5 ms·

If I buy a sewing machine and hire someone to operate it, outside of basic safety rights why should the employee have any say in what I decide should be created

If I buy a sewing machine and hire someone to operate it, outside of basic safety rights why should the employee have any say in what I decide should be created with it?

claudeganon 7y ago
Why shouldn’t they? Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? I’m being a bit hyperbolic here, but it’s funny that the circumstances you cite (sewing, basic safety) actually drove unionization in the early 20th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... Turns out that if you don’t change the relations of power in your workplace, hold your bosses to account, they have a tendency to not be too concerned about your well-being.
- ggambetta 7y ago
  > Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial. Why did peasants revolt over feudal ownership of land? Why did indigenous people revolt against settler colonialism? Why did the American Civil War happen?
    - friedman23 7y ago
      > I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial I disagree. It is not historically controversial for the owner of property to decide what is done with it.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
        >with it. With what, the slaves? /s
        friedman23 7y ago
        I don't know if you are trying to be disingenuous or are mocking people that would think this way. But when someone comes into my house I have some control over what they are allowed to do within my house and I can ask them to leave with the support of the law if they don't obey my wishes. When I enter a voluntary employment agreement and give an employee access to my equipment the same thing applies.
    - civilian 7y ago
      You're conflating ownership of people with ownership of a tool & voluntary employment. That's a pretty bad-faith argument to make.
    - ggambetta 7y ago
      > I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person You're conveniently ignoring the part in which I'm also paying the other person to do something, after the other person freely agreed to do said thing in exchange for being paid. Would you mind replying to what I'm actually saying?
  - quadrifoliate 7y ago
    > Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you Let's take a look at this. Your contributions to the end product are: - Owning a sewing machine - Paying someone to use it Their contributions are: - Making the thing (say, sewing a shirt) I think there is an inherent tension between thinking about which of these is more valuable. Of course the sewing machine owners and payers are all going “Hey, the sewing machine belongs to us. You got compensated for your work, that should end your involvement with it. You can't tell us kind of clothes we should be making!”; whereas the people who sew the shirts are going “Without our collective work, you're going to be able to sew maybe one shirt a day, and you don't even know how to sew. So listen to us!”. The increasing interest in unions (FAANG is hardly a good representative of jobs across the software industry, let alone the entire US) seems to indicate that the needle of society in general has moved more too far in advancing interests of the sewing machine, and the people who sew don't have enough of a say in how things are done.
    - glogla 7y ago
      There's inevitably going to be conflict between then owner of the sewing machine and someone who makes the thing - because when the thing gets sold, the money gets redistributed between owner of the machine and whoever made the thing. When one gets more money, the other gets less. There is no way out of this, as long as owner of the machine and whoever makes the thing are different people.
glogla 7y ago
Because they want to be able to defend themselves from you and people like you (who own the means of living) from abusing and exploiting them. Why do you mind if they have a say? If you don't plan on abusing and exploiting them, there's no harm, right? EDIT: to put it into words I would think someone like you might understand better (power and money instead of empathy and solidarity) - because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords.
- friedman23 7y ago
  I'm paying them, if they don't want to be exploited by me don't accept my money. > because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords It always comes down to violence with you people.
  - whatawaste 7y ago
    If you don’t want to be on the receiving end of violence, how about not exploiting people?
    - friedman23 7y ago
      So let's have a thought experiment. I own a sewing machine and I choose to sew clothes on it myself then sell it. Am I exploiting myself? I own a sewing machine and I choose to not hire anybody to operate it and it sits unused. Someone that could operate it is sitting unemployed and unable to eat even though I could hire them. Am I exploiting someone? I own a sewing machine and offer someone an amount of money if they operate it and produce the clothing I ask them to produce. Am I exploiting them? I'm glad fringe maniacs that consider employment exploitation aren't taken seriously.
  - glogla 7y ago
    > It always comes down to violence with you people. As it should. If they don't accept your power, they starve (or not get healthcare if we're talking about contemporary USA). How is that any less violent? Because when you kill someone by starvation it's less bloody? Your kind are already using violence against us, you're just good at not caring about others or lying to yourself.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Let's flip the scenario. Someone comes to you and pays you to borrow your sewing machine. Then by your logic, you should not have any say in what they do with the sewing machine. It seems you are claiming that if A pays B, then A has complete say in what happens. From a third party perspective, this is just weird. Society sees two people associating, one providing labor, that other capital, no matter how money is flowing within the association. Weirdly enough our system only allows capital owners to have any say in the running of the system (via shares and the board). Within this system, unions are one way in which the owners of labor get a say in the running of the corporation.
- friedman23 7y ago
  > Someone comes to you and pays you to borrow your sewing machine. Then by your logic, you should not have any say in what they do with the sewing machine Yes, generally there is a contract that stipulated what can and can't be done with the sewing machine so that the machine is not completely destroyed. Generally employment contracts do not give employees the right to do whatever they want with the sewing machine.

If I buy a sewing machine and hire someone to operate it, outside of basic safety rights why should the employee have any say in what I decide should be created with it?

claudeganon 7y ago

Why shouldn’t they? Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? I’m being a bit hyperbolic here, but it’s funny that the circumstances you cite (sewing, basic safety) actually drove unionization in the early 20th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... Turns out that if you don’t change the relations of power in your workplace, hold your bosses to account, they have a tendency to not be too concerned about your well-being.

ggambetta 7y ago
> Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial. Why did peasants revolt over feudal ownership of land? Why did indigenous people revolt against settler colonialism? Why did the American Civil War happen?
  - friedman23 7y ago
    > I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial I disagree. It is not historically controversial for the owner of property to decide what is done with it.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
      >with it. With what, the slaves? /s
      - friedman23 7y ago
        I don't know if you are trying to be disingenuous or are mocking people that would think this way. But when someone comes into my house I have some control over what they are allowed to do within my house and I can ask them to leave with the support of the law if they don't obey my wishes. When I enter a voluntary employment agreement and give an employee access to my equipment the same thing applies.
  - civilian 7y ago
    You're conflating ownership of people with ownership of a tool & voluntary employment. That's a pretty bad-faith argument to make.
  - ggambetta 7y ago
    > I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person You're conveniently ignoring the part in which I'm also paying the other person to do something, after the other person freely agreed to do said thing in exchange for being paid. Would you mind replying to what I'm actually saying?
- quadrifoliate 7y ago
  > Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you Let's take a look at this. Your contributions to the end product are: - Owning a sewing machine - Paying someone to use it Their contributions are: - Making the thing (say, sewing a shirt) I think there is an inherent tension between thinking about which of these is more valuable. Of course the sewing machine owners and payers are all going “Hey, the sewing machine belongs to us. You got compensated for your work, that should end your involvement with it. You can't tell us kind of clothes we should be making!”; whereas the people who sew the shirts are going “Without our collective work, you're going to be able to sew maybe one shirt a day, and you don't even know how to sew. So listen to us!”. The increasing interest in unions (FAANG is hardly a good representative of jobs across the software industry, let alone the entire US) seems to indicate that the needle of society in general has moved more too far in advancing interests of the sewing machine, and the people who sew don't have enough of a say in how things are done.
  - glogla 7y ago
    There's inevitably going to be conflict between then owner of the sewing machine and someone who makes the thing - because when the thing gets sold, the money gets redistributed between owner of the machine and whoever made the thing. When one gets more money, the other gets less. There is no way out of this, as long as owner of the machine and whoever makes the thing are different people.

glogla 7y ago

Because they want to be able to defend themselves from you and people like you (who own the means of living) from abusing and exploiting them. Why do you mind if they have a say? If you don't plan on abusing and exploiting them, there's no harm, right? EDIT: to put it into words I would think someone like you might understand better (power and money instead of empathy and solidarity) - because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords.

friedman23 7y ago
I'm paying them, if they don't want to be exploited by me don't accept my money. > because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords It always comes down to violence with you people.
- whatawaste 7y ago
  If you don’t want to be on the receiving end of violence, how about not exploiting people?
  - friedman23 7y ago
    So let's have a thought experiment. I own a sewing machine and I choose to sew clothes on it myself then sell it. Am I exploiting myself? I own a sewing machine and I choose to not hire anybody to operate it and it sits unused. Someone that could operate it is sitting unemployed and unable to eat even though I could hire them. Am I exploiting someone? I own a sewing machine and offer someone an amount of money if they operate it and produce the clothing I ask them to produce. Am I exploiting them? I'm glad fringe maniacs that consider employment exploitation aren't taken seriously.
- glogla 7y ago
  > It always comes down to violence with you people. As it should. If they don't accept your power, they starve (or not get healthcare if we're talking about contemporary USA). How is that any less violent? Because when you kill someone by starvation it's less bloody? Your kind are already using violence against us, you're just good at not caring about others or lying to yourself.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

Let's flip the scenario. Someone comes to you and pays you to borrow your sewing machine. Then by your logic, you should not have any say in what they do with the sewing machine. It seems you are claiming that if A pays B, then A has complete say in what happens. From a third party perspective, this is just weird. Society sees two people associating, one providing labor, that other capital, no matter how money is flowing within the association. Weirdly enough our system only allows capital owners to have any say in the running of the system (via shares and the board). Within this system, unions are one way in which the owners of labor get a say in the running of the corporation.

friedman23 7y ago
> Someone comes to you and pays you to borrow your sewing machine. Then by your logic, you should not have any say in what they do with the sewing machine Yes, generally there is a contract that stipulated what can and can't be done with the sewing machine so that the machine is not completely destroyed. Generally employment contracts do not give employees the right to do whatever they want with the sewing machine.