5 ms·

Are there any nationalized airplane manufacturers with a better safety record than Boeing?

by jquery 7y ago

hannasanarion 7y ago
Nationalization isn't the only type of worker control. What if Boeing's CEO was elected by people who work for the company, instead of by rich board members with profit interest and no expertise? (making this kind of worker-democracy corporate governance the norm is a long-term goal of the Sanders plan)
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > What if Boeing's CEO was elected by people who work for the company, instead of by rich board members with profit interest and no expertise? And how are you (or Sanders) going to make that happen? By taking away the ability to appoint the CEO from the board members, and/or taking away the ability to appoint the board from the stockholders. But that's a big chunk of what ownership of a company means. How is this not a nationalization, even if it's called by another name?
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Because the owner isn't the state, it's the employees. That's not nationalization, that's cooperative-ization. Corporations aren't dictated on what to do from above, they are organized democratically from below. My understanding of the Sanders plan is to require that all quarterly dividends include a stock issuance to employees of a company, with the eventual requirement that all corporations above a certain size must be 50% worker owned by some date.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      If Boeing (management, or board, or shareholders) wants to give part of the company to the employees, that's their business. But if Sanders makes them, that's taking the company from the shareholders. That's nationalization. The fact that he then gives it to the employees doesn't change the fact that the government took it in the first place.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        That's patently absurd, and you know it. >Nationalization: >the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control. Employee ownership is not state ownership. By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? You're just desperate to find a snarl-word you can attach to this obviously reasonable and largely undisruptive plan.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > That's patently absurd, and you know it. Sure, let's go with the personal attack and the claim of bad faith when we don't like someone's position. (That's against site guidelines, by the way.) > Employee ownership is not state ownership. But who gave it to the workers? Who made the current owners give up control? The state. (That's almost certainly still a "taking" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. That means "just compensation" for the current owners. Where are you going to get the money?) > By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? Your "logic" here is non-existent. It doesn't follow from my position whatsoever. > You're just desperate to find a snarl-word... False. Again the accusation of bad faith. > you can attach to this obviously reasonable... Excuse me? Obviously reasonable? I call BS. > and largely undisruptive plan. That's quite an assumption there. Or as they say in court: "Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence." You're mighty free with what you're going to require other people to do with their property. I don't own that much property, but I deny your right to order me to give half of it to those that you think should own it.

Are there any nationalized airplane manufacturers with a better safety record than Boeing?

by jquery 7y ago

Are there any nationalized airplane manufacturers with a better safety record than Boeing?

Nationalization isn't the only type of worker control. What if Boeing's CEO was elected by people who work for the company, instead of by rich board members with profit interest and no expertise? (making this kind of worker-democracy corporate governance the norm is a long-term goal of the Sanders plan)

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> What if Boeing's CEO was elected by people who work for the company, instead of by rich board members with profit interest and no expertise? And how are you (or Sanders) going to make that happen? By taking away the ability to appoint the CEO from the board members, and/or taking away the ability to appoint the board from the stockholders. But that's a big chunk of what ownership of a company means. How is this not a nationalization, even if it's called by another name?
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Because the owner isn't the state, it's the employees. That's not nationalization, that's cooperative-ization. Corporations aren't dictated on what to do from above, they are organized democratically from below. My understanding of the Sanders plan is to require that all quarterly dividends include a stock issuance to employees of a company, with the eventual requirement that all corporations above a certain size must be 50% worker owned by some date.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    If Boeing (management, or board, or shareholders) wants to give part of the company to the employees, that's their business. But if Sanders makes them, that's taking the company from the shareholders. That's nationalization. The fact that he then gives it to the employees doesn't change the fact that the government took it in the first place.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      That's patently absurd, and you know it. >Nationalization: >the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control. Employee ownership is not state ownership. By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? You're just desperate to find a snarl-word you can attach to this obviously reasonable and largely undisruptive plan.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > That's patently absurd, and you know it. Sure, let's go with the personal attack and the claim of bad faith when we don't like someone's position. (That's against site guidelines, by the way.) > Employee ownership is not state ownership. But who gave it to the workers? Who made the current owners give up control? The state. (That's almost certainly still a "taking" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. That means "just compensation" for the current owners. Where are you going to get the money?) > By this logic, the US already has state-owned healthcare, since the government mandates that employers provide health coverage. Do you also believe that the US government is seizing business revenue by requiring that employers pay wages? Your "logic" here is non-existent. It doesn't follow from my position whatsoever. > You're just desperate to find a snarl-word... False. Again the accusation of bad faith. > you can attach to this obviously reasonable... Excuse me? Obviously reasonable? I call BS. > and largely undisruptive plan. That's quite an assumption there. Or as they say in court: "Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence." You're mighty free with what you're going to require other people to do with their property. I don't own that much property, but I deny your right to order me to give half of it to those that you think should own it.