6 ms·

You can’t choose not to work in the US. You will be without health insurance. I don’t know of single US company that allows their workers on their board. I’m n

You can’t choose not to work in the US. You will be without health insurance. I don’t know of single US company that allows their workers on their board. I’m not against it. I think it’s an awesome idea.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I do not know of a single US company that does not allow workers (employees) on the board. Technically, if a CEO is on the board, then a company’s employee is on the board. Shareholders will probably not vote to put a line level employee on the board, though.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Line level employees at employee owned companies are shareholders; perhaps the problem is not enough employee owned companies. https://www.certifiedeo.com/ https://www.certifiedeo.com/
  - specialist 4y ago
    socialism, def.: when the working class aspire to join the ownership class.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - terr-dav 4y ago
      "workers aspiring to join the owning class" sounds more like effective capitalist propaganda to me. A socialist aspiration would be to remove the distinction between owner and worker. By transforming a business to worker-ownership, the owning vs working class distinction is eliminated. The compliment to "workers aspiring to join the owning class" is that the biggest risk a capitalist faces is the possibility of being thrust back into the working-class, and having to actually work for a living, as opposed to living off of profits derived from the labor of others.
      - swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
        In theory, socialism is when the working class redistributes the ownership class's assets. In practice, socialism is a power grab where populist leaders redistribute the ownership classes' assets to themselves.
        specialist 4y ago
        Succinct. Nice. Wikipedia's treatment is a bit more nuanced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
      - astrange 4y ago
        The obvious issue here is that workers don't want to own their company and probably shouldn't. A .001% stake in a company is less useful than a 50% stake, and it's well known that if you work at a company that pays you in shares you should immediately sell them and buy an index fund.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- sergiomattei 4y ago
  Let’s not argue semantics. They mean exactly what you mention: line-level labor.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    It is not semantics, because the statement that line level employees are banned from being on the board of directors is false. And that is important because the reason line level employees are not found on boards is that it rarely makes economic sense for a company's owners to put a line level employee on the board. And that is important because then the solution would have to be legislation. So the conversation becomes, should the government(s) in the US force businesses to place line level employees on the board (if the line level employees want to be on the board), and under what parameters?
    - JakeTheAndroid 4y ago
      Your entire line of comments seems to miss the entire conversation. In Germany, they do find it economically viable and important for line level employees to have direct representation on the company board. Talking about the CEO or other management classes being on the board is missing the conversation. Suggesting that because US companies don't believe in the economic value is missing the conversation. Suggesting that people are saying that this type of board composition is illegal is also missing the conversation. No one said it's illegal, but it's equally not a legal requirement either like it is in other places. The conversation is that this composition doesn't exist, by and large, in the US, and people think it should. People seem to believe that it does have value to the business. So yes, it does seem like you're creating semantic arguments because your points miss the conversation semantically.
      - astrange 4y ago
        Europe has sectoral bargaining (whole-industry unions) and codetermination (workers on boards) because they're running on newer legal systems than the US. It'd probably work here, but we have older corporate unions (per-company unions) which causes unions and management to fight each other more. On the other hand, we do have higher productivity, but not having codetermination probably isn't the reason for that.
- georgeecollins 4y ago
  Many companies in the US are employee owned. I think that's great and I would love to see people on HN form more of them. https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100 https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  The system in Germany specifically differentiates between employees and the so-called managerial class: once you reach a certain amount of leadership, you aren't eligible for the workers council anymore, even if you are an employee.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  Excluding a handful of co-ops, I don't know of a single company that does. This isn't about having one board member who happens to be an employee, it's about having >=50% of the board democratically elected by the employees.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > it's about having >=50% of the board democratically elected by the employees Is this how workers’ councils work in Germany?
    - thescriptkiddie 4y ago
      Yes, for companies with over 2000 employees, although the chairman of the board (who must not be an employee representative) gets the right to cast tie-breaking votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
ericd 4y ago
You can buy health insurance on the marketplaces yourself, it’s not hard, and it’s much cheaper than eg housing in most places that are MCOL and up. The challenge is saving up enough to pay for all your living expenses while you’re choosing not to work.
- misnome 4y ago
  Isn't there supposed to be a problem with health providers explicitly rejecting insurance companies/packages that are possible to buy yourself? You don't really have a choice if nobody where you live will take your insurance...
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Not in my experience. On east and west coasts, there are at least a couple widely accepted insurance plans available. A BCBS affiliate, a vertically integrated one like Kaiser or Providence, and other insurers offering PPO plans like UHC/Aetna/Cigna/Humana/etc.
  - ericd 4y ago
    I’ve never had that issue, or even heard of that issue, but I’ve only bought insurance from relatively large insurance companies, maybe it’s an issue if you try to save money by going with a small one with no network.
    - danenania 4y ago
      I've had good and bad experiences. One thing I learned the hard way is that even as a young person with low healthcare costs, it's a very bad idea to just choose the cheapest plan without doing any research. Some of the low cost companies are essentially scams: most of the "providers" they list on their site will not actually accept the plan; if you do have any medical costs, they will do everything possible to avoid paying even when you are clearly covered; you'll wait for hours on hold to talk to support, then they will be rude and unhelpful; etc. etc. It's well worth paying an extra hundred or so per month for a reputable provider so that you at least have actual functional health insurance.
mareko 4y ago
Definitely an awesome idea. If you ever need an example, cLabs.co is a US corporation that has an employee board seat.
dontlaugh 4y ago
You can’t choose not to work anywhere, you’ll starve. Class struggle happens everywhere and workers can win anywhere, even the US.
pirate787 4y ago
There's an entire class of corporate ownership that's employee-owned in the USA. https://www.nceo.org/what-is-employee-ownership https://www.nceo.org/what-is-employee-ownership
rayiner 4y ago
> You can’t choose not to work in the US. You will be without health insurance. Neither Medicaid nor Obamacare require you to work. My father in law did this in Oregon. “Retired” years before being eligible for Medicare, and is covered by the Oregon Health Plan. In Oregon you don’t even have to be legally in the country to qualify for fill OHP benefits.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

I do not know of a single US company that does not allow workers (employees) on the board. Technically, if a CEO is on the board, then a company’s employee is on the board. Shareholders will probably not vote to put a line level employee on the board, though.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Line level employees at employee owned companies are shareholders; perhaps the problem is not enough employee owned companies. https://www.certifiedeo.com/ https://www.certifiedeo.com/
- specialist 4y ago
  socialism, def.: when the working class aspire to join the ownership class.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - terr-dav 4y ago
    "workers aspiring to join the owning class" sounds more like effective capitalist propaganda to me. A socialist aspiration would be to remove the distinction between owner and worker. By transforming a business to worker-ownership, the owning vs working class distinction is eliminated. The compliment to "workers aspiring to join the owning class" is that the biggest risk a capitalist faces is the possibility of being thrust back into the working-class, and having to actually work for a living, as opposed to living off of profits derived from the labor of others.
    - swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
      In theory, socialism is when the working class redistributes the ownership class's assets. In practice, socialism is a power grab where populist leaders redistribute the ownership classes' assets to themselves.
      - specialist 4y ago
        Succinct. Nice. Wikipedia's treatment is a bit more nuanced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
    - astrange 4y ago
      The obvious issue here is that workers don't want to own their company and probably shouldn't. A .001% stake in a company is less useful than a 50% stake, and it's well known that if you work at a company that pays you in shares you should immediately sell them and buy an index fund.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
sergiomattei 4y ago
Let’s not argue semantics. They mean exactly what you mention: line-level labor.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  It is not semantics, because the statement that line level employees are banned from being on the board of directors is false. And that is important because the reason line level employees are not found on boards is that it rarely makes economic sense for a company's owners to put a line level employee on the board. And that is important because then the solution would have to be legislation. So the conversation becomes, should the government(s) in the US force businesses to place line level employees on the board (if the line level employees want to be on the board), and under what parameters?
  - JakeTheAndroid 4y ago
    Your entire line of comments seems to miss the entire conversation. In Germany, they do find it economically viable and important for line level employees to have direct representation on the company board. Talking about the CEO or other management classes being on the board is missing the conversation. Suggesting that because US companies don't believe in the economic value is missing the conversation. Suggesting that people are saying that this type of board composition is illegal is also missing the conversation. No one said it's illegal, but it's equally not a legal requirement either like it is in other places. The conversation is that this composition doesn't exist, by and large, in the US, and people think it should. People seem to believe that it does have value to the business. So yes, it does seem like you're creating semantic arguments because your points miss the conversation semantically.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Europe has sectoral bargaining (whole-industry unions) and codetermination (workers on boards) because they're running on newer legal systems than the US. It'd probably work here, but we have older corporate unions (per-company unions) which causes unions and management to fight each other more. On the other hand, we do have higher productivity, but not having codetermination probably isn't the reason for that.
georgeecollins 4y ago
Many companies in the US are employee owned. I think that's great and I would love to see people on HN form more of them. https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100 https://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
bakuninsbart 4y ago
The system in Germany specifically differentiates between employees and the so-called managerial class: once you reach a certain amount of leadership, you aren't eligible for the workers council anymore, even if you are an employee.
thescriptkiddie 4y ago
Excluding a handful of co-ops, I don't know of a single company that does. This isn't about having one board member who happens to be an employee, it's about having >=50% of the board democratically elected by the employees.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > it's about having >=50% of the board democratically elected by the employees Is this how workers’ councils work in Germany?
  - thescriptkiddie 4y ago
    Yes, for companies with over 2000 employees, although the chairman of the board (who must not be an employee representative) gets the right to cast tie-breaking votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

ericd 4y ago

You can buy health insurance on the marketplaces yourself, it’s not hard, and it’s much cheaper than eg housing in most places that are MCOL and up. The challenge is saving up enough to pay for all your living expenses while you’re choosing not to work.

misnome 4y ago
Isn't there supposed to be a problem with health providers explicitly rejecting insurance companies/packages that are possible to buy yourself? You don't really have a choice if nobody where you live will take your insurance...
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Not in my experience. On east and west coasts, there are at least a couple widely accepted insurance plans available. A BCBS affiliate, a vertically integrated one like Kaiser or Providence, and other insurers offering PPO plans like UHC/Aetna/Cigna/Humana/etc.
- ericd 4y ago
  I’ve never had that issue, or even heard of that issue, but I’ve only bought insurance from relatively large insurance companies, maybe it’s an issue if you try to save money by going with a small one with no network.
  - danenania 4y ago
    I've had good and bad experiences. One thing I learned the hard way is that even as a young person with low healthcare costs, it's a very bad idea to just choose the cheapest plan without doing any research. Some of the low cost companies are essentially scams: most of the "providers" they list on their site will not actually accept the plan; if you do have any medical costs, they will do everything possible to avoid paying even when you are clearly covered; you'll wait for hours on hold to talk to support, then they will be rude and unhelpful; etc. etc. It's well worth paying an extra hundred or so per month for a reputable provider so that you at least have actual functional health insurance.

mareko 4y ago

Definitely an awesome idea. If you ever need an example, cLabs.co is a US corporation that has an employee board seat.

dontlaugh 4y ago

You can’t choose not to work anywhere, you’ll starve. Class struggle happens everywhere and workers can win anywhere, even the US.

pirate787 4y ago

There's an entire class of corporate ownership that's employee-owned in the USA. https://www.nceo.org/what-is-employee-ownership https://www.nceo.org/what-is-employee-ownership

rayiner 4y ago

> You can’t choose not to work in the US. You will be without health insurance. Neither Medicaid nor Obamacare require you to work. My father in law did this in Oregon. “Retired” years before being eligible for Medicare, and is covered by the Oregon Health Plan. In Oregon you don’t even have to be legally in the country to qualify for fill OHP benefits.