3 ms·

I don't quite get how this is expected to work. Does this somehow avoid a management level of this proposed corporation who are going to be trying to maximize p

I don't quite get how this is expected to work. Does this somehow avoid a management level of this proposed corporation who are going to be trying to maximize profits at the expense of the employees who are ostensibly in a worse bargaining position? At that point, the decision for the worker is only whether they're working directly for the end-exploiters or just the middle-exploiter.

pdonis 4y ago
> Does this somehow avoid a management level of this proposed corporation who are going to be trying to maximize profits at the expense of the employees who are ostensibly in a worse bargaining position? The corporation that takes the union's role would be owned by the workers; that's the whole point. It would be more like a "worker's cooperative" from that point of view, the way unions as they currently exist are supposed to be, but it would be a corporation from the point of view of other corporations who wanted to hire organized labor, so it would be in a better bargaining position than unionized employees are today. The workers would come to a consensus as a cooperative on things like how the corporation would manage the business risk of unscheduled absences, and then the corporation owned by the workers would sell the service of organized labor to other corporations that wanted it, probably with various different service levels depending on things like how critical unscheduled absences would be, and with higher service levels costing more.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Yeah, I don't know why I didn't just think employee-owned. I live half a mile away from a WinCo[0], which has the words "Employee-Owned" in big ol' block letters on it. Thanks for the explanation! (Though to my knowledge WinCo isn't the friendliest to their employees on the floor when it comes to stock ownership, I can imagine something more fair.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods

pdonis 4y ago

> Does this somehow avoid a management level of this proposed corporation who are going to be trying to maximize profits at the expense of the employees who are ostensibly in a worse bargaining position? The corporation that takes the union's role would be owned by the workers; that's the whole point. It would be more like a "worker's cooperative" from that point of view, the way unions as they currently exist are supposed to be, but it would be a corporation from the point of view of other corporations who wanted to hire organized labor, so it would be in a better bargaining position than unionized employees are today. The workers would come to a consensus as a cooperative on things like how the corporation would manage the business risk of unscheduled absences, and then the corporation owned by the workers would sell the service of organized labor to other corporations that wanted it, probably with various different service levels depending on things like how critical unscheduled absences would be, and with higher service levels costing more.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
Yeah, I don't know why I didn't just think employee-owned. I live half a mile away from a WinCo[0], which has the words "Employee-Owned" in big ol' block letters on it. Thanks for the explanation! (Though to my knowledge WinCo isn't the friendliest to their employees on the floor when it comes to stock ownership, I can imagine something more fair.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods