3 ms·

It’s also a private company, they are literally investors in it, with the least liquidity and information. Are you anti stock option / RSU or something?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
I don't follow your point. Could you elaborate?
- confused_corbin 5y ago
  I am an investor in the companies I work for. Everyone in the union is an investor. The voting model and incentives have gotten increasingly more abusive and fucked up. Shit like the loans against equity, debt rounds, and so many other things are there to fuck over the people actually doing the work, to benefit the people laundering money. I've yet to see a private company fulfill even their basic stockholder duties to their shareholders who are also employees. Go dig up uber's sheets, or look into what happened at zynga, or hundreds of other places.
  - kdamica 5y ago
    Aren't debt rounds good because there's no dilution? How are they worse than selling new shares? (Genuinely curious)
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    If what you say is true, you should be able to convince shareholders/investors to require the workforce of the companies they own shares in to be unionized. There is no justification to back laws that limit the contracting rights of the employers. Such advocacy is based on a "I know better, so I will dictate your choices" principle. And I would bet that companies that see their workforce unionize see a drop in market performance, across all dimensions: revenue, profits, innovation, etc. And I would make that bet in the market, and you would stand to make money off of me if you bet the opposite and were right. But the labor laws as they stand don't allow these varying models to compete freely. As soon as a company's workforce unionizes, it receives regulatory protection from dismissal, and has the power to suppress the employer's contract freedom, by forcing it to forego negotiating with any party not in the union. It's a situation that's ripe for abuse, and rampant abuse has occurred in such situations over the past century, as unions suck shareholders dry.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

I don't follow your point. Could you elaborate?

confused_corbin 5y ago
I am an investor in the companies I work for. Everyone in the union is an investor. The voting model and incentives have gotten increasingly more abusive and fucked up. Shit like the loans against equity, debt rounds, and so many other things are there to fuck over the people actually doing the work, to benefit the people laundering money. I've yet to see a private company fulfill even their basic stockholder duties to their shareholders who are also employees. Go dig up uber's sheets, or look into what happened at zynga, or hundreds of other places.
- kdamica 5y ago
  Aren't debt rounds good because there's no dilution? How are they worse than selling new shares? (Genuinely curious)
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  If what you say is true, you should be able to convince shareholders/investors to require the workforce of the companies they own shares in to be unionized. There is no justification to back laws that limit the contracting rights of the employers. Such advocacy is based on a "I know better, so I will dictate your choices" principle. And I would bet that companies that see their workforce unionize see a drop in market performance, across all dimensions: revenue, profits, innovation, etc. And I would make that bet in the market, and you would stand to make money off of me if you bet the opposite and were right. But the labor laws as they stand don't allow these varying models to compete freely. As soon as a company's workforce unionizes, it receives regulatory protection from dismissal, and has the power to suppress the employer's contract freedom, by forcing it to forego negotiating with any party not in the union. It's a situation that's ripe for abuse, and rampant abuse has occurred in such situations over the past century, as unions suck shareholders dry.