4 ms·

This is sadly why you need political power. People with money can afford WAY longer then you to just say "nah..."

by dubcanada 4y ago

politician 4y ago
The power to compel others is dangerous.
- Retric 4y ago
  Having zero power is vastly more dangerous.
- wolrah 4y ago
  > The power to compel others is dangerous. When one side already has massive power, it takes massive power to balance it. It is very rare that an individual will ever have the ability to stand up to a multi-billion dollar company on their own, so they need a powerful union who can actually legitimately threaten that company to be able to keep the company in check. Either that or the companies need to have their own power strongly curtailed, which can only be done by a powerful government. Pick your poison.
- malcolmgreaves 4y ago
  Great argument against the entirety of capitalism! As an economic system, much like feudalism, capitalism is founded on the bedrock principle of capitalists having extreme power to compel non capitalists into all sorts of behavior.
mrisoli 4y ago
Or in other words, "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
skmurphy 4y ago
I think it's less a question of "(politcal) power" than "bargaining power." And bargaining power is not fundamentally about your ability to withhold your labor from one employer but sell it to other employers.
- malcolmgreaves 4y ago
  I see what you’re saying, but I must point out that bargaining power is political. The story you’re commenting on is about a group of people working at one location, wanting something more from their employer. The solution to the problem isn’t to leave. Rather, it is to exert influence via collective action to change _that_ situation _there_.
  - skmurphy 4y ago
    Their mistake was in framing it as collective bargaining. What if they put the owner in the group with them and brainstormed ways to allow everyone to prosper. Casting it as a zero sum interaction--we want more from you and unfortunately you get less--rarely works as well as shared problem solving. At an individual level if they had investigated other opportunities and reported back practices from other employers that matched what they were asking for it would strengthen their case that it would be hard for the employer to attract new employees with their current set of policies. You have to look at it as a dynamic system or ecosystem. "Us against them" is rarely the most effective framing.

This is sadly why you need political power. People with money can afford WAY longer then you to just say "nah..."

politician 4y ago

The power to compel others is dangerous.

Retric 4y ago
Having zero power is vastly more dangerous.
wolrah 4y ago
> The power to compel others is dangerous. When one side already has massive power, it takes massive power to balance it. It is very rare that an individual will ever have the ability to stand up to a multi-billion dollar company on their own, so they need a powerful union who can actually legitimately threaten that company to be able to keep the company in check. Either that or the companies need to have their own power strongly curtailed, which can only be done by a powerful government. Pick your poison.
malcolmgreaves 4y ago
Great argument against the entirety of capitalism! As an economic system, much like feudalism, capitalism is founded on the bedrock principle of capitalists having extreme power to compel non capitalists into all sorts of behavior.

mrisoli 4y ago

Or in other words, "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

skmurphy 4y ago

I think it's less a question of "(politcal) power" than "bargaining power." And bargaining power is not fundamentally about your ability to withhold your labor from one employer but sell it to other employers.

malcolmgreaves 4y ago
I see what you’re saying, but I must point out that bargaining power is political. The story you’re commenting on is about a group of people working at one location, wanting something more from their employer. The solution to the problem isn’t to leave. Rather, it is to exert influence via collective action to change _that_ situation _there_.
- skmurphy 4y ago
  Their mistake was in framing it as collective bargaining. What if they put the owner in the group with them and brainstormed ways to allow everyone to prosper. Casting it as a zero sum interaction--we want more from you and unfortunately you get less--rarely works as well as shared problem solving. At an individual level if they had investigated other opportunities and reported back practices from other employers that matched what they were asking for it would strengthen their case that it would be hard for the employer to attract new employees with their current set of policies. You have to look at it as a dynamic system or ecosystem. "Us against them" is rarely the most effective framing.