5 ms·

Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run? EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've

Why shouldn't employees have a say in how their own workplaces are run? EDIT: I see this is being downvoted. It's a genuine good faith question, and if you've downvoted, I'd love to know what you see as unconstructive about this comment. I'm sure the HN community would not be so petty as to downvote it out of pure ideology.

voidfunc 5y ago
Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner. Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.
- katbyte 5y ago
  so businesses are allowed to be racist because "they own it"? what's next start paying women and POC less because reasons? oh wait
  - wreath 5y ago
    They are allowed to do anything within the law.
- xpe 5y ago
  > Why should they? It is not their business. Why shouldn't they? Companies make many decisions that are not central to their business -- what snacks to provide, where to hold the company holiday party, etc. Yes, you can claim the above somehow tie into the core business. If so, then I also get to make the connection. I'll argue that (e.g.) supporting Black Lives Matter is a net positive to the company. Take Away: I suggest we dismiss the notion that companies should not take positions on various issues. One may debate the wisdom of companies taking various stances, but I think it is quite ridiculous to claim that companies do not have the freedom to take various stances.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  You should take a moment to read your own comment and consider how much raw ideology is packed into it - it's just pure authoritarianism. As an illustration of this, consider this similar comment: "Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord. Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."
  - anm89 5y ago
    You are comparing a government to a company. Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. For the record I think the peasants should and have every moral (althouth probably not legal)right to revolt. Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want. If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      > You are comparing a government to a company. Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible. > Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. Thinking that employers "belong" to the companies they work for is quite strange language. But more to the point, employees don't "optionally" sign employment contracts - most people are forced to work to pay the bills - in other words, they are coerced into signing the contract. Most people hate their jobs and would rather not do them.
      - Magicstatic 5y ago
        Sincere question - not meant to be inflammatory: Do you actually believe that most employees in the United States are coerced/forced to sign employment contracts, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?
anm89 5y ago
They frequently do. The contracts they sign often give them some rights in this regard. Companies also optionally give employees these rights all the time because they perceive it to be in their own best interest. They aren't legally owed them though. So if the company doesn't want to give them that say, then they don't get that say.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  What a contract says does not determine what is ethical. I'm interested in worker control over their own workplaces. Plenty of countries already do this, Germany for instance has board seats reserved for workers as mandatory for all large companies.
  - paxys 5y ago
    > What a contract says does not determine what is ethical Or what is legal. So many people don't assert their rights because some random piece of paper (or online form) told them they can't, when it would be completely unenforceable in a local court.
  - anm89 5y ago
    The U.S legal system (or anywhere else's) is not based on your subjective personal ethics. Germans voted for a specific right. American's do the same all the time. Germans still do not have some blanket right for every worker to control company policy.
bradleyjg 5y ago
Activism that imposes zero costs on the activist, indeed provides social benefits, just isn’t very convincing. Going to jail for your beliefs or standing up to cops with dogs and fire hoses—-those make otherwise indifferent people stop and think. The fact that “stay and change things from the inside” is maximally convenient for soi disant activists doesn’t strike many of us as a coincidence.
- astrange 5y ago
  This implies that someone could convince you X activism is worthless by not doing anything to visibly resist it.

voidfunc 5y ago

Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner. Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.

katbyte 5y ago
so businesses are allowed to be racist because "they own it"? what's next start paying women and POC less because reasons? oh wait
- wreath 5y ago
  They are allowed to do anything within the law.
xpe 5y ago
> Why should they? It is not their business. Why shouldn't they? Companies make many decisions that are not central to their business -- what snacks to provide, where to hold the company holiday party, etc. Yes, you can claim the above somehow tie into the core business. If so, then I also get to make the connection. I'll argue that (e.g.) supporting Black Lives Matter is a net positive to the company. Take Away: I suggest we dismiss the notion that companies should not take positions on various issues. One may debate the wisdom of companies taking various stances, but I think it is quite ridiculous to claim that companies do not have the freedom to take various stances.
djrobstep 5y ago
You should take a moment to read your own comment and consider how much raw ideology is packed into it - it's just pure authoritarianism. As an illustration of this, consider this similar comment: "Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord. Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."
- anm89 5y ago
  You are comparing a government to a company. Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. For the record I think the peasants should and have every moral (althouth probably not legal)right to revolt. Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want. If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    > You are comparing a government to a company. Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible. > Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. Thinking that employers "belong" to the companies they work for is quite strange language. But more to the point, employees don't "optionally" sign employment contracts - most people are forced to work to pay the bills - in other words, they are coerced into signing the contract. Most people hate their jobs and would rather not do them.
    - Magicstatic 5y ago
      Sincere question - not meant to be inflammatory: Do you actually believe that most employees in the United States are coerced/forced to sign employment contracts, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?

anm89 5y ago

They frequently do. The contracts they sign often give them some rights in this regard. Companies also optionally give employees these rights all the time because they perceive it to be in their own best interest. They aren't legally owed them though. So if the company doesn't want to give them that say, then they don't get that say.

djrobstep 5y ago
What a contract says does not determine what is ethical. I'm interested in worker control over their own workplaces. Plenty of countries already do this, Germany for instance has board seats reserved for workers as mandatory for all large companies.
- paxys 5y ago
  > What a contract says does not determine what is ethical Or what is legal. So many people don't assert their rights because some random piece of paper (or online form) told them they can't, when it would be completely unenforceable in a local court.
- anm89 5y ago
  The U.S legal system (or anywhere else's) is not based on your subjective personal ethics. Germans voted for a specific right. American's do the same all the time. Germans still do not have some blanket right for every worker to control company policy.

bradleyjg 5y ago

Activism that imposes zero costs on the activist, indeed provides social benefits, just isn’t very convincing. Going to jail for your beliefs or standing up to cops with dogs and fire hoses—-those make otherwise indifferent people stop and think. The fact that “stay and change things from the inside” is maximally convenient for soi disant activists doesn’t strike many of us as a coincidence.

astrange 5y ago
This implies that someone could convince you X activism is worthless by not doing anything to visibly resist it.