4 ms·

>I really liked her better when her primary focus was enacting laws (or at least trying) that made it harder for people to get screwed by predatory business pra

>I really liked her better when her primary focus was enacting laws (or at least trying) that made it harder for people to get screwed by predatory business practices and gave them more recourse when they did. Stuff likes this makes me not want to vote for her though. Giving workers power in their workplace is exactly "enacting laws that made it harder for people to get screwed by predatory business practicies". You seem to be doing some circular thinking? Workers do literally all the work, the business cannot survive with no workers. Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Giving workers power in their workplace is exactly "enacting laws that made it harder for people to get screwed.. I changed the wording from "people" to "consumers" to better reflect what her work was actually about. Not all people are consumers (in a given context), not all customers are consumers, not all customers are consumers and not all > by predatory business practices". "Predatory business practices" are generally understood as being directed towards consumers, customers or the competition. We have a whole different vocabulary for discussing businesses that are bad to work for. Predatory business practices are categorically different than profits not being reflected in employee compensation on a macro level and I don't think anyone is going to suggest that addressing one will have much effect on the other. >You seem to be doing some circular thinking? Workers do literally all the work, the business cannot survive with no workers Literally everyone in the company is a "worker", CEO included. >Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say? Under what circumstances do truck drivers get to choose where the truck goes, what it transports, etc? The share holders own the business and get to exercise indirect control over it in a similar manner as a company telling a hired driver what to do. They get to call the shots but are There's also the aspect of risk involved in being a shareholder. I didn't say employees should have no say, just that 40% seems quite excessive and likely to have negative side effects.
Joky 8y ago
If the worker are so important to the business, then they already have power and they don’t need directors. My impression of similar system in France where unions attempt to represent the worker was rather bitter. They act in the interest of the union itself, not the workers. As a worker, as was there to be part of a successful organization, yet union opposed directions that made sense for the organization based on some political agenda.
castlecrasher2 8y ago
> Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say? Ignoring your hyperbole, shareholders have tangible, actual property in the form of shares in the company while the average worker does not, and they likely can be replaced rather easily. I'm not sure how simply working at a company should grant more than what the worker accepted when hired. It's not like a single worker or even a group of workers can independently create output similar to what they can at the company.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Ignoring your hyperbole, shareholders have tangible, actual property in the form of shares in the company Actually, shares in a company are a textbook example of intangible personal property as opposed to tangible property. > It's not like a single worker or even a group of workers can independently create output similar to what they can at the company. Neither can a single shareholder (or they would); laws were created to create the concept of shareholders and give them rights specifically for that reason, even though capital-providers could participate together I'm ventures by providing debt financing where the upside would be captured by the funded entrepreneur even before joint stock companies existed. Conditioning this government-created special legal privilege for certain providers of capital on the provision of a minimum level of similar control on those providing labor to the venture only seems outlandish because of the long history of not doing it.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>Giving workers power in their workplace is exactly "enacting laws that made it harder for people to get screwed.. I changed the wording from "people" to "consumers" to better reflect what her work was actually about. Not all people are consumers (in a given context), not all customers are consumers, not all customers are consumers and not all > by predatory business practices". "Predatory business practices" are generally understood as being directed towards consumers, customers or the competition. We have a whole different vocabulary for discussing businesses that are bad to work for. Predatory business practices are categorically different than profits not being reflected in employee compensation on a macro level and I don't think anyone is going to suggest that addressing one will have much effect on the other. >You seem to be doing some circular thinking? Workers do literally all the work, the business cannot survive with no workers Literally everyone in the company is a "worker", CEO included. >Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say? Under what circumstances do truck drivers get to choose where the truck goes, what it transports, etc? The share holders own the business and get to exercise indirect control over it in a similar manner as a company telling a hired driver what to do. They get to call the shots but are There's also the aspect of risk involved in being a shareholder. I didn't say employees should have no say, just that 40% seems quite excessive and likely to have negative side effects.

Joky 8y ago

If the worker are so important to the business, then they already have power and they don’t need directors. My impression of similar system in France where unions attempt to represent the worker was rather bitter. They act in the interest of the union itself, not the workers. As a worker, as was there to be part of a successful organization, yet union opposed directions that made sense for the organization based on some political agenda.

castlecrasher2 8y ago

> Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say? Ignoring your hyperbole, shareholders have tangible, actual property in the form of shares in the company while the average worker does not, and they likely can be replaced rather easily. I'm not sure how simply working at a company should grant more than what the worker accepted when hired. It's not like a single worker or even a group of workers can independently create output similar to what they can at the company.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Ignoring your hyperbole, shareholders have tangible, actual property in the form of shares in the company Actually, shares in a company are a textbook example of intangible personal property as opposed to tangible property. > It's not like a single worker or even a group of workers can independently create output similar to what they can at the company. Neither can a single shareholder (or they would); laws were created to create the concept of shareholders and give them rights specifically for that reason, even though capital-providers could participate together I'm ventures by providing debt financing where the upside would be captured by the funded entrepreneur even before joint stock companies existed. Conditioning this government-created special legal privilege for certain providers of capital on the provision of a minimum level of similar control on those providing labor to the venture only seems outlandish because of the long history of not doing it.