3 ms·

There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not. IME, people are people, and there ar

There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not. IME, people are people, and there are plenty of corrupt managers and executives - I don't think I need to start listing examples - as well as workers. I don't see that either group should be denied representation or power on that basis - if we excluded people for such things, then there would be nobody left to run the place. > Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company. There is clearly a great power imbalance between a company of any size and one worker, unless that worker is a superstar (like a star coder). > Employees won't agree on everything so the majority of employees will get represented and the rest of the employees will not be represented. That's not how democracy works. In order to put together a majority, you have to make deals with different groups and not alienate those who you might need in the future. The 'majority' shifts over each issue and over time, and the leaders compete to please as many as possible. And regardless, I don't see what the parent is recommending: No power for workers because it will be imperfect/ What makes the current setup any better?

stretchwithme 8y ago
People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. Those who pay with other people's money tend to be more corrupt. It has nothing to do with the color of their collars. Either interests are aligned or they are not. When you pay the costs and get the benefits, you are less likely to be corrupt. When you get the benefits and the costs get shifted to somebody else, you are more likely to be corrupt. As I've already said, workers have power. They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. It seems like another way to create a monopoly over the labor supply and it would be destructive in the long run.
- rexpop 8y ago
  > They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. Tell me more about how rightfully these venture firms acquire their capital?
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. I don't think this theory matches reality. There is plenty of corruption in management and I don't think I need to provide specific examples. Also, plenty of managers are not risking their own money and, as individuals, their interests are not aligned at all with the business'. Plenty of startup founders screw their businesses for big exits; plenty of owners liquidate and leverage companies to suck out as much cash as they can before they dispose of them; plenty of CEOs think they are God, the company is their toy, and anything they want to do is fine; and there are plenty more dirty stories in the business world. Workers are risking their own jobs, futures, and money; generally they have less career flexibility than managers. If the auto plant closes, that's it. > rightfully That's part of our question, not the answer.
smsm42 8y ago
> There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not I think the presumption is much weaker - that people for "work for living" (I assume you do not, for some reason, consider management to be work) can be as corrupt as "managers and executives", given the right circumstances. > There is clearly a great power imbalance between a company of any size and one worker, unless that worker is a superstar (like a star coder). Given how much money certain tech companies feel necessary to throw at their workers - and I'm not talking select few, I'm talking averages - it's obviously not just star coders. Moreover, given how many companies pay over minimum wage - I would say it is almost never the case. If all the power was in the hands of the company - why pay more than the minimum wage? Obviously, leaving - or not applying in the first place - has some power too, and this power is measured in real money.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > "work for living" (I assume you do not, for some reason, consider management to be work) "work for a living" is just an idiom for blue collar work. A response I've heard from army sergeants if someone addresses them as "sir" (which should only be used with officers) is 'don't call me "sir" - I work for a living!'. Managers and officers do indeed work. > tech companies Tech companies are one narrow segment, and you are talking only about one part of their workforce. Janitors, drivers, etc. also work for tech companies and don't make a heck of a lot (in fact, they don't even get to be employees and have no hope for advancement, at least in some places). If you think Starbucks barristas, Uber drivers, supermarket checkout clerks, retail stock-persons, hotel doorpeople, coal miners, etc. have any control over their wages or working conditions, have any negotiating power without a union, I don't know what to tell you ... maybe talk to few. The minimum wage theory is interesting, but that's not reality and so not worth my time to think through.
Kalium 8y ago
Additionally, it should be remembered that the American experience with labor unions includes no great shortage of corrupt leadership.

stretchwithme 8y ago

People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. Those who pay with other people's money tend to be more corrupt. It has nothing to do with the color of their collars. Either interests are aligned or they are not. When you pay the costs and get the benefits, you are less likely to be corrupt. When you get the benefits and the costs get shifted to somebody else, you are more likely to be corrupt. As I've already said, workers have power. They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. It seems like another way to create a monopoly over the labor supply and it would be destructive in the long run.

rexpop 8y ago
> They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. Tell me more about how rightfully these venture firms acquire their capital?
forapurpose 8y ago
> People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. I don't think this theory matches reality. There is plenty of corruption in management and I don't think I need to provide specific examples. Also, plenty of managers are not risking their own money and, as individuals, their interests are not aligned at all with the business'. Plenty of startup founders screw their businesses for big exits; plenty of owners liquidate and leverage companies to suck out as much cash as they can before they dispose of them; plenty of CEOs think they are God, the company is their toy, and anything they want to do is fine; and there are plenty more dirty stories in the business world. Workers are risking their own jobs, futures, and money; generally they have less career flexibility than managers. If the auto plant closes, that's it. > rightfully That's part of our question, not the answer.

smsm42 8y ago

> There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not I think the presumption is much weaker - that people for "work for living" (I assume you do not, for some reason, consider management to be work) can be as corrupt as "managers and executives", given the right circumstances. > There is clearly a great power imbalance between a company of any size and one worker, unless that worker is a superstar (like a star coder). Given how much money certain tech companies feel necessary to throw at their workers - and I'm not talking select few, I'm talking averages - it's obviously not just star coders. Moreover, given how many companies pay over minimum wage - I would say it is almost never the case. If all the power was in the hands of the company - why pay more than the minimum wage? Obviously, leaving - or not applying in the first place - has some power too, and this power is measured in real money.

forapurpose 8y ago
> "work for living" (I assume you do not, for some reason, consider management to be work) "work for a living" is just an idiom for blue collar work. A response I've heard from army sergeants if someone addresses them as "sir" (which should only be used with officers) is 'don't call me "sir" - I work for a living!'. Managers and officers do indeed work. > tech companies Tech companies are one narrow segment, and you are talking only about one part of their workforce. Janitors, drivers, etc. also work for tech companies and don't make a heck of a lot (in fact, they don't even get to be employees and have no hope for advancement, at least in some places). If you think Starbucks barristas, Uber drivers, supermarket checkout clerks, retail stock-persons, hotel doorpeople, coal miners, etc. have any control over their wages or working conditions, have any negotiating power without a union, I don't know what to tell you ... maybe talk to few. The minimum wage theory is interesting, but that's not reality and so not worth my time to think through.

Kalium 8y ago

Additionally, it should be remembered that the American experience with labor unions includes no great shortage of corrupt leadership.