3 ms·
Maybe it's always positive for poor performers since they become entrenched, but not always for workers generally, and not in the larger picture. If you don't
by throwkeep 5y ago
Maybe it's always positive for poor performers since they become entrenched, but not always for workers generally, and not in the larger picture.
If you don't think that's true, then why not start a company where you build in a union from the start? You can even have all workers be owners with equal voting rights. There's nothing stopping you from doing that! Or join an existing one, as they exist, even in the US. It's completely legal and you won't be opposed.
Forcing your model on existing companies is where it becomes objectionable. Start your own if you think it's a better approach. If it is, it'll win out and you won't have to force it on others. They will copy it willingly and eagerly.
- fuzzer37 5y ago> If it is, it'll win out and you won't have to force it on others. They will copy it willingly and eagerly. I don't really think this is a fair comparison when Uber's business model is literally to undercut the competition in a market to drive out local competitors, then raise prices once they're basically a monopoly in an area.
- advisedwang 5y ago> You can even have all workers be owners with equal voting rights. There's nothing stopping you from doing that! There 100% is something stopping you from doing that: No investor will put money into a worker owned company. This means anything which requires up front investment is not really possible. Want to start a software company like this? You better be profitable on day 1 or otherwise have a whole team prepared to pay for servers out of pocket and work for free.
- throwkeep 5y agoYou do what most people do when they start companies. They start small, without VC investment. And with the internet, it's easier and cheaper than ever to start one.