5 ms·

Because management (or rather, shareholders) pay workers to do work, and not the other way around. Abstractly, workers telling shareholders how to run the compa

by sershe 6y ago

Because management (or rather, shareholders) pay workers to do work, and not the other way around. Abstractly, workers telling shareholders how to run the company (out of the scope of what shareholders hired them for) would be similar to shareholders telling workers how to spend their paycheck.

pron 6y ago
I don't see why it's like that at all, but you realise that this is not how it's always been, even in America, and certainly not elsewhere? What seems "logical" to you is merely a current snapshot of a social construct that's been built built over decades of political activism by shareholders.
- sershe 6y ago
  The only "social construct" involved here is "private property". If I hire someone to install carpet and pay them $X, we sign a contract about that and that only. They don't tell me how I should paint my walls; and I don't tell them how to spend their money. That's kind of the idea. If they start issuing ultimatums about painting my walls pink, or agitate with the painters that it's wrong to not do it, I'm going to fire them. Apparently, in the old days, by custom that was not like that, and you were expected to paint your walls pink if they insist; perhaps in other places it was even mandated by law. Then Milton Friedman showed up and said "Hey, you just acceded to your walls being painted pink but, by the rules, you didn't have to do that!" If getting this notion across is activism, then I guess I'd stop thinking of activism as a dirty word. I thought it was more like education on a common-sense notion. Come think of it, an alternative structure you seem to be advocating is also a solved problem in this scheme - it's called a co-op, and there are many successful ones around, from farms to clothing stores. Go found an internet search coop, and as a co-owner you'd be able to decide how it should be run.
  - pron 6y ago
    Even in the US labour laws are not like that. The relationship between an employer and employees is complex and its legal aspects ever-changing. In Germany, the structure of companies is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
    - sershe 6y ago
      The original question was "Why is it reasonable for management to be political activists but not the workers?" The reasonable labor law is generally about what contracts are and are not permissible and enforceable. For example, minimum wage means I cannot generally hire someone and pay them less, even if both parties are willing. Beyond that, well on a spectrum with that, there are numerous ways to circumvent private property - for example, government may mandate (or maintain an informal policy) that workplace theft is not prosecuted, like they do with regular theft in some US cities. That can swing the other way too, they could make wage theft ok, for example. Doesn't make it reasonable. If I own a company and employ no-one, for someone I then hired for a specified purpose to try to wrest control of the company away from me is not much different from a corrupt government or mafia trying to do it without a contract. The magic attached to the contract that would give employers such powers would make contracts all but meaningless.
      - pron 6y ago
        Even though private property is, indeed, a political construct, I don't see how everything follows just from it. Employment isn't fungible for the employee, it involves long-term personal relationships, possibly relocation, and it stands to reason that even if the company is the property of its shareholders in the sense that they enjoy its profits, because the risk is high for the employee they get a say in decisions; long-term employment is a kind of partnership. Not only is it more reasonable than the current weird situation, it is actually like that in other Western countries, and it even was like that -- though through a different mechanism -- in the US. It only stopped being like that after heavy political activism by corporations and shareholders.
        sershe 6y ago
        Well, in that case there should be legislation for "minimum participation" akin to minimum wage, restricting property rights of the owners. There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. That answers the question in the present. As for the changes; the co-op structure already exists, so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops. As is, myself (and most people I expect) would rather have more money than more participation, in fact the poorer people would probably be the first to trade participation for money if they could. In the US, they can go either way at least in theory (the reason there are not that many co-ops is probably because few want more participation at the cost of money). In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair. The "political activism" was literally to remove restrictions to give people more options and/or to make people more aware of rules and less beholden to some unjustified ancient custom.

by sershe 6y ago

pron 6y ago

I don't see why it's like that at all, but you realise that this is not how it's always been, even in America, and certainly not elsewhere? What seems "logical" to you is merely a current snapshot of a social construct that's been built built over decades of political activism by shareholders.

sershe 6y ago
The only "social construct" involved here is "private property". If I hire someone to install carpet and pay them $X, we sign a contract about that and that only. They don't tell me how I should paint my walls; and I don't tell them how to spend their money. That's kind of the idea. If they start issuing ultimatums about painting my walls pink, or agitate with the painters that it's wrong to not do it, I'm going to fire them. Apparently, in the old days, by custom that was not like that, and you were expected to paint your walls pink if they insist; perhaps in other places it was even mandated by law. Then Milton Friedman showed up and said "Hey, you just acceded to your walls being painted pink but, by the rules, you didn't have to do that!" If getting this notion across is activism, then I guess I'd stop thinking of activism as a dirty word. I thought it was more like education on a common-sense notion. Come think of it, an alternative structure you seem to be advocating is also a solved problem in this scheme - it's called a co-op, and there are many successful ones around, from farms to clothing stores. Go found an internet search coop, and as a co-owner you'd be able to decide how it should be run.
- pron 6y ago
  Even in the US labour laws are not like that. The relationship between an employer and employees is complex and its legal aspects ever-changing. In Germany, the structure of companies is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
  - sershe 6y ago
    The original question was "Why is it reasonable for management to be political activists but not the workers?" The reasonable labor law is generally about what contracts are and are not permissible and enforceable. For example, minimum wage means I cannot generally hire someone and pay them less, even if both parties are willing. Beyond that, well on a spectrum with that, there are numerous ways to circumvent private property - for example, government may mandate (or maintain an informal policy) that workplace theft is not prosecuted, like they do with regular theft in some US cities. That can swing the other way too, they could make wage theft ok, for example. Doesn't make it reasonable. If I own a company and employ no-one, for someone I then hired for a specified purpose to try to wrest control of the company away from me is not much different from a corrupt government or mafia trying to do it without a contract. The magic attached to the contract that would give employers such powers would make contracts all but meaningless.
    - pron 6y ago
      Even though private property is, indeed, a political construct, I don't see how everything follows just from it. Employment isn't fungible for the employee, it involves long-term personal relationships, possibly relocation, and it stands to reason that even if the company is the property of its shareholders in the sense that they enjoy its profits, because the risk is high for the employee they get a say in decisions; long-term employment is a kind of partnership. Not only is it more reasonable than the current weird situation, it is actually like that in other Western countries, and it even was like that -- though through a different mechanism -- in the US. It only stopped being like that after heavy political activism by corporations and shareholders.
      - sershe 6y ago
        Well, in that case there should be legislation for "minimum participation" akin to minimum wage, restricting property rights of the owners. There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. That answers the question in the present. As for the changes; the co-op structure already exists, so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops. As is, myself (and most people I expect) would rather have more money than more participation, in fact the poorer people would probably be the first to trade participation for money if they could. In the US, they can go either way at least in theory (the reason there are not that many co-ops is probably because few want more participation at the cost of money). In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair. The "political activism" was literally to remove restrictions to give people more options and/or to make people more aware of rules and less beholden to some unjustified ancient custom.