5 ms·

On the contrary I think it’s a good system. If they want to control the company they can buy 51% of the shares. Those shares are valuable for a reason.

whimsicalism 4y ago
If management doesn't want to negotiate with a majority of workers, they are free to pick a different career path and leave it to other professional managers.
slively 4y ago
If the solution to a problem is have lots of money, it’s a solution for only a tiny portion of people, and not generally applicable.
- xyzzy4747 4y ago
  Anyone can make their own company and their own shares and it’s practically free other than registration costs. The people with the shares get to set all the rules. That’s generally how it works. Otherwise the shares would be worthless.
  - slively 4y ago
    You are sidestepping a massive amount of factors that allows somebody to create their own business. Even then, a company grows on the backs of its employees, and there quickly comes a time when a single person should not have complete control because it’s not just theirs anymore. I own shares in public companies and have basically zero say in how they operate and those shares are worth quite a bit. At this point it’s clear these arguments are flippant and not serious. I hope one day you can have a perspective on these issues that is not so shallow. They are important and you also should have a say in your workplace. Our voices matter.
    - xyzzy4747 4y ago
      Anyone who is willing can create a business, especially a software one that has no upfront costs, and the owner usually does most of the work to get it off the ground. The owner gets complete say in how it’s run until they choose to relinquish or sell control or structure it otherwise.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        A company is a group effort and people can quit whenever they want. The owner doesn't have complete say and shouldn't have complete say, and it's good for employees to talk to each other so that they can use their say together.
        erlich 4y ago
        People can quit whenever they want which is the main point. Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union. I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autonomy taken away.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        And who's to say that the current management isn't doing a poor job? Based on Glassdoor and Blind, they've been experiencing high turnover and mixed reviews at best. So why shouldn't the management and owners be held accountable for questionable decisions? Why are you so insistent that workers get no say, and can only leave? On what basis is blind obedience mandatory in the workplace?
        erlich 4y ago
        The owners hold the management responsible. If targets are not met then they dig deeper, see staff turnover, find causes, and fix them. It’s capitalism at work. If the owners are not savvy enough then the company should fail or be sold and the capital should be allocated elsewhere. If workers have a say it distorts these forces. And by say you mean the ability to force the hand of management. Because they already can have a say and modern companies measure everything and listen to feedback.
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    The shares give you a claim on the profits. The rules are a combination of the corporate bylaws and the law. The latter does not let owners set all the rules: it imposes health and safety restrictions, taxes, and (yes!) unionisation rules. The people who make the laws get to set all the rules. The shares are valuable anyway, because an economic interest in a profit making entity is valuable whether you have perfect control or not.

whimsicalism 4y ago

If management doesn't want to negotiate with a majority of workers, they are free to pick a different career path and leave it to other professional managers.

slively 4y ago

If the solution to a problem is have lots of money, it’s a solution for only a tiny portion of people, and not generally applicable.

xyzzy4747 4y ago
Anyone can make their own company and their own shares and it’s practically free other than registration costs. The people with the shares get to set all the rules. That’s generally how it works. Otherwise the shares would be worthless.
- slively 4y ago
  You are sidestepping a massive amount of factors that allows somebody to create their own business. Even then, a company grows on the backs of its employees, and there quickly comes a time when a single person should not have complete control because it’s not just theirs anymore. I own shares in public companies and have basically zero say in how they operate and those shares are worth quite a bit. At this point it’s clear these arguments are flippant and not serious. I hope one day you can have a perspective on these issues that is not so shallow. They are important and you also should have a say in your workplace. Our voices matter.
  - xyzzy4747 4y ago
    Anyone who is willing can create a business, especially a software one that has no upfront costs, and the owner usually does most of the work to get it off the ground. The owner gets complete say in how it’s run until they choose to relinquish or sell control or structure it otherwise.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      A company is a group effort and people can quit whenever they want. The owner doesn't have complete say and shouldn't have complete say, and it's good for employees to talk to each other so that they can use their say together.
      - erlich 4y ago
        People can quit whenever they want which is the main point. Instead of banding together and threatening the management and owners with strike action it’s better that they quit because maybe there are other people who are happy to do the work without a union. I think the problem is most people don’t imagine themselves as owners/managers. If they did they would oppose unions too because they would not want their autonomy taken away.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        And who's to say that the current management isn't doing a poor job? Based on Glassdoor and Blind, they've been experiencing high turnover and mixed reviews at best. So why shouldn't the management and owners be held accountable for questionable decisions? Why are you so insistent that workers get no say, and can only leave? On what basis is blind obedience mandatory in the workplace?
        erlich 4y ago
        The owners hold the management responsible. If targets are not met then they dig deeper, see staff turnover, find causes, and fix them. It’s capitalism at work. If the owners are not savvy enough then the company should fail or be sold and the capital should be allocated elsewhere. If workers have a say it distorts these forces. And by say you mean the ability to force the hand of management. Because they already can have a say and modern companies measure everything and listen to feedback.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  The shares give you a claim on the profits. The rules are a combination of the corporate bylaws and the law. The latter does not let owners set all the rules: it imposes health and safety restrictions, taxes, and (yes!) unionisation rules. The people who make the laws get to set all the rules. The shares are valuable anyway, because an economic interest in a profit making entity is valuable whether you have perfect control or not.