4 ms·

More tech co-ops are great. The gig economy needs a unionization proxy to fight the ever worse contracts people are offering. But > "People who control those

More tech co-ops are great. The gig economy needs a unionization proxy to fight the ever worse contracts people are offering. But > "People who control those companies are solely executives or wall street share holders, not the people who spend countless hours making the company run and function" You imply that you think workers should all own equity in their employer. That sounds cruel and arbitrary to me. How is it OK to dock Barista Bob's pay because a national ad campaign went badly? In my companies, your compensation is tied to your responsibilities. Executives are responsible to make sure the whole company succeeds, so their compensation is partially in equity. If the company does well or poorly, their pay is raised or docked automatically. People whose responsibility is limited to their immediate job are paid based on their time, at a rate that (ideally) tracks how good they are at their job... regardless of how well the company is doing. The idea that I should punish a stagehand for problems totally out of her ability to control, or even visibility... or that I should reward an executive for working extra hours, when that's a normal part of her job... well that sounds like a terrible way to treat the people who make things run. Who would want to work in that kind of environment? Ugh. Speaking as a several-times-over founder and C-level... you should try starting a company sometime, even as a short term project. I think you'd gain some new definitions for "countless hours" and "making the company run and function." But the wall street guys - those people are leeches. All they provide is the money to run the company. Why should they get a say in how it's used?

mmjaa 10y ago
>Who would want to work in that kind of environment? People who want to help build an awesome company, and like being a part of the team, and not just an accessory to it.
neon_electro 10y ago
I can't speak as someone with experience starting a successful business, but you have two examples in your post of something going wrong in a business and a part-owner of the business being penalized for it. They're fair examples, but why do you shine no light on the other side? When businesses are successful, shouldn't everyone who had a hand in that share in the rewards? To me, that's the argument for including workers in the ownership of a company. Structure it however you want - if the people putting in the money to start the business deserve more ownership because of that, that's your right. But don't paint an incomplete picture.
marricks 10y ago
I think it's easy to see my attack on the system as an attack on yourself and wall street. I tried to skirt the line and be vague in terms of what I think ownership and control should be in a company, but many people feel the current system is quite messed up. Most workers nowadays are not unionized, and it's declining[0], giving people with the "largest responsibility" pretty much all the control and profit. Clearest demonstration of the problems with this is the skyrocketing disparity[1] or massive top CEO pay disparity[2]. Yes, start ups and smaller companies aren't anywhere near that bad, but that's where the dream of a start up leads to, and most US employees work at large companies.[3] Anyways, the point in my comment was solely that workers should have a large say in their company, and the blood sweat and tears of founders should be compensated, but far above everyone else? Sure, people who provide capital should be compensated, but should they decide what worker compensation is? Should they get most of the profits? I think there's ample room for improvement. I also echo what neon_electro says about focusing solely on risk and omitting reward. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Union_membership_in_us_1930-2010.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Income_inequality_panel_-_v1.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... [2] http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/Z http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/Z [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-20/big-companies-still-employ-lots-of-people https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-20/big-compa...
bobwaycott 10y ago
Shouldn't everyone's pay be automatically increased via bonuses or equity grants when the company does well? Why should that only be limited to executives, when the workers are actually producing increased value? You really call attention to the reality that execs can handle automatic penalties/rewards because their pay is so many multiples higher than employee pay. On the other hand, there's really no reason one couldn't reject that as nonsense, eliminate penalties altogether, place executive pay at a significantly lower multiplier, and then share rewards equitably among everyone.

mmjaa 10y ago

>Who would want to work in that kind of environment? People who want to help build an awesome company, and like being a part of the team, and not just an accessory to it.

neon_electro 10y ago

I can't speak as someone with experience starting a successful business, but you have two examples in your post of something going wrong in a business and a part-owner of the business being penalized for it. They're fair examples, but why do you shine no light on the other side? When businesses are successful, shouldn't everyone who had a hand in that share in the rewards? To me, that's the argument for including workers in the ownership of a company. Structure it however you want - if the people putting in the money to start the business deserve more ownership because of that, that's your right. But don't paint an incomplete picture.

marricks 10y ago

I think it's easy to see my attack on the system as an attack on yourself and wall street. I tried to skirt the line and be vague in terms of what I think ownership and control should be in a company, but many people feel the current system is quite messed up. Most workers nowadays are not unionized, and it's declining[0], giving people with the "largest responsibility" pretty much all the control and profit. Clearest demonstration of the problems with this is the skyrocketing disparity[1] or massive top CEO pay disparity[2]. Yes, start ups and smaller companies aren't anywhere near that bad, but that's where the dream of a start up leads to, and most US employees work at large companies.[3] Anyways, the point in my comment was solely that workers should have a large say in their company, and the blood sweat and tears of founders should be compensated, but far above everyone else? Sure, people who provide capital should be compensated, but should they decide what worker compensation is? Should they get most of the profits? I think there's ample room for improvement. I also echo what neon_electro says about focusing solely on risk and omitting reward. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Union_membership_in_us_1930-2010.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Income_inequality_panel_-_v1.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... [2] http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/Z http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/Z [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-20/big-companies-still-employ-lots-of-people https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-20/big-compa...

bobwaycott 10y ago

Shouldn't everyone's pay be automatically increased via bonuses or equity grants when the company does well? Why should that only be limited to executives, when the workers are actually producing increased value? You really call attention to the reality that execs can handle automatic penalties/rewards because their pay is so many multiples higher than employee pay. On the other hand, there's really no reason one couldn't reject that as nonsense, eliminate penalties altogether, place executive pay at a significantly lower multiplier, and then share rewards equitably among everyone.