8 ms·

As for democracy - because companies are somebody's property. Do you demand democracy in your home? That is, can I decide on a new wall color in your kitchen? I

As for democracy - because companies are somebody's property. Do you demand democracy in your home? That is, can I decide on a new wall color in your kitchen? I vote for you to paint your kitchen pink, how about that? Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave.

arcticbull 6y ago
> Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave. That's an absurd take because your boss suffers no consequences and you do. It's not about fair, it's about exercising the power you have. Besides, each part of the country is someone's property, but government gives you a say anyways. I would counter that the equivalent would be saying "why should anyone vote? why bother changing things? if you don't like your country why don't you go find a different one." We don't tend to accept that argument in government, why accept it in private enterprise?
- antisoeu 6y ago
  If your boss suffers no consequences if you leave, then your job is superfluous and you should leave, or your boss should be allowed to fire you. Exercising one's power - sure, employees can do that, and I support that. I just don't think they should deserve special protections and rights for doing that. If I had an employee and they would tell me "I think your management is shit and I want to make the rules now", I would like to be allowed to fire them.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to fire me, I didn't mean to imply that they would suffer no consequences however the consequences of 100% of my income is way smaller than whatever tiny fraction I make up of a 50,000 person company. Did you consider your management may be shit and maybe the person should make the rules now, not you? If you were harassing them, for instance, or bullying them, they may have a point and your single point of control over the enterprise may be harmful not just to the worker but to the company. Just because you would like to fire them doesn't mean you should, as after all, the fiduciary duty is to the company and not to you personally. That is specifically the value that the union would provide in this case.
    - antisoeu 6y ago
      Sure, management can be shit, but then the company should simply go to ruins. Likewise, employee decisions can be bad, too. It's mostly magical thinking to assume with unionized employees there will be better decision making. If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions. With unions, in the end you have courts decide on economic decisions. That's bullshit.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        Employee decisions aren't necessarily right, but who's to say that management should deserve unilateral power to make their decisions with maybe the board reining it in. And in tech specifically, we've been seeing more companies where the founders/existing leadership retains enough of a share that they can ignore the board, never mind their employees. Unilateral control over a business's destiny can doom it if the leadership is making poor decisions even when the rank-and-file oppose them. It's all easy to say the company should simply go to ruins but why should it? What if the good or service is solid, should the customers and the market suffer because the failing company has deprived them of it? Should the workers be punished because they had insufficient leverage to oppose those decisions? Should a ton of money and effort be wasted for an apparently pointless enterprise? If we live in a society that seeks to maximize life expectancy, and if corporations are people, why should we not seek also to prevent avoidable business failures, at least for those enterprises that are building useful products?
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Fiduciary duty is to the business not to the leadership, and to replace bad management. An employee-backed check bolsters this fiduciary duty. > If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions. Feel free to do that in a company of 1. As soon as your company exceeds 1 person, you lose the absolute right. You lose the right when your decisions impact the livelihood of those around you. It doesn't drop to zero instantly but it is attenuated as the company grows.
        6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

> Employees can also vote with their feet, if they don't like their bosses, they can leave. That's an absurd take because your boss suffers no consequences and you do. It's not about fair, it's about exercising the power you have. Besides, each part of the country is someone's property, but government gives you a say anyways. I would counter that the equivalent would be saying "why should anyone vote? why bother changing things? if you don't like your country why don't you go find a different one." We don't tend to accept that argument in government, why accept it in private enterprise?

antisoeu 6y ago
If your boss suffers no consequences if you leave, then your job is superfluous and you should leave, or your boss should be allowed to fire you. Exercising one's power - sure, employees can do that, and I support that. I just don't think they should deserve special protections and rights for doing that. If I had an employee and they would tell me "I think your management is shit and I want to make the rules now", I would like to be allowed to fire them.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to fire me, I didn't mean to imply that they would suffer no consequences however the consequences of 100% of my income is way smaller than whatever tiny fraction I make up of a 50,000 person company. Did you consider your management may be shit and maybe the person should make the rules now, not you? If you were harassing them, for instance, or bullying them, they may have a point and your single point of control over the enterprise may be harmful not just to the worker but to the company. Just because you would like to fire them doesn't mean you should, as after all, the fiduciary duty is to the company and not to you personally. That is specifically the value that the union would provide in this case.
  - antisoeu 6y ago
    Sure, management can be shit, but then the company should simply go to ruins. Likewise, employee decisions can be bad, too. It's mostly magical thinking to assume with unionized employees there will be better decision making. If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions. With unions, in the end you have courts decide on economic decisions. That's bullshit.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Employee decisions aren't necessarily right, but who's to say that management should deserve unilateral power to make their decisions with maybe the board reining it in. And in tech specifically, we've been seeing more companies where the founders/existing leadership retains enough of a share that they can ignore the board, never mind their employees. Unilateral control over a business's destiny can doom it if the leadership is making poor decisions even when the rank-and-file oppose them. It's all easy to say the company should simply go to ruins but why should it? What if the good or service is solid, should the customers and the market suffer because the failing company has deprived them of it? Should the workers be punished because they had insufficient leverage to oppose those decisions? Should a ton of money and effort be wasted for an apparently pointless enterprise? If we live in a society that seeks to maximize life expectancy, and if corporations are people, why should we not seek also to prevent avoidable business failures, at least for those enterprises that are building useful products?
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Fiduciary duty is to the business not to the leadership, and to replace bad management. An employee-backed check bolsters this fiduciary duty. > If I had a company, I would like to have the right to make bad decisions. And who defines good and bad decisions. Feel free to do that in a company of 1. As soon as your company exceeds 1 person, you lose the absolute right. You lose the right when your decisions impact the livelihood of those around you. It doesn't drop to zero instantly but it is attenuated as the company grows.
      - 6y ago