7 ms·

Don’t Subsidize Companies That Silence Workers

66 points by smacktoward 7y ago

sarcasmatwork 7y ago
/me looking at your silicon valley companies... This also has to do with companies hiring more contractors vs full time employee's, then there are laws, and policies and regulations around that. Lots and lots of red tape.
olliej 7y ago
Don't subsidize for profit companies. Subsidies are a transfer of tax payer money to a company. If a company is turning a profit while receiving subsidies, it is simply a transfer of tax payer money to business owners.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  i think this is what people mean when they say "corporate socialism"?
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    It’s typically called “corporate welfare,” but, yes.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  There are multiple kinds of subsidies, it's not as simple: 1) Walmart (or other) companies pay so low wages that employees are eligible for food stamps or other subsidies. This is utterly outrageous and should be a criminal offense - at least, states should be allowed to claw back the assistance costs plus a 200% fine from the company to discourage this behavior. 2) Environmental subsidies: Government pays subsidies to companies (or private persons) to install new environmentally-friendly technology which is (thanks to being new) too expensive from an ROI viewpoint. Germany did this with solar and basically kickstarted the market for home solar, USA did the same with the incentives for Tesla and other e-vehicles. Obviously, these subsidies are fine as they lead to further savings or environmental goals down the road. 3) Government gives tax breaks to companies for relocation/creating new business: these are the most contested probably as multinational entities (hello Amazon) often enough abuse them for their own profit only. Done right, however, this form of subsidies has a positive ROI as a new business pays local taxes as well as its workers, who additionally provide purchasing power in their communities.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    >1) Walmart (or other) companies pay so low wages that employees are eligible for food stamps or other subsidies. This is utterly outrageous and should be a criminal offense - at least, states should be allowed to claw back the assistance costs plus a 200% fine from the company to discourage this behavior. It's cheaper for the taxpayer to supplement a low wage than to provide for someone with no wage.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      > It's cheaper for the taxpayer to supplement a low wage than to provide for someone with no wage. The private owners of Walmart extract profit, but refuse to provide their workers with a wage they can survive (!!!) on. The point of social welfare programs is to help those in need, not to help profitable businesses make even more profits.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        What GP is saying is Walmart aren't likely to start paying a worker fairly, they're more likely to just fire them and get someone even more desperate. Food stamps are awful but for now it's better than people going hungry. In the meantime there needs to be solutions, they're a temporary fix at best.
      - closeparen 7y ago
        Welfare budget that we invest in spiting private owners is then no longer available for making net improvements for people in need. Any government service saves businesses from having to pay workers enough to buy that service in the market. That’s usually a good thing for all involved. We don’t complain that public schools are a subsidy to employers who would otherwise pay enough for private school tuition.
  - murderfs 7y ago
    > This is utterly outrageous and should be a criminal offense - at least, states should be allowed to claw back the assistance costs plus a 200% fine from the company to discourage this behavior. Alternatively, instead of raising the minimum wage in a dumb and opaque way, the state could just raise the minimum wage instead? Why is it better for a local mom and pop grocery store to pay their employees garbage than for Walmart to do it?
briantakita 7y ago
Support small businesses & financial independence instead.
exabrial 7y ago
Dont work their either!
- inlined 7y ago
  This is an inherently classist attitude. I (and presumedly you) can get a new job easily and are in a labor seller’s market. This often isn’t the case universally or employers wouldn’t be able to act like this.
  - donatj 7y ago
    I don’t agree. It’s easier to change job now than it has ever been in history. That’s undeniable. You’re not bound by the jobs in your local area the way people were 50 years ago. Between remote work and the gig economy it’s safer than ever to quit a bad job and pick up temporary work in the meantime.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      > and the gig economy Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Not only this is a risky proposition, you'll also be furthering the locust economy[0]. Don't subsidize, work for or invest in locust economy. -- [0] - https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/
    - acdha 7y ago
      It’s easy for people who have in-demand skills and live in certain areas. If you aren’t in certain fields, the “gig economy” usually means minimum wage with no job security or benefits with an automated boss constantly pressuring you.
      - donatj 7y ago
        Which to me at least seems a far more comforting place to land than no job.
        7y ago
t34543 7y ago
On the same note - don’t subsidize companies full of activists. Center is a good place to be, radicalism doesn’t help anyone.
- danaris 7y ago
  ...Which can be a fine philosophy, if you define the "center" relative to some absolute. If your idea of "the center" is "precisely between the two current mainstream left-wing and right-wing parties", then right now you'll end up with something along the lines of "well, some genocide is OK, so long as it's of people I don't like." There's no special virtue in saying "both sides have good points" all day long, no matter who the sides are that you're dealing with. The political center, by any objective measure, is way, way to the left of what the "center" is in the US right now. Or, to put this all more succinctly: I don't think anyone whose primary position is "Nazis are bad and we should treat them the way we did in WWII" should be classified as an "activist."
fallingfrog 7y ago
Firing workers for trying to speak up about safety issues or starting a union is illegal, is it not?
- reallydontask 7y ago
  A lot of companies have really poor performance review processes, read non-existent, this can be used to justify almost any firing. In other words: Joe didn't get fired for raising Safety issues, he just happened to have a terrible performance review so he had to be fired. Should the company have good performance review process then it's a bit more complicated but not by much: 1. Employee Raises Safety Issue 2. Fail Perf review # 1 3. Fail Perf review # 2 4. Get put on PIP 5. Fail to meet PIP objectives 6. Get Fired. So, not immediate but can be done in 6 months or less. Not to mention the old trick of making the employees life impossible, etc ..
- cafard 7y ago
  Yes, but quite often the company's lawyers are better paid and have more time than the employee's or the government's. Have a look at NLRB's site for unfair labor practices.
- chooseaname 7y ago
  Supposedly, but it gets cloudy in right to work states.

66 points by smacktoward 7y ago

/me looking at your silicon valley companies... This also has to do with companies hiring more contractors vs full time employee's, then there are laws, and policies and regulations around that. Lots and lots of red tape.

olliej 7y ago

Don't subsidize for profit companies. Subsidies are a transfer of tax payer money to a company. If a company is turning a profit while receiving subsidies, it is simply a transfer of tax payer money to business owners.

andrekandre 7y ago
i think this is what people mean when they say "corporate socialism"?
- pmiller2 7y ago
  It’s typically called “corporate welfare,” but, yes.
mschuster91 7y ago
There are multiple kinds of subsidies, it's not as simple: 1) Walmart (or other) companies pay so low wages that employees are eligible for food stamps or other subsidies. This is utterly outrageous and should be a criminal offense - at least, states should be allowed to claw back the assistance costs plus a 200% fine from the company to discourage this behavior. 2) Environmental subsidies: Government pays subsidies to companies (or private persons) to install new environmentally-friendly technology which is (thanks to being new) too expensive from an ROI viewpoint. Germany did this with solar and basically kickstarted the market for home solar, USA did the same with the incentives for Tesla and other e-vehicles. Obviously, these subsidies are fine as they lead to further savings or environmental goals down the road. 3) Government gives tax breaks to companies for relocation/creating new business: these are the most contested probably as multinational entities (hello Amazon) often enough abuse them for their own profit only. Done right, however, this form of subsidies has a positive ROI as a new business pays local taxes as well as its workers, who additionally provide purchasing power in their communities.
- closeparen 7y ago
  >1) Walmart (or other) companies pay so low wages that employees are eligible for food stamps or other subsidies. This is utterly outrageous and should be a criminal offense - at least, states should be allowed to claw back the assistance costs plus a 200% fine from the company to discourage this behavior. It's cheaper for the taxpayer to supplement a low wage than to provide for someone with no wage.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > It's cheaper for the taxpayer to supplement a low wage than to provide for someone with no wage. The private owners of Walmart extract profit, but refuse to provide their workers with a wage they can survive (!!!) on. The point of social welfare programs is to help those in need, not to help profitable businesses make even more profits.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      What GP is saying is Walmart aren't likely to start paying a worker fairly, they're more likely to just fire them and get someone even more desperate. Food stamps are awful but for now it's better than people going hungry. In the meantime there needs to be solutions, they're a temporary fix at best.
    - closeparen 7y ago
      Welfare budget that we invest in spiting private owners is then no longer available for making net improvements for people in need. Any government service saves businesses from having to pay workers enough to buy that service in the market. That’s usually a good thing for all involved. We don’t complain that public schools are a subsidy to employers who would otherwise pay enough for private school tuition.
- murderfs 7y ago
  > This is utterly outrageous and should be a criminal offense - at least, states should be allowed to claw back the assistance costs plus a 200% fine from the company to discourage this behavior. Alternatively, instead of raising the minimum wage in a dumb and opaque way, the state could just raise the minimum wage instead? Why is it better for a local mom and pop grocery store to pay their employees garbage than for Walmart to do it?

briantakita 7y ago

Support small businesses & financial independence instead.

exabrial 7y ago

Dont work their either!

inlined 7y ago
This is an inherently classist attitude. I (and presumedly you) can get a new job easily and are in a labor seller’s market. This often isn’t the case universally or employers wouldn’t be able to act like this.
- donatj 7y ago
  I don’t agree. It’s easier to change job now than it has ever been in history. That’s undeniable. You’re not bound by the jobs in your local area the way people were 50 years ago. Between remote work and the gig economy it’s safer than ever to quit a bad job and pick up temporary work in the meantime.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > and the gig economy Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Not only this is a risky proposition, you'll also be furthering the locust economy[0]. Don't subsidize, work for or invest in locust economy. -- [0] - https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/
  - acdha 7y ago
    It’s easy for people who have in-demand skills and live in certain areas. If you aren’t in certain fields, the “gig economy” usually means minimum wage with no job security or benefits with an automated boss constantly pressuring you.
    - donatj 7y ago
      Which to me at least seems a far more comforting place to land than no job.
      - 7y ago

t34543 7y ago

On the same note - don’t subsidize companies full of activists. Center is a good place to be, radicalism doesn’t help anyone.

danaris 7y ago
...Which can be a fine philosophy, if you define the "center" relative to some absolute. If your idea of "the center" is "precisely between the two current mainstream left-wing and right-wing parties", then right now you'll end up with something along the lines of "well, some genocide is OK, so long as it's of people I don't like." There's no special virtue in saying "both sides have good points" all day long, no matter who the sides are that you're dealing with. The political center, by any objective measure, is way, way to the left of what the "center" is in the US right now. Or, to put this all more succinctly: I don't think anyone whose primary position is "Nazis are bad and we should treat them the way we did in WWII" should be classified as an "activist."

fallingfrog 7y ago

Firing workers for trying to speak up about safety issues or starting a union is illegal, is it not?

reallydontask 7y ago
A lot of companies have really poor performance review processes, read non-existent, this can be used to justify almost any firing. In other words: Joe didn't get fired for raising Safety issues, he just happened to have a terrible performance review so he had to be fired. Should the company have good performance review process then it's a bit more complicated but not by much: 1. Employee Raises Safety Issue 2. Fail Perf review # 1 3. Fail Perf review # 2 4. Get put on PIP 5. Fail to meet PIP objectives 6. Get Fired. So, not immediate but can be done in 6 months or less. Not to mention the old trick of making the employees life impossible, etc ..
cafard 7y ago
Yes, but quite often the company's lawyers are better paid and have more time than the employee's or the government's. Have a look at NLRB's site for unfair labor practices.
chooseaname 7y ago
Supposedly, but it gets cloudy in right to work states.