4 ms·

Yeah, I don't understand the need to compare the structure of a business to the structure of a countries government in the first place. Employment relationship

Yeah, I don't understand the need to compare the structure of a business to the structure of a countries government in the first place. Employment relationships are contractual, and completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person or company to receive that income. The working conditions mentioned in the article are insane, but you "vote" by choosing not to work for that company. I also take issue with "Like Louis XIV’s government, the typical American workplace is kept private from those it governs." What world is the author living in where normal governments disclose 100% of the information they hold or receive?

namlem 9y ago
Eh I don't know if I would describe all employment contracts as completely voluntary. There are plenty of workers without the ability to change jobs easily. If you're broke, have kids, and have few skills, it's very hard to change careers.
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  Difficult to change yes, but you are not obligated or physically forced to stay with any one country. If it were a true dictatorship, as the article claims, you would have no say in where you apply, what you accept, when you decide to leave, etc.
  - inb4dangshitban 9y ago
    Oh. Right. And a family with kids, probably with some debt is going to get ID's (cost) and all the riddiculous paperwork (more cost), get passports (even more cost) pack up, switch countries (COOOOOST) and magically be allowed to work there even though they are not citizens? Right. People voluntarily work at places where you have to piss yourself because you can't have a bathroom break. I don't even.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person Would chattel slavery be voluntary too if the slaves had a degree of choice over which master used them?
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  No, and it's not even close to the same thing. Your argument is just as ridiculous as the original article. People were literally considered pieces of property under chattel slavery. "Salary slavery" is nowhere near as horrific or demeaning as real slavery, and it's frankly an offensive comparison to make. If you want to never work a job in your life, pan handle on the streets, live off your relatives, or become a recluse, you are completely free to do so. Nobody is holding a gun (or a whip) over you and demanding you work.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fallingfrog 9y ago
    Here again though, I disagree with the assumption that those should be our only two choices. Why is democracy in government common sense but workplace democracy is just crazy talk?
    - nxsynonym 9y ago
      I don't think I am following. What would democracy, at its purest form, in a work place look like? Would employees have voters rights over every single decision that would be made? That seems inefficient. I don't think applying democracy to a workplace is crazy, I just don't understand why it's necessary.
      - jhbadger 9y ago
        Citizens don't have rights over every single decision in a democracy either. They elect representatives. Worker democracy could work similarly. As for why it is "necessary", presumably it would guide decisions so that the needs of the workers were taken into account, which very often doesn't happen.
AngryData 9y ago
Im not sure it is contractual when death is the alternative. It isn't like they can just walk to an empty piece of land and build a cabin and farm on it to live. Or wander the wilds foraging and hunting. Work, or the capital to purchase other people's work, is a requirement to live here. That is why I support stronger minimum wages and eliminating work 'benefits' in favor of paying that money directly to employees. If they want to buy into a company insurance plan, so be it, but it should be entirely optional and payed into out of their bank account, not drawn out before the employee even knows what it is worth. Companies are using benefits to hide employee's actual wages from them so it is harder to even value your own income and compare it to others or other companies.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Why can't it be contractual when death is the alternative? What if I agree to provide X in exchange for someone's kidney? That can't be contractual? Unless there is imminent threat of death, I can see a contract that is entered into by one of the parties in order to avoid death as meeting every condition of consent.

namlem 9y ago

Eh I don't know if I would describe all employment contracts as completely voluntary. There are plenty of workers without the ability to change jobs easily. If you're broke, have kids, and have few skills, it's very hard to change careers.

nxsynonym 9y ago
Difficult to change yes, but you are not obligated or physically forced to stay with any one country. If it were a true dictatorship, as the article claims, you would have no say in where you apply, what you accept, when you decide to leave, etc.
- inb4dangshitban 9y ago
  Oh. Right. And a family with kids, probably with some debt is going to get ID's (cost) and all the riddiculous paperwork (more cost), get passports (even more cost) pack up, switch countries (COOOOOST) and magically be allowed to work there even though they are not citizens? Right. People voluntarily work at places where you have to piss yourself because you can't have a bathroom break. I don't even.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>completely voluntary. People need income to live, sure, but they are not forced to work for any one person Would chattel slavery be voluntary too if the slaves had a degree of choice over which master used them?

nxsynonym 9y ago
No, and it's not even close to the same thing. Your argument is just as ridiculous as the original article. People were literally considered pieces of property under chattel slavery. "Salary slavery" is nowhere near as horrific or demeaning as real slavery, and it's frankly an offensive comparison to make. If you want to never work a job in your life, pan handle on the streets, live off your relatives, or become a recluse, you are completely free to do so. Nobody is holding a gun (or a whip) over you and demanding you work.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fallingfrog 9y ago
  Here again though, I disagree with the assumption that those should be our only two choices. Why is democracy in government common sense but workplace democracy is just crazy talk?
  - nxsynonym 9y ago
    I don't think I am following. What would democracy, at its purest form, in a work place look like? Would employees have voters rights over every single decision that would be made? That seems inefficient. I don't think applying democracy to a workplace is crazy, I just don't understand why it's necessary.
    - jhbadger 9y ago
      Citizens don't have rights over every single decision in a democracy either. They elect representatives. Worker democracy could work similarly. As for why it is "necessary", presumably it would guide decisions so that the needs of the workers were taken into account, which very often doesn't happen.

AngryData 9y ago

Im not sure it is contractual when death is the alternative. It isn't like they can just walk to an empty piece of land and build a cabin and farm on it to live. Or wander the wilds foraging and hunting. Work, or the capital to purchase other people's work, is a requirement to live here. That is why I support stronger minimum wages and eliminating work 'benefits' in favor of paying that money directly to employees. If they want to buy into a company insurance plan, so be it, but it should be entirely optional and payed into out of their bank account, not drawn out before the employee even knows what it is worth. Companies are using benefits to hide employee's actual wages from them so it is harder to even value your own income and compare it to others or other companies.

Jabanga 9y ago
Why can't it be contractual when death is the alternative? What if I agree to provide X in exchange for someone's kidney? That can't be contractual? Unless there is imminent threat of death, I can see a contract that is entered into by one of the parties in order to avoid death as meeting every condition of consent.