4 ms·

And yet we think it's absolutely normal for companies to be run like oppressive regimes.

by arkitaip 7y ago

exBarrelSpoiler 7y ago
Just how meritocratic is the selection of corporate leadership anyway?
Razengan 7y ago
Should your employees take over any company you found?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
  Should one person make life changing decisions for millions? Why do I even need to ask this?
  - cecja 7y ago
    So whats the difference to our so called democracy espcially if you look at the US you have one insane leader which runs basically rampage without real responsiblity. That's not isolated to america look at poland, russia even at some degree italy. The whole system is showing cracks at the moment and to be honest as tim cook said a dictatorship with the right person looks better to me than the mess we are in right now.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Very few companies have millions of employees. Plenty of nations do.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The answer to that question is obviously yes, but I don’t think that’s why you thought the question didn’t need to be asked. For starters there are both elected and non-elected offices in government where one person will be given the power to make life changing decisions for millions. This is a perfectly ordinary feature of organised society. Regarding companies, if you don’t want people who own companies (or their agents) to be able to decide how the companies are run, then you need to prohibit either private property, or employment all together. An employment agreement is simply one party offering labour, and another offering payment for it, and a company is simply people pooling their resources together to achieve more than they could alone (companies server other purposes to, but this is the relevant purpose for this discussion). An employer is always going to be able to make decisions that are life changing for their employees, by deciding they no longer require their labor for instance, by ceasing operations, or relocating, or withdrawing a product/service from the market. If you don’t want employers to have the ability to make decisions that impact the lives of their employees, then you either need to abolish private property (the ability to offer payment for labor now becomes impossible), or outlaw employment agreements. Whether an employer has one employee or one million is really besides the point.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  It's certainly conceivable to give employees a bigger stake in the company. Germany has representation of works in company boards by law and I think it works well. It's all a matter of balance.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
It is perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable, and the only way to ever make the concept of a company work. Because companies play a completely different role in society to government. For starters, because of freedom of association. You are free to not work for any company you like. If you feel like an employer is oppressing you, you can simply leave (unless they’re violating labor protection laws, then you can recover damages, and leave). If you feel like your government is oppressing you, you don’t have the freedom to simply stop associating with them. Then you have the fact that the role of companies in your life is completely different to that of government. The purpose of your relationship with your employer is to exchange your labor for money. That’s it. How you live your life outside of that is completely up to you. If you can’t come to an agreement on terms of employment acceptable to both parties, then you simply don’t have to associate with them. You also have the fact that if you have skills that employers want, then they have to compete for your labor. An oppressive employer isn’t going to have much luck acquiring such labor. I know it sounds like a great hot-take, but the two entities play completely different roles in society, and such a comment doesn’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > For starters, because of freedom of association. You are free to not work for any company you like. If you feel like an employer is oppressing you, you can simply leave Nice in theory, but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market? What about companies with non-compete agreements? What about collusive non-poaching agreements between companies that lower the market value of labor? What about companies that disregard employee safety because they know the labor pool is large? These are not theoretical objections, they are happening now. Employer/employee agreements are not "free" when they break rules like these.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market There is no such company in the world, and if there was, it would almost certainly be an illegal monopoly. All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere, and the last one is illegal in many places (or at lease unenforceable). If you have a problem with companies breaking the law, then you have a problem with law enforcement. Not corporate governance in general.
cecja 7y ago
Because it literally is the norm? Read the first chapters of "Das Kapital" this is nothing new.

And yet we think it's absolutely normal for companies to be run like oppressive regimes.

exBarrelSpoiler 7y ago

Just how meritocratic is the selection of corporate leadership anyway?

Razengan 7y ago

Should your employees take over any company you found?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
Should one person make life changing decisions for millions? Why do I even need to ask this?
- cecja 7y ago
  So whats the difference to our so called democracy espcially if you look at the US you have one insane leader which runs basically rampage without real responsiblity. That's not isolated to america look at poland, russia even at some degree italy. The whole system is showing cracks at the moment and to be honest as tim cook said a dictatorship with the right person looks better to me than the mess we are in right now.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Very few companies have millions of employees. Plenty of nations do.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The answer to that question is obviously yes, but I don’t think that’s why you thought the question didn’t need to be asked. For starters there are both elected and non-elected offices in government where one person will be given the power to make life changing decisions for millions. This is a perfectly ordinary feature of organised society. Regarding companies, if you don’t want people who own companies (or their agents) to be able to decide how the companies are run, then you need to prohibit either private property, or employment all together. An employment agreement is simply one party offering labour, and another offering payment for it, and a company is simply people pooling their resources together to achieve more than they could alone (companies server other purposes to, but this is the relevant purpose for this discussion). An employer is always going to be able to make decisions that are life changing for their employees, by deciding they no longer require their labor for instance, by ceasing operations, or relocating, or withdrawing a product/service from the market. If you don’t want employers to have the ability to make decisions that impact the lives of their employees, then you either need to abolish private property (the ability to offer payment for labor now becomes impossible), or outlaw employment agreements. Whether an employer has one employee or one million is really besides the point.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
It's certainly conceivable to give employees a bigger stake in the company. Germany has representation of works in company boards by law and I think it works well. It's all a matter of balance.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

It is perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable, and the only way to ever make the concept of a company work. Because companies play a completely different role in society to government. For starters, because of freedom of association. You are free to not work for any company you like. If you feel like an employer is oppressing you, you can simply leave (unless they’re violating labor protection laws, then you can recover damages, and leave). If you feel like your government is oppressing you, you don’t have the freedom to simply stop associating with them. Then you have the fact that the role of companies in your life is completely different to that of government. The purpose of your relationship with your employer is to exchange your labor for money. That’s it. How you live your life outside of that is completely up to you. If you can’t come to an agreement on terms of employment acceptable to both parties, then you simply don’t have to associate with them. You also have the fact that if you have skills that employers want, then they have to compete for your labor. An oppressive employer isn’t going to have much luck acquiring such labor. I know it sounds like a great hot-take, but the two entities play completely different roles in society, and such a comment doesn’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny.

speedplane 7y ago
> For starters, because of freedom of association. You are free to not work for any company you like. If you feel like an employer is oppressing you, you can simply leave Nice in theory, but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market? What about companies with non-compete agreements? What about collusive non-poaching agreements between companies that lower the market value of labor? What about companies that disregard employee safety because they know the labor pool is large? These are not theoretical objections, they are happening now. Employer/employee agreements are not "free" when they break rules like these.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market There is no such company in the world, and if there was, it would almost certainly be an illegal monopoly. All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere, and the last one is illegal in many places (or at lease unenforceable). If you have a problem with companies breaking the law, then you have a problem with law enforcement. Not corporate governance in general.

cecja 7y ago

Because it literally is the norm? Read the first chapters of "Das Kapital" this is nothing new.