5 ms·

We also lean towards creating plenty of institutions in society. We have regulatory oversight groups. We have law enforcement groups. We have trade organization

by moate 7y ago

We also lean towards creating plenty of institutions in society. We have regulatory oversight groups. We have law enforcement groups. We have trade organizations and Parent Teacher Associations and lobbying interests and and and.

umvi 7y ago
> We also lean towards creating plenty of institutions in society. Most of which are not democratic. Democracies are extremely inefficient compared to a "dictatorship" where the president of the institution is in charge. You should only switch to a democracy as a last resort due to systemic abuses that can't be resolved any other way. I haven't worked in the games industry, but so far working as a software developer I have not encountered systemic abuses that merit introducing an extremely inefficient democratic oversight system to the company.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  Count yourself fortunately that you had the opportunities to work in better working conditions. The software developers and other creatives in the gaming industry may feel different. In Ontario, Canada, the autoworker unions have been trying to unionize the Toyota plant and have not been successful: the workers always vote 'no'. The works at GM and Ford plants felt differently. Just because you work in a 'good' part of an industry does not mean everyone does.
  - umvi 7y ago
    > Just because you work in a 'good' part of an industry does not mean everyone does. Right, but the article in question is arguing: > A union isn’t just right for Vox Media, but for everyone And I'm questioning if it really is. I, for one, don't want yet another democratic system I need to invest time and thought into in order for it to be effective. Local, state, federal government + HOA is enough already. I'm happy with the way the president of past companies I've worked for ran things and I'm glad I didn't have to research union candidates, run for union positions, and/or vote on union issues in my already limited free time.
- moate 7y ago
  That's a lot of assumptions my dude. I don't see who is the "dictator" in your example as it relates to a union shop. You're all small (1 person) dictatorships, but you could also frame it as 1 person democracies? In this situation a systemic abuse is any abuse that happens to you, because you're the entire system? Or this is just a really hard metaphor to work with? I get that you're argument below was "I'm lazy and don't have time to deal with being informed about the issues that would come with a union" but how is that any different from "I'm lazy and don't have time to deal with being informed about all the possible labor abuses my employer is perpetrating"? Why does it have to be systemic to be a net negative, and how do you know you're aware of everything going on? You can just be a lazy union member and assume that "the union is a net good" the same way you can be a lazy non-union member and assume "being unionless is a net good".

by moate 7y ago

umvi 7y ago

> We also lean towards creating plenty of institutions in society. Most of which are not democratic. Democracies are extremely inefficient compared to a "dictatorship" where the president of the institution is in charge. You should only switch to a democracy as a last resort due to systemic abuses that can't be resolved any other way. I haven't worked in the games industry, but so far working as a software developer I have not encountered systemic abuses that merit introducing an extremely inefficient democratic oversight system to the company.

throw0101a 7y ago
Count yourself fortunately that you had the opportunities to work in better working conditions. The software developers and other creatives in the gaming industry may feel different. In Ontario, Canada, the autoworker unions have been trying to unionize the Toyota plant and have not been successful: the workers always vote 'no'. The works at GM and Ford plants felt differently. Just because you work in a 'good' part of an industry does not mean everyone does.
- umvi 7y ago
  > Just because you work in a 'good' part of an industry does not mean everyone does. Right, but the article in question is arguing: > A union isn’t just right for Vox Media, but for everyone And I'm questioning if it really is. I, for one, don't want yet another democratic system I need to invest time and thought into in order for it to be effective. Local, state, federal government + HOA is enough already. I'm happy with the way the president of past companies I've worked for ran things and I'm glad I didn't have to research union candidates, run for union positions, and/or vote on union issues in my already limited free time.
moate 7y ago
That's a lot of assumptions my dude. I don't see who is the "dictator" in your example as it relates to a union shop. You're all small (1 person) dictatorships, but you could also frame it as 1 person democracies? In this situation a systemic abuse is any abuse that happens to you, because you're the entire system? Or this is just a really hard metaphor to work with? I get that you're argument below was "I'm lazy and don't have time to deal with being informed about the issues that would come with a union" but how is that any different from "I'm lazy and don't have time to deal with being informed about all the possible labor abuses my employer is perpetrating"? Why does it have to be systemic to be a net negative, and how do you know you're aware of everything going on? You can just be a lazy union member and assume that "the union is a net good" the same way you can be a lazy non-union member and assume "being unionless is a net good".