocketbook and is so woefully out of touch with the realities of wage slavery it sounds like parody. Guy who owns $10 billion company is dismayed when desperate jobless folk who were making $10/hour aren't swayed by staggeringly condescending and patronizing platitudes absolving him of any responsibility. It's not his fault or his company's fault it's just how the economy works. Funny, all these billionaire types say that.
Why does the author write "spokesman for the altruistic We Generation" like it's an objective fact? Mr. Neumann, as portrayed in this piece, is a spokesman for his pocketbook and is so woefully out of touch with the realities of wage slavery it sounds like parody. Guy who owns $10 billion company is dismayed when desperate jobless folk who were making $10/hour aren't swayed by staggeringly condescending and patronizing platitudes absolving him of any responsibility. It's not his fault or his company's fault it's just how the economy works. Funny, all these billionaire types say that.
26
there is no such thing as a "new" capitalist economic system of investor/private profit and worker/public loss..it's very old with only "new" product labels and possibly sincere if naive participants in what is a "sharing" economy in the way that a rape victim "shares" a body with a victimizer, who may bathe before the act, wear white gloves, speak softly and overpower the victim without leaving physical scars, but is still a rapist enjoying a cost effective sexual date: no dinner, no movie, free sex.
4
Horrifying comparison -- but, ultimately, a very telling analogy that frankly sums it all up perfectly.
Sad, and SICKENING, for America that its voters STILL cannot seem to figure out that electing right-wing sociopaths is what lead to this and other similar problem in the first place.
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
Sad, and SICKENING, for America that its voters STILL cannot seem to figure out that electing right-wing sociopaths is what lead to this and other similar problem in the first place.
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
2
Decent treatment for poor workers is obviously what's disruptive.
10
I cannot find any evidence that WeWork did anything wrong, or even objectionable. Of course their decisions on how to run their business, including how to keep their properties cleaned and maintained to their standards, may be to the benefit or detriment of outside parties. But how on earth can they be faulted for creating better paying, full time jobs with benefits for their custodians instead of paying an outside contractor? Also it sounds like the outside contractor's custodians were perhaps not doing an adequate job, otherwise, if quality and value of work was good, why go to the bother of hiring in-house?
7
This article reminded me all too much of what Hyatt in Boston did to his cleaning staff a few years back...asked them to train some new employees one day, then dismissed them at the end of the day, as apparently those new employees were working for an outsourced cleaning company and taking over their jobs at half the pay and no benefits.
All of this traces back to a theory of doing business known as enterprise architecture. Businesses are supposed to focus on their core capabilities, and not waste time with silly things like janitorial staff, customer service, IT support, and other skilled or unskilled professions. Profits become increasingly concentrated at the companies who are outsourcing, while those who are contracting are unable to make any gains, realize any bonuses or benefits, and are stuck in stagnant, dead end jobs with employers who simply don't care if their workers come or go, as there is always someone desperate enough to do the work.
This is exactly the situation that calls for unionization, but in today's world, unions have a very bad reputation thanks to the actions of a very few and politicians seizing on that as an opportunity to score points with voters who have never themselves had to work under such conditions. Easier to blame the worker for not trying hard enough in life. It's a sad world for workers today.
All of this traces back to a theory of doing business known as enterprise architecture. Businesses are supposed to focus on their core capabilities, and not waste time with silly things like janitorial staff, customer service, IT support, and other skilled or unskilled professions. Profits become increasingly concentrated at the companies who are outsourcing, while those who are contracting are unable to make any gains, realize any bonuses or benefits, and are stuck in stagnant, dead end jobs with employers who simply don't care if their workers come or go, as there is always someone desperate enough to do the work.
This is exactly the situation that calls for unionization, but in today's world, unions have a very bad reputation thanks to the actions of a very few and politicians seizing on that as an opportunity to score points with voters who have never themselves had to work under such conditions. Easier to blame the worker for not trying hard enough in life. It's a sad world for workers today.
12
I think the outrage is misplaced, because we should simply have a more realistic view of what for-profit businesses do, regardless of their propaganda.
Let's get real. Do we really expect business to negotiate against themselves and cut into their own bottom line?
That's why need collective bargaining, minimum wage laws, and corporate regulations. Businesses will do what businesses have done since time immemorial: make money. Let's focus on ensuring that there are laws, regulatory bodies, and tools for workers to bargain on an equal footing. It's those things that will curb the worst excesses of businesses, not unrealistic moral expectations.
Let's get real. Do we really expect business to negotiate against themselves and cut into their own bottom line?
That's why need collective bargaining, minimum wage laws, and corporate regulations. Businesses will do what businesses have done since time immemorial: make money. Let's focus on ensuring that there are laws, regulatory bodies, and tools for workers to bargain on an equal footing. It's those things that will curb the worst excesses of businesses, not unrealistic moral expectations.
8
Government is baaaad and stifles "innovation" dontcha know. Except when it jumps in with $1 trillion of tax payer money to prop up the fearless capitalists and create an even bigger bubble economy. The next crash will make 2008 look mild....and until then just think positive and bury your head in the sand.
2
Here's the calculus...Can these "disruptors" and their "investors" accelerate the growth of these businesses/companies fast enough to cash out through public issuance of stock before the bubble bursts? Take the under on WeWork even existing in 2025.
4
The "Subcontractor sets the conditions" argument is intellectually lazy, morally shirking, and by now just a cliche' of bad American capitalism. I won't even respond to this entitled brat who "will definitely not be blackmailed," his apparent term for unionization. Neumann et al got themselves in this mess fair and square by disregarding and discarding the people who likely were among the hardest-working at the company. And what a patronizing twit! "I understand your heart"?! Then on your knees, buddy, and that commode better shine five minutes from now. And then the next fifty commodes.
19
It's the same nonsense espoused by 19th-century industrialists on down. They don't want to pay living wages. Without the protection of the 'welfare state', working people will never get what they deserve. All this fashionable capitalism is just the same old song; profits accrued to the few, while the many struggle. Why are we celebrating this?
12
"But by striving to win assignments, contractors often pay employees as little as possible." "By striving to make as much profit as possible" is an equally valid claim both for the companies who outsource their services and the companies who provide them. But companies who contract for services can stipulate that the contractor provide a specific minimum wage and specific benefits. If that is the contract, the contracting companies will bid on it. It comes back to the company looking to save money by outsourcing, and the worker be damned.
8
I'm surprised by the comments here. If you cut to the heart of the article, the story is:
-WeWork decided to pay 50% more for its old position and make them employees so that they could improve the quality of the work. They also decided to increase the number of such positions.
-100 people from the old contractor were legally restrained from applying to WeWork. So WeWork went about hiring for the position without them.
-The restriction was lifted, and WeWork hired twenty of this group. The rest want the new and improved jobs, but they have already been filled.
If not for the restriction, it seems obvious from WeWork's actions that all CBM staff would have been invited to apply and anyone who fit the qualifications of the new role would have been hired. Those that don't qualify wouldn't have been hired, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that that's fair (or am I wrong about that)?
So I ask the following:
- Are you saying that WeWork should hire people for positions that they don't need?
- Do you think that WeWork should have hired people they were legally barred from hiring?
- Or do you have special knowledge of the case that tells you that the parties involved are lying and no such restriction existed?
-WeWork decided to pay 50% more for its old position and make them employees so that they could improve the quality of the work. They also decided to increase the number of such positions.
-100 people from the old contractor were legally restrained from applying to WeWork. So WeWork went about hiring for the position without them.
-The restriction was lifted, and WeWork hired twenty of this group. The rest want the new and improved jobs, but they have already been filled.
If not for the restriction, it seems obvious from WeWork's actions that all CBM staff would have been invited to apply and anyone who fit the qualifications of the new role would have been hired. Those that don't qualify wouldn't have been hired, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that that's fair (or am I wrong about that)?
So I ask the following:
- Are you saying that WeWork should hire people for positions that they don't need?
- Do you think that WeWork should have hired people they were legally barred from hiring?
- Or do you have special knowledge of the case that tells you that the parties involved are lying and no such restriction existed?
36
"Are you saying that WeWork should hire people for positions that they don't need?"
It would appear that liberal/progressives think so since they believe that the primary purpose of any corporation is to provide "high paying union jobs".
It would appear that liberal/progressives think so since they believe that the primary purpose of any corporation is to provide "high paying union jobs".
5
What I don't get is that CBM cancelled the contract it had with WeWork. So doesn't that make the no-hire provision of that contract null and void?
1
It would be so easy, let alone decent, for this company to do the right thing here. But first they would have to see the wrong, and that is clearly beyond their ken.
This chip-missing behavior is not unique to young entrepreneurs, but it's sad and not a little sickening to see it repeat in a generation that defines itself as moral and idealistic.
This chip-missing behavior is not unique to young entrepreneurs, but it's sad and not a little sickening to see it repeat in a generation that defines itself as moral and idealistic.
21
All "New Economy" labor and missclassification disputes revolve around the exploitation of the workers delivering the services that these platforms facilitate. Whether it is Uber, TaskRabbit or WeWorks, all these models derive their value from aggregating unskilled labor and giving the workers no say in how much they are paid, or how the work is to be performed. They are treating unskilled laborers as if they are highly-skilled independent contractors, and pocketing the difference.
This worker misclassification issue is huge and growing, as more "New Economy" labor models come under fire and fewer people have the skills and credentials to do the types of jobs that can actually be performed as independent contractors. The distinction is important, as the willful misclassification of workers is wrong and exploitative, and harms the worker, the workforce in general (by keeping wages low), society at large (reducing upward mobility and access to the middle class) and Federal and State governments (by reducing tax receipts).
The question is: Who can work as an independent contractor?
The answer is: Not just anyone.
Workers must be highly-skilled, bid on the job, have control over the method in which the work is done and work via a written contract with a definitive start and end date.
Very few internet "New Economy" platforms fit that definition. Two examples are Liberation Medical ( https://liberationmedical.com/ ) and Elance.
A fair wage is a right, not a privilege.
This worker misclassification issue is huge and growing, as more "New Economy" labor models come under fire and fewer people have the skills and credentials to do the types of jobs that can actually be performed as independent contractors. The distinction is important, as the willful misclassification of workers is wrong and exploitative, and harms the worker, the workforce in general (by keeping wages low), society at large (reducing upward mobility and access to the middle class) and Federal and State governments (by reducing tax receipts).
The question is: Who can work as an independent contractor?
The answer is: Not just anyone.
Workers must be highly-skilled, bid on the job, have control over the method in which the work is done and work via a written contract with a definitive start and end date.
Very few internet "New Economy" platforms fit that definition. Two examples are Liberation Medical ( https://liberationmedical.com/ ) and Elance.
A fair wage is a right, not a privilege.
22
This article is flawed. I carefully read the piece and still do not understand the business model. Although, I am guided to hate the founders who are cast as bad guys. They have no obligation to hire or retain workers. Nytimes should redraft the piece
14
These guys made a successful company out of nothing. They turned an idea into something real with hard work and passion. Not many people are capable of taking these risks and creating something new. Often, these entrepreneurs go without any paycheck during the initial months and years of a business before it has a revenue stream.
The best entity for make hiring or firing decisions is the company itself, since it has a strong desire for survival and will hire the best candidates at the best market value. The company redefined the role of the cleaners, as this article states. Maybe every single one of the former cleaners is not qualified for the new job role. Or, maybe the contractor, CBM, had too many cleaners. Isn't it possible that a new person can analyse the cleaning needs and come up with a different solution? Or, do you think that a union or a government agency should set the number of cleaners that this company should hire?
This is supposed to be a free country where a private enterprise can make its own personnel decisions. The blackmailing going on here is shameless. Do these workers really think they can work at a job after harassing the founders and damaging their brand by blackmailing them daily on a sidewalk?
And the communist comments here in the NYTimes are ridiculous. The Left is out in full swing, hating private enterprise with all their hearts, not realizing that private enterprise is the engine of prosperity for all.
The best entity for make hiring or firing decisions is the company itself, since it has a strong desire for survival and will hire the best candidates at the best market value. The company redefined the role of the cleaners, as this article states. Maybe every single one of the former cleaners is not qualified for the new job role. Or, maybe the contractor, CBM, had too many cleaners. Isn't it possible that a new person can analyse the cleaning needs and come up with a different solution? Or, do you think that a union or a government agency should set the number of cleaners that this company should hire?
This is supposed to be a free country where a private enterprise can make its own personnel decisions. The blackmailing going on here is shameless. Do these workers really think they can work at a job after harassing the founders and damaging their brand by blackmailing them daily on a sidewalk?
And the communist comments here in the NYTimes are ridiculous. The Left is out in full swing, hating private enterprise with all their hearts, not realizing that private enterprise is the engine of prosperity for all.
11
WeWork worth $10B is ludicrous. Unlimited funding for a not-at-all-unique idea of shared office space [see reugus.com or google incubators]. Meanwhile, companies that are actually trying to do something - like prevent Alzheimers or cancer - struggle for funding. People who do important work - like elder care - are under paid.
15
$10 Billion valuation means nothing.
9
Thanks for acknowledging the phoney egalitarianism of the 'We Generation'. When people of any age group talk about 'we' they are talk about their 'tribe'. In this case equally privileged young, everyone else is on their own.
23
I toured a new Wework in San Francisco this summer thinking it was a great idea and option for a short term office space. I have a ten month long gig and figured it would be perfect for my project. There were several available spaces in the build-out phase and I was excited by it. But there was a guy from a local union outside protesting that Wework had hired a general contractor who used non Union labor. Sounds the same as this NY cleaner mess. I asked the person conducting the tour about using non-union labor and she said she didn't know anything about it. SF used to be a Union town so it seemed an odd business practice here. Plus, the guy outside had a huge sign and was handing out flyers (while being careful to say he wasn't picketing.) Though there were several offices I was interested in, the touring person never got back to me as promised. I figure I was labeled a trouble maker by asking about the union workers. In the meantime I decided it was too sketchy for me since I couldn't tell if it was true that the company was circumventing paying union wages. After reading this article it's hard not to figure non-union is part of their business and profit plan. It's sad, too, since the shared office/short term office idea is such a great one. I'm hoping that this mess is enough to educate these folks to do the right thing.
28
>> It was as if he had been speaking in a foreign tongue.
You mean like the WeWork whatchamacallit who stated, "I’m a big believer in in-sourcing member-facing functions,” Mr. Minson said. “If you want to build a powerful brand in the services industry, you have to.”
The new economy seems one heck of a lot like the old one, speaking in tongues.
You mean like the WeWork whatchamacallit who stated, "I’m a big believer in in-sourcing member-facing functions,” Mr. Minson said. “If you want to build a powerful brand in the services industry, you have to.”
The new economy seems one heck of a lot like the old one, speaking in tongues.
14
What's so hard to understand? The guy refers to the fact that he prefers bringing individuals who interact directly with members (member-facing) in house. You can't say front line because not everyone on the front line may interact with members. Is his language a tad stilted? Perhaps. But the meaning is obvious.
3
the cleaners need a union but good luck trying to unionize these days as that ship has sailed. They should form their own company and provide contract cleaners to WeWork instead of begging for jobs.
5
Did any of the angry, outraged commentators actually read the article? I find WeWork and its propaganda pretty loathsome, but the article states that they hired cleaners on better terms than CBM did.
It could not hire former CBM employees because of a contract clause with CBM, and when CBM finally waived that clause WeWork did in fact hire a small number of former CBM cleaners. However, by that point, there probably weren't enough cleaning jobs to go around in WeWork for all previous CBM employees.
It seems me the entire problem is our culture's unrealistic expectations that you could become a billionaire by being a nice guy. Business is ugly. Making money is ugly. That's why we have laws and regulations to constrain the excesses.
WeWork is not doing anything significantly different than any company looking to protect its bottom line (and probably better than some.) The loathsome part is really their hypocritical PR nonsense.
It could not hire former CBM employees because of a contract clause with CBM, and when CBM finally waived that clause WeWork did in fact hire a small number of former CBM cleaners. However, by that point, there probably weren't enough cleaning jobs to go around in WeWork for all previous CBM employees.
It seems me the entire problem is our culture's unrealistic expectations that you could become a billionaire by being a nice guy. Business is ugly. Making money is ugly. That's why we have laws and regulations to constrain the excesses.
WeWork is not doing anything significantly different than any company looking to protect its bottom line (and probably better than some.) The loathsome part is really their hypocritical PR nonsense.
35
"WeWork is not doing anything significantly different than any company looking to protect its bottom line"
This is the problem. WeWork are not unique here, you're right about that.
This is the problem. WeWork are not unique here, you're right about that.
CBM was the party that terminated the contract, per the article. If the non hire clause survived CBM's termination speaks very poorly of WeWork's legal folks. It's one thing for CBM to maintain control of cleaners if WeWork had terminated the relationship, but CBM's protections should have ended when THEY gave up the relationship.
That said, WeWork taking an "our hands are tied" approach is too convenient by half. That Neumann can't understand the people who worked hard for him for $10/ hour and no benefits speaks for itself. Mr. Neuman, better go public before your true skill level is revealed...
That said, WeWork taking an "our hands are tied" approach is too convenient by half. That Neumann can't understand the people who worked hard for him for $10/ hour and no benefits speaks for itself. Mr. Neuman, better go public before your true skill level is revealed...
1
Who doesn't love to hate on hipster milennials and their love of craft beer, etc. But the way this story is very coyly written, it's as if the reporter wanted us to dislike WeWork from the get-go.
As the article states: "When the New York City cleaners — who made about $10 an hour and received no benefits or paid time off — tried to unionize in June, CBM terminated its contract with WeWork and eliminated the jobs."
So unless the reporter got his facts wrong, that statement very clearly indicates that CBM should be receiving the wrath of everyone, and not WeWork.
There's nothing in that statement that indicates that the workers were let go because WeWork refused to allow for a higher salary to go to the cleaners. The implication is that the workers were fired by CBM specifically because they tried to unionize.
Now that said, sure, it would be nice of WeWork to turn around and try and hire all those workers as their own employees. (It would also be nice for WeWork to say..... let the homeless sleep in their office space at night?)
But the fact that this article is attacking WeWork on so many angles (full of irritating hipster millennials, 'rich' founders, etc.) and playing the PC card (rich against poor) but yet not attacking CBM, makes me wonder what motives are in play by this story.
As the article states: "When the New York City cleaners — who made about $10 an hour and received no benefits or paid time off — tried to unionize in June, CBM terminated its contract with WeWork and eliminated the jobs."
So unless the reporter got his facts wrong, that statement very clearly indicates that CBM should be receiving the wrath of everyone, and not WeWork.
There's nothing in that statement that indicates that the workers were let go because WeWork refused to allow for a higher salary to go to the cleaners. The implication is that the workers were fired by CBM specifically because they tried to unionize.
Now that said, sure, it would be nice of WeWork to turn around and try and hire all those workers as their own employees. (It would also be nice for WeWork to say..... let the homeless sleep in their office space at night?)
But the fact that this article is attacking WeWork on so many angles (full of irritating hipster millennials, 'rich' founders, etc.) and playing the PC card (rich against poor) but yet not attacking CBM, makes me wonder what motives are in play by this story.
8
The reporter is one thing, but someone working for WeWork had this to say:
“When I asked WeWork for more money, they told me to talk to CBM,” he said. “When I asked CBM for more money, CBM said WeWork had to approve the raise. It was frustrating.”
“When I asked WeWork for more money, they told me to talk to CBM,” he said. “When I asked CBM for more money, CBM said WeWork had to approve the raise. It was frustrating.”
The NYT can't fault the entire casino economy this country is based on because, well, it's, um, "objective" so it snipes away at individual companies and doesn't connect the dots. And many of these meditating, craft beer loving "altruistic" hipsters are so full of themselves and out of touch with reality it boggles the mind. I mean did you read the unbelievably patronizing platitudes Neumann spouted at the janitors?
3
TO: JERRY VANDESIC - Boston 1 hour ago
"There is no gain from the$10B valuation at this point. $10B is simply a number written down on a piece of paper. It's not real until there is a market for the stock, which will happen if/when they IPO."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Jerry, we get it but you need to look at the cash flow Mr. Smartie. From the article: "WeWork had $75 million in revenue last year, with $4.2 million in profits." Whether the 4.2 is EBITDA is another matter. NYT subscribers are fairly intelligent.
"There is no gain from the$10B valuation at this point. $10B is simply a number written down on a piece of paper. It's not real until there is a market for the stock, which will happen if/when they IPO."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Jerry, we get it but you need to look at the cash flow Mr. Smartie. From the article: "WeWork had $75 million in revenue last year, with $4.2 million in profits." Whether the 4.2 is EBITDA is another matter. NYT subscribers are fairly intelligent.
2
I guess the "We" in the "We Generation" consists only of whiny, entitled, privileged hipsters grooving in their cool, awesome work spaces. Disgraceful. They should be ashamed of themselves.
7
All these rich valuations for companies that don't even own any assets. WeWork doesn't own the buildings, Uber doesn't own any fleets. They generate revenue on few or virtually no tangible assets and pay those who supply the service the least they can get away with and offer no benefits whatsoever except, maybe, flexible schedules. Startups that keep going this route are going to suffer backlash - they're creating huge resentment among the working class and their own customers who see the exploitative nature of this model. Outsourcing only makes the middleman rich. Companies, and particularly investors, have to realize that the cost of doing business includes hiring within and treating employees fairly, equitably, and with respect for their hard work and dedication. Creating a class that subsists on starvation wages in order for startups to generate exponential revenue growth is not a sustainable economic model.
12
"All these rich valuations for companies" @ stacey d
Your analysis is perfect. Rich valuations are seldom accurate over the long run. The flood of easy money provided by the Federal Reserve has enabled the current over-supply of rich valuations. Eventually, many investors will sustain losses and find themselves manning these cleaning crews. If sanity reigned, your comment would be most recommended!
Your analysis is perfect. Rich valuations are seldom accurate over the long run. The flood of easy money provided by the Federal Reserve has enabled the current over-supply of rich valuations. Eventually, many investors will sustain losses and find themselves manning these cleaning crews. If sanity reigned, your comment would be most recommended!
Per the article, CBM terminated its contract with WeWorks and eliminated the cleaners jobs. And I am to believe that WeWorks could not hire those unemployed cleaners because a provision in the contract prevented them from doing so? In other words, WeWorks could not successfully negotiate the terms of a contract with CBM after CBM terminated their contract? Give me a break.
10
We work did nothing wrong. No apology is required for success.
Just because they are successful (for now) doesn't mean they "owe" the cleaners a part of their success. The only thing they did wrong was to fail to anticipate the problem they would have with their cleaning company when it was hired. I wonder if the cleaners at Goldman Sacks, Citibank, or any other public company are offered an equity position.
Maybe the cleaners should have offered a discounted cleaning rate for an equity in the company up front, or didn't they think of that?
Just because they are successful (for now) doesn't mean they "owe" the cleaners a part of their success. The only thing they did wrong was to fail to anticipate the problem they would have with their cleaning company when it was hired. I wonder if the cleaners at Goldman Sacks, Citibank, or any other public company are offered an equity position.
Maybe the cleaners should have offered a discounted cleaning rate for an equity in the company up front, or didn't they think of that?
4
What WeWork did was perfectly legal. Even what CBM did was probably legal. That's the problem -- business and labor law have recently evolved in a way which is very pro-employer and anti-worker. CBM can cancel a contract to fire its workers, who attempted to unionize, then turn around and use a no-compete contract clause from the contract they canceled to prevent WeWork from hiring the workers who were contracted to it is monstrous. That's how easy union busting has become and how severe the penalties are for workers who try to unionize.
It seems WeWork did nothing 'wrong'. They still have a fundamental problem: hhey held themselves out to customers and the public as living by a higher standard -- more moral, more forward-looking, more concerned with their workforce and customers. They attracted customers who also see themselves as more moral and forward-looking and fair to workers than their competitors. It is only natural that these customers, who had been sold on WeWork's 'better than the rest of them' philosophy now feel cheated at being caught up in WeWork's labor hassle, which are the result of WeWorks wanting to pay cleaning service rates which did not support paying the cleaners a reasonable wage for an expensive urban environment. It is a self-inflicted wound. They deviated from their stated higher moral standard. Contracting workers provided legal, but not moral protection. You built a reputation and you ruined it.
It seems WeWork did nothing 'wrong'. They still have a fundamental problem: hhey held themselves out to customers and the public as living by a higher standard -- more moral, more forward-looking, more concerned with their workforce and customers. They attracted customers who also see themselves as more moral and forward-looking and fair to workers than their competitors. It is only natural that these customers, who had been sold on WeWork's 'better than the rest of them' philosophy now feel cheated at being caught up in WeWork's labor hassle, which are the result of WeWorks wanting to pay cleaning service rates which did not support paying the cleaners a reasonable wage for an expensive urban environment. It is a self-inflicted wound. They deviated from their stated higher moral standard. Contracting workers provided legal, but not moral protection. You built a reputation and you ruined it.
26
Having been at WeWork numerous times, this was a BIG BLUNDER on the part of the CEO, a true disaster. I remember very well Neuman speaking to us on mass one day, asking for our help in a landlord dispute. How can someone blunder like this? Don't get it. Is greed that powerful of a drug?
The cleaners were numero uno in my world. EXCELLENT.
I am no longer at WeWork.
The cleaners were numero uno in my world. EXCELLENT.
I am no longer at WeWork.
8
Is greed that powerful of a drug? Indeed it is
Just outrageous! Mr. Neumann should realize that the only reason God put us on the earth, and the only reason God allows us to continue living, is to help others ... yes, after helping ourselves, which he is very good at, thank God. Instead of feeling forced by the workers to rehire them, he should feel forced by God, and thankful for his ability to do so, a big miracle! He should have wanted to pay them more the second he was able to, and the renters of his spaces feel the same way too! Now he has created a mess, hiring other people. Maybe he and the other company executives could hire them to work in their homes! One way or the other, they should rehire every one at their new living wage terms! Better late than never! If they have to fire the new hires, they should pay them each $180,000 severance packages at the very least, with stock too! But first give the previous "CBM workers" that offer! Would be a drop in the bucket, and help their stock go up and not tank, too! Not because it's legally required, because it's morally required, helping to pay back those who worked so hard to get them where they are today! -f
4
Mr. Neumann says, "this is a great country where freedom comes first.” Yes, his freedom to make BILLIONS of dollars and pay slave wages to those he deems "unimportant". Jeff Bezos mantra reborn. This is one more excellent example as to why average Americans need to form true. sustainable employee-owned businesses, with no predatory outside investors, corporate executives or unions to siphon off the profits, and where ALL employees share equitably in responsibilities and profits. The cleaners should start their own company. BIG investor-driven business in America is broken and sustainable employee-owned businesses are one answer for average people.
12
It is companies like WeWork that are destroying the American Middle Class and turning working class Americans into the new poor.
Adam Neumann purports to not be driven by material goods, but fails to ensure the employees a major contractor of his company fairly treated while placing very demanding cleaning criteria on those very same employees. Not only is Neumann a hypocritical person, he seems to be a nefarious one too.
WeWork is a new version of the old-style corporate greed and immorality that Bernie Sanders condemns in his stump speeches.
Adam Neumann purports to not be driven by material goods, but fails to ensure the employees a major contractor of his company fairly treated while placing very demanding cleaning criteria on those very same employees. Not only is Neumann a hypocritical person, he seems to be a nefarious one too.
WeWork is a new version of the old-style corporate greed and immorality that Bernie Sanders condemns in his stump speeches.
21
The WeWork deserves the bad publicity for being aware that the company THEY hired was badly underpaying the workers cleaning their offices . WEWork should be shamed , like the Disney Company recently , into rehiring laid off workers and paying them a living wage plus benefits..... Then , and only then , can they get their P R department back to categorizing WeWork as being a " idealistic " company .
24
Did Disney rehire the IT workers they replaced with workers from India ?
Another spoiled CEO brat that gets to take federal tax exemptions at my expense that I do not get to take for myself.
"New economy" - as over-played as the clean-water-for-everyone-now-watch-me-bungee-jump-from-this-awesome-avalanche ads currently clogging the airwaves. A truly new economy pays wages to the extent that people do not have to go deeply into debt to buy a house and send their two or three kids to college. Cleaning toilets - a bio-hazard unto itself - should be particularly well-compensated.
And as long as CEOs are going to continue to vote for policies in which I subsidize them, then I am going to continue to voter for policies that force raises in the minimum wage and that progress toward universal health care.
Companies that do not want me, the government, telling them what to do can get their hands out of the federal till. My wallet sure would appreciate it.
"New economy" - as over-played as the clean-water-for-everyone-now-watch-me-bungee-jump-from-this-awesome-avalanche ads currently clogging the airwaves. A truly new economy pays wages to the extent that people do not have to go deeply into debt to buy a house and send their two or three kids to college. Cleaning toilets - a bio-hazard unto itself - should be particularly well-compensated.
And as long as CEOs are going to continue to vote for policies in which I subsidize them, then I am going to continue to voter for policies that force raises in the minimum wage and that progress toward universal health care.
Companies that do not want me, the government, telling them what to do can get their hands out of the federal till. My wallet sure would appreciate it.
28
What "tax exemptions" are you talking about?
Is there really surprise that people thrown money at don't think the people who actually do the work are chattel?
How did all of the clothing companies reach record profits without abusing Asian workers, stripping America of jobs, even the old days when children worked in the textile mills ten hours a day? Heck, they got paid a dollar a day. Why do my shirts from Macys not say made in Nigeria?
Modern slavery from a mindset that says "I got money from people who want to be as robber baron as me!"
Cause I got it on the internet.
How did all of the clothing companies reach record profits without abusing Asian workers, stripping America of jobs, even the old days when children worked in the textile mills ten hours a day? Heck, they got paid a dollar a day. Why do my shirts from Macys not say made in Nigeria?
Modern slavery from a mindset that says "I got money from people who want to be as robber baron as me!"
Cause I got it on the internet.
7
This is what happens when economic libertarianism, an irrational belief that technology is inherently good, the bubble culture of Silicon Valley, racism, and plain old greed converge.
Of large concern is the fact that we are surprised.
Of large concern is the fact that we are surprised.
8
The dictionary defines the word janitor as "one who keeps the premises of a building (as an apartment or office) clean, tends the heating system, and makes minor repairs". Anyone familiar with the operation of high rises knows that it takes any small army of people who's jobs revolve around maintaining the exterior and interior of a property.
Where Wework went off course can be found in the fabric of their business philosophy which most likely did not realize that creating a creative and comfortable space in which to live and work needed to encompass not only the amenities but the staff as well. What would have happened in Walt Disney had built Disneyland filled with all of its characters, theme rides and souvenir shops but opted for the cheapest contractor to keep the park clean. The Disney experience and those "Disney Moments" would have never happened. Janitors are important! They are people with families, kids in school and are largely ignored because many think they are beneath their station. Many in that job class are poorly educated and often end up in temp jobs or working for large janitorial contractors.
If Mr. Neumann grew up on a kibbutz then he should understand the basic tenant of communal living; everyone shares the burden. The burden for Wework is to understand that the people cleaning your floors say as much about you as the space they keep clean.
Where Wework went off course can be found in the fabric of their business philosophy which most likely did not realize that creating a creative and comfortable space in which to live and work needed to encompass not only the amenities but the staff as well. What would have happened in Walt Disney had built Disneyland filled with all of its characters, theme rides and souvenir shops but opted for the cheapest contractor to keep the park clean. The Disney experience and those "Disney Moments" would have never happened. Janitors are important! They are people with families, kids in school and are largely ignored because many think they are beneath their station. Many in that job class are poorly educated and often end up in temp jobs or working for large janitorial contractors.
If Mr. Neumann grew up on a kibbutz then he should understand the basic tenant of communal living; everyone shares the burden. The burden for Wework is to understand that the people cleaning your floors say as much about you as the space they keep clean.
63
Adam: "God truly helps those who help themselves,’ ” he said. “I understand your heart. I know everybody here is trying to help. You keep pursuing a job at WeWork." etc etc
Typical, aren't you? When you saw a chance to pay less for some hard labor, you took it. And then decided to take the easy way out again and again. Now this damning article exposes your under developed, silly ideas about "changing the world".. You are a glorified landlord. That's about it. So stop with the patronizing god talk (really, you are going to sermoize to people who work multiple jobs to make ends meet about hard work?), and learn to correct the situation your greediness created.
Unbelievable.
Typical, aren't you? When you saw a chance to pay less for some hard labor, you took it. And then decided to take the easy way out again and again. Now this damning article exposes your under developed, silly ideas about "changing the world".. You are a glorified landlord. That's about it. So stop with the patronizing god talk (really, you are going to sermoize to people who work multiple jobs to make ends meet about hard work?), and learn to correct the situation your greediness created.
Unbelievable.
42
It would have been nice if one of the cleaning people working there now was interviewed. It would have offered a more complete picture.
24
Like Ubër and AirBnB, WeWork and its principals have demonstrated that all the hip babble about working to make a life, having organic snacks, wearing undershirts to work and ridiculous origin myths, doesn't hide their blind greed. The fact is if I were a janitor who had been mistreated by WeWork I wouldn't trust the nonsense spewed by these guys for one minute. A crunchy granola bar doesn't do much for a family living hand to mouth. And no matter how they try to explain it away this company has demonstrated that it is anti-union...the only friend these janitors have. Mr. Neumann says, "I feel you, I understand". I doubt it. He should try feeling what it's like to push a mop all night long only to find out that the people whose garbage he is cleaning up are going to do what they can to keep him from benefitting from his hard labor. Mr. Neumann should live the American Dream but these people shouldn't? Great over yourself, Mr. Neumann!
25
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Same as the old boss.
29
Of course, the benefits and spoils of the so-called "shared economy" will only be enjoyed by the already privileged few. How could anyone expect anything different? There's no such thing as "good", "compassionate" or "ethical" capitalism.
27
He grew up with his siblings in a house the size of his daughter's bedroom--HUMBLEBRAG! If your daughter now sleeps in such an immense bedroom, surely you can afford to pay a living wage and provide some benefits to the people who make your office spaces attractive to potential clients. Clean sells!
22
"But to many onlookers, it’s hard to understand why a company with so much money won’t help the unemployed men and women who once cleaned its floors." That really is the bottom line. Even if Mr. Neumann thinks that it's not the point, it is. To hold oneself out as part of the "we generation", as in "we're all in this together" and then leave 100 cleaning people out to dry, just doesn't jive. WeWorks should have thought this through better.
29
I agree with CL, unfortunately David Gelles seems more interested in vilifying Mr. Neumann and WeWork than in objectively reporting both sides of a very interesting and complex story. Gelles asserts: "We work may not have been Mr. Castelan's direct employer, but it was the one with the ability to improve conditions for him"-- really? Why not hold CBM, as the cleaners' direct employer, also accountable for improving the cleaners' working conditions? Does Gelles really think NYT readers will accept Professor Gordon's hyperbole: "WeWork has all the power. It has the money and it has the control", without hearing what other experts in Labor Law have to say? Moreover, Gelles raises more questions than he answers. It is not clear to the reader whether the cleaners are truly employees of CBM or independent contractors themselves. The fact that they wore a WeWork T-shirt and that they had gotten to know the company's customers well, does not make them employees of WeWork, even if they "believe that WeWork had a responsibility to them". The article is so pro SEIU as to make one wonder if Gelles is on the Union's payroll. It's too bad. This could've been a very timely and informative piece. Oh and BTW, I am a freelance Spanish interpreter and translator, providing specialized services at Immigration Court, among other agencies. As an independent contractor, I understand the joys and the frustrations of working for oneself.
11
CBM no longer employs the cleaners. When they did they could have paid them more...if MeWorks approved the increase. I don't see how this article is so pro SEIU. They are only briefly mentioned. But the implication is that SEIU or any other union is the only one willing to fight for them. This is the history of the labor movement in this country. Neumann and his pal McKelvey are just T-shirt-wearing hipsters who are really the embodiment of old-time robber barons who bankroll the sweat and tears of their labor force. Nothing new here. Just the T-shirts, organic snacks and craft beer.
This is why we have labor laws, for young entrepreneurs who did not take any history courses on the industrial revolution and union busting. Oh and there are child labor laws too.
24
Thanks for the newsflash. Which labor laws, exactly, do you believe that WeWork is violating?
Why would the Times call this company "idealistic?" What "ideals" are they promoting? Providing coworking space (in return for cold hard cash) may be a useful service, but that makes WeWork about as "idealistic" as my landlord. A little rhetoric about "disruption" does not actually equal any recognizable form of ethical aspiration.
47
Here's the age-old ideal by which they operate: what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
Well stated.
Hey, anything new in renting out space is
"stretching the business model" for property management troglodytes.
Hey, anything new in renting out space is
"stretching the business model" for property management troglodytes.
This is ridiculous. Most companies, like wework, hire cleaning companies for janitorial services. If I was contracting janitors, I would too demand them to wear uniforms in my premises.
The fact that the contractor terminated services when the workers tried to unionize has NOTHING to do with the clients, be them wework or anyone else. These people are not even contractors. I'm sure that, if it wasn't for the union angle, many would have been hired by Wework. Sorry guys, this time labor activism did not work.
Now, these guys decided to side with the would be union and their sponsoring local instead of looking at alternatives and real work with WeWork or someone else... I guess the only thing these dissappointed exworkers will have to do now is find another job at another janitorial company.
I don't think wework did anything wrong.
The fact that the contractor terminated services when the workers tried to unionize has NOTHING to do with the clients, be them wework or anyone else. These people are not even contractors. I'm sure that, if it wasn't for the union angle, many would have been hired by Wework. Sorry guys, this time labor activism did not work.
Now, these guys decided to side with the would be union and their sponsoring local instead of looking at alternatives and real work with WeWork or someone else... I guess the only thing these dissappointed exworkers will have to do now is find another job at another janitorial company.
I don't think wework did anything wrong.
15
Have you ever had to clean-up after a millionaire who won't pay you a livable wage? I doubt it.
Exactly how do you know those workers are sitting on their hands, waiting for the union to fix things for them, instead of looking for work? Do you know how many of those workers were already working multiple jobs just to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables?
Easier to judge those people as being stupid or lazy then to admit maybe the game is rigged against them...or reading and comprehending the details explained in the article. Sounded more like it was CBM that stopped WeWork from hiring when it could have, and WeWork made this mess by contracting with one of the cheapest services around. But hey, let's blame the workers for making poor choices.
Easier to judge those people as being stupid or lazy then to admit maybe the game is rigged against them...or reading and comprehending the details explained in the article. Sounded more like it was CBM that stopped WeWork from hiring when it could have, and WeWork made this mess by contracting with one of the cheapest services around. But hey, let's blame the workers for making poor choices.
Ah, here come the "Social Darwinists," never missing an opportunity to remind us that the poor deserve to be poor because they are "unskilled," lazy and/or stupid. On the contrary, they are poor because unscrupulous employers get away with underpaying them. Anyone who works full time should be paid a living wage.
48
Then you should start your own business and pay them their living wage, or better yet, even more...
2
@Pete: Better yet, taxpayer-subsidized corporations can show some gratefulness and pay excellent wages. Businesses are not owed taxpayer-funded infrastructures from which to profit. As such, if they are going to play, then they must pay in the form of living wages. Honestly, the business class increasingly shows itself to be the most self-entitled bunch in the room.
5
I agree. And when he does pay them a living wage, and when he works side-by-side with them, when he includes the union reps in the management of the company fostering loyalty, a sense of ownership, and commitment, other companies will be forced to do the same. He will have made good money, contributed to the betterment of the community and allowed these people to enrich the rest of the economy from which you benefit.
Adam Neumann: "...this is a great country where freedom comes first.”
Well, apparently, profit comes first, at the expense of poverty wage workers.
Not sure why the headline calls this company "Idealistic". It's treating low-wage workers like dirt, hiding behind contractors and sub-contractors.
What's "idealistic" about that?
Well, apparently, profit comes first, at the expense of poverty wage workers.
Not sure why the headline calls this company "Idealistic". It's treating low-wage workers like dirt, hiding behind contractors and sub-contractors.
What's "idealistic" about that?
45
The law and business norms make it easy for very profitable companies to take no responsibility for the workers who are hired indirectly through service contractors, and it is hard for the profitable companies to move proactively to protect the service workers when the service company contracts break down. Still, it would be unreasonable to sympathize with the decision makers at WeWork. Surely WeWork could have negotiated a mutually acceptable price with the service company to waive the "no-hire" clause so they could directly hire the individuals who had previously been employed by the service company. And in the past they certainly could have negotiated a price with the service company that would have provided for decent terms and conditions of employment with the actual workers. Evidently the WeWork decision makers preferred in the past to avoid taking responsibility for the service workers, and when the service contract was terminated they again preferred not to accept any obligations toward the individuals who had provided services in their company. It is up to the WeWork customers who claim progressive values to force the company to accept and fulfill its obligations to its service workers.
9
And once the business norm was to lock factory workers in sweat shops, make them work 12 hour days six days a week (including children) for a pittance. WeWork holds all of the cards, not CBM and they have played the cleaners for chumps.
4
I agree. First of all, per the article CBM terminated its contract with WeWork and eliminated the jobs. So what contract would still exist that prevented WeWork from hiring the workers? It occurs to me that WeWork must be completely inept if it cannot manage to negotiate a contract that was terminated. It makes me wonder how hard they tried.
What is wrong with these company founders? If these folks were good enough before, why can't they be hired now? Talk about lack of humanity. Horrible.
11
Did you even read the article?
I, for one, am tired of all this self-serving talk about "the new economy", "the creative class", etc.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
77
As someone who has worked in creative services for 45 years I couldn't agree more. This new "creative class" is an embarrassment to my industry. And if creative people are supposed to be so one-minded and progressive then this hypocritical ethic is disgusting. From day one I've paid my people top dollar and shared the profits. Younger producers have complained to me that I am making it hard for them to hire new talent. What they are really saying is that I am making it hard for them to abuse new talent entering our industry.
8
Couldn't agree more.....all about profits......
Yes, but they have so much better buzzwords.
1
As depressing as a robotic money-grubber like Jeff Bezos is, I'd still prefer a straightforward plutocrat to a mealy-mouthed hypocrite any day. What these young "idealists" don't seem to get is that wearing frumpy clothing and acting "cool" doesn't mean a damned thing. And no, Mr. Neumann does not "feel you" if you happen to be a janitor - he uses you to his advantage and then feels sorry for himself.
86
The pendulum is way too far in the direction of corporations, and we need more labor unions and stronger labor unions, now more than ever. But we need modernization of the types and kinds and voices of these unions.
54
So a two-bit hustler graduates from the Kibbutz to the U.S., which to him means nothing more than making a buck. I see that he also likes to quote "God." Truly, a religious, self-effacing capitalist.
83
Welcome to America, heh.
1
Contrary to Mr. Neumann's beliefs, G-d has nothing to do with the way people get help. I would posit that G-d left the work of helping others to humans on this earth and that's where Mr. Neumann falls so flat on his face that it isn't even funny. Raking it in while professing piety and high-mindedness is so, so hypocritical. Has Mr. Neumann ever heard of Tikkum Olam? Seems that it would be a novel concept for the guy raised on a kibbutz in Israel, but one that is espoused by and held dear to Jews world-wide, religious or not. It's a fundamental tenet of Jewish values, to constantly work at improving this world and not just oneself.
44
When workers demand better treatment, they are "blackmail[ing], push[ing]" Neumann, threatening his "freedom." How dare these little people negatively impact his brand! How dare they make him feel uncomfortable!
And then Neumann has the gall to proclaim that "God helps those that help themselves" as though the workers protesting against his company's practices were doing anything else. What a fine speciman of modern American capitalism.
And then Neumann has the gall to proclaim that "God helps those that help themselves" as though the workers protesting against his company's practices were doing anything else. What a fine speciman of modern American capitalism.
107
Yes, protesting for better working conditions or a fair wage is now considered a form of blackmail. Pity the poor CEO! Boo hoo!
39
People are fleeing wework and not just for janitor issues - they fleece their 'customers'.
Beware wework, you have nothing special at all - anyone can rent a building, kit it out and then sell space..... there are zero barriers to entry.
Beware wework, you have nothing special at all - anyone can rent a building, kit it out and then sell space..... there are zero barriers to entry.
5
I see a lot of angst here, but very little to be concerned about. The cleaners should have given their position a bit more thought and tried to understand the dynamics of the relationships between them, WeWork, and CBM. The existence of a no-hire clause was a big deal, but the workers seem to think that it should have simply been ignored. That's not the way contracts work. In the end, the new cleaners that are employees of WeWork seem to be well paid and receiving benefits.
28
"The cleaners should have given their position a bit more thought." I don't think cleaners are in positions to negotiate the terms of adhesion contracts, Learned Hand.
7
@ Jerry Vandesic Come on, don't you have a heart? Really?
7
And as a result they ended up in a bad situation. But to be honest, the cleaners didn't really have many options, and they didn't have any room to negotiate. The contract between WW and CBM explicitly included a no-hire clause. The workers were not a party to that contract. They could have tried to negotiate with CBM to get CBM to drop the no-hire clause, but by the time they did it was too late.
If you want to be mad at someone, the best target of your anger is probably CBM. WW was offering the jobs, but CBM kept the workers from being able to apply by enforcing the no-hire clause.
If you want to be mad at someone, the best target of your anger is probably CBM. WW was offering the jobs, but CBM kept the workers from being able to apply by enforcing the no-hire clause.
5
Not quite sure how providing office space is "changing the world."
99
The same way that ordering some piece of merchandise online and having it delivered (Amazon) is some earth-shattering innovation that demands the best minds of our generation, etc, etc. The grandiosity of the "new economy" is to the point of delusional.
53
It isn't. But this is the the current language of technology and Millenials. No one can just start a new business, hire people and do good work anymore. It always has to be this chin music about changing the world. Deep in their beings I believe they know it's nonsense but the pressure to be Awesome! all the time must be awful.
10
Shame on Mr. Neuman and his hypocrisy. Pay the workers a decent amount. Or stop the pretense that the new ventures are anything other than the same old exploitation of the poor.
58
Did you read the article? He's paying the office cleaners $15 to $18 an hour, plus benefits. More than cleaners get almost anywhere else. I don't understand how this makes him an exploiter.
7
Define "living wage," please.
1
They are not part of My Generation.
Talk is cheap. I hope they can see their way clear to make the situation better.
After all, "“If you understand that being part of something greater than yourself is meaningful,” Mr. Neumann said, “and if you’re not driven just by material goods, then you’re part of the We Generation.”
I hope they can become part of their 'We Generation'.
Talk is cheap. I hope they can see their way clear to make the situation better.
After all, "“If you understand that being part of something greater than yourself is meaningful,” Mr. Neumann said, “and if you’re not driven just by material goods, then you’re part of the We Generation.”
I hope they can become part of their 'We Generation'.
19
So...Mr. Neumann should have no problem with SHARING some of the material gain from his company's $10B valuation?
2
There is no gain from the$10B valuation at this point. $10B is simply a number written down on a piece of paper. It's not real until there is a market for the stock, which will happen if/when they IPO.
7
CParis: I don't know the answer to your question. You should ask him. He has the answer and the solutions.
I don't know his position on sharing. I suspect by the question and capitalization that sharing is not your strong suit. But sharing is a quality shared and considered by most major religions and ethical organizations to be a positive thing. While you are with Neumann, please ask him who made the $10 billion valuation possible?
My guess is he will NOT say the employees working for $10 per hour. Or at least he will offer that the value of the low end workers who clean up the slop of others did not make the valuation possible. But who knows. I have been wrong before. I suspect again that you are exempt from such reflective suspicions or are wrong about anything.
But then again, I could be wrong!
I don't know his position on sharing. I suspect by the question and capitalization that sharing is not your strong suit. But sharing is a quality shared and considered by most major religions and ethical organizations to be a positive thing. While you are with Neumann, please ask him who made the $10 billion valuation possible?
My guess is he will NOT say the employees working for $10 per hour. Or at least he will offer that the value of the low end workers who clean up the slop of others did not make the valuation possible. But who knows. I have been wrong before. I suspect again that you are exempt from such reflective suspicions or are wrong about anything.
But then again, I could be wrong!
1
As a person of a certain age who grew up in a time that held the promise of better working conditions and a nicer life for people I can't tell you how sick to death I am of these man-children who blather about being socially responsible and "sharing," start companies that are basically nothing but valued at billions and treat their employees like chattel while they live in their perpetual adolescence. It's disgusting.
141
Back in the good old days, people who started businesses usually worked for 7-10 years for someone else before they went out on their own so they had experience as an employee working their way from the bottom up. Today, a kid has an idea in his dorm room and investors throw billions at him before he has breakfast. Is it any wonder they're arrogant and insensitive?
3
I understand there is an editorial viewpoint in (any) reporting but "The result has been a showdown between new economy and old." seems to imply that there is a dichotomy between them. The 'economy' should benefit all --- that is the definition of the word itself.
12
Not trying to sound heartless but low skilled or even non skilled jobs aren't paid very well. Those workers should go get some training or try their hand at sales where hard work typically pays handsomely. WeWork isn't a charity. If that coffee maker makes better coffee than anyone else than they will be rewarded. Problem is anyone can make coffee.
10
Not everyone can be an astronaut - by which I mean and you should know, not everyone is a salesperson. Not everyone can do just anything. You state that WeWork isnt a charity - these workers are not asking for charity. People who clean offices for a living deserve a living wage.
51
So only those who can do something really high-level or nearly unique should be paid? Everyone else should just live in a cardboard box or die? The problem with that vision is that 1. you can't run an economy on a couple of special snowflakes doing their special thing, and 2. there are all kinds of services and jobs that need to be done that do not demand PhDs - such as making coffee, cleaning offices, picking apples, stocking shelves, etc. Believe me, if you had to clean the toilets at your office yourself because no one else would do it, you'd sure start appreciating the work a little more. Such entitled people!
47
With what initial outlay of capital do you suggest former janitors acquire "training?" All training costs money. It would appear from the article that these people do not, in fact, have money.
13
Just another typically mindless capitalist trying to use workers to HIS advantage without thinking about how it affects them!
I have one word for these cleaners: UNIONIZE!
I have one word for these cleaners: UNIONIZE!
79
Trying to unionize really worked out well for them!!!
3
This is perhaps the best Jason for workers to organizers to collaterals bargain for the terms of the provision of their labor to their employers (s) ... In other words , unionize! And let this experience be the kick-off to a renewed labor movement to rebuild collective bargaining in this country! One would think this would come naturally to the principals of WeWork given their early life experiences!
1
Union busting is an old ploy by management. If not for the hard-won batles fought over the past century by unions most workers in America would have very few rights in the workplace.
The erosion of union workers has directly led to the decline of working conditions and wages for millions of working class Americans., and that's a shame, and shameful.
The erosion of union workers has directly led to the decline of working conditions and wages for millions of working class Americans., and that's a shame, and shameful.
6
It is the modern way: be a Billionaire company and a Petty thief employer. All the while accepting no responsibility for your employee.
95
On the matter of the janitors, they were contractors and not employees. Their complaint ought to be with their employer. To the degree the WeWork brand has value, it is in the culture and the staff. There is no way that they should be expected to hire someone else's employees as a group, rather than screening each prospective employee by their own standards, not that of the cleaning contractor. Their strategic error was in not better managing their contracto relationship, or changing vendors rather than dispensing with a contractor altogether.
What is unique is that they have actually considered and followed through in hiring their own employees to clean the facilities. Most real estate companies contract this work out. No good deed goes unpunished.