4 ms·

> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company

> The beauty of a free market system is that if you feel that way, that the union bring mediocrity, you're not forced to deal with them. Start your own company that does not deal with the unions and bring in talent however you see fit. If unions really make things worse then congratulations, you've just created a more agile company that will certainly dominate in the marketplace. this works until your workers start asking questions like others in the comments here like "any pointers on how to turn an existing company into a worker co-op or employee owned company?", as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success. somehow enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking. somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible, even though it's 2023 and everyone has the Internet in their pockets at all times, so connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history. somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will.

phone8675309 3y ago
> as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. > enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking Yes, workers talking to each other about forming a union is a right they have by virtue of being a human being. Why does nobody flip this around and ask _what is the business owner doing wrong that their employees feel they need the protection of a union_? > somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible For some workers it actually is. The primary thing that distinguishes the owners of the business and the workers of the business is access to capital. It is asinine to assume that someone who has worked all of their life necessarily has access to the capital to start a business. There is a power imbalance here, and you have not addressed it here. > connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history This is what a push to unionize _is_. The owners have the ability to respond to this - it's a growing industry of anti-union consultants and had made a few companies obscenely wealthy providing those services. > somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will See my point above about this being a strawman. Nobody is saying that the person that starts the company has ZERO value. Far from it. All they are asking is fair compensation for their work that has enriched the owner, which they are not getting. Employee productivity has almost doubled but their wages have been stagnant. Far from workers acting like owners have no value, it's the owners that are treating the workers as not having value.
- adamrezich 3y ago
  why did you disingenuously disconnect the two parts of my sentence (regarding "starting a business on one's own being perceived as being Literally Impossible" and "ubiquitous instantaneous communication has made collaboration in shared purpose easier than any prior point in human history", and then respond to them separately, as if they were two separate thoughts? they were two parts of the same thought, hence them sharing the same sentence. anytime enthusiastically pro-union people want to try to start a business on their own, together, by pooling their resources to collectively take on risk—if for no reason but to prove that unions don't exist more or less solely to tear down existing things that weren't built by the union themselves—they're more than welcome to give it a shot. but, since this doesn't really seem to happen, it's really easy to continue to perceive enthusiastically pro-union people as outwardly appearing entitled to rewards for risks and resources that were not theirs. anyone can destroy—it takes considerably more effort to create.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the blame of that failure and need to pay at least some of the losses? Workers prefer fixed salaries instead of revenue share to avoid risk. This is a normal way to do things, workers don't want to share profits and losses, they want a fixed salary. Moving to a profit share model would not make workers happy at all.
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    It's not either or. You can be paid for labor, get equity and profit sharing at the same time.
    - adamrezich 3y ago
      what possible incentive would the owner of a company have to give workers equity/profit sharing while keeping all of the risk for himself?

phone8675309 3y ago

> as though for some reason you're not entitled to the rewards that came from the risk and resources you put into starting your own company and growing its success Nobody is saying that the owner of a business is not entitled to profits. That's a strawman. What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. > enthusiastically pro-union people don't see any problem with this line of thinking Yes, workers talking to each other about forming a union is a right they have by virtue of being a human being. Why does nobody flip this around and ask _what is the business owner doing wrong that their employees feel they need the protection of a union_? > somehow the idea of them starting a business themselves, as a co-op, is Literally Impossible For some workers it actually is. The primary thing that distinguishes the owners of the business and the workers of the business is access to capital. It is asinine to assume that someone who has worked all of their life necessarily has access to the capital to start a business. There is a power imbalance here, and you have not addressed it here. > connecting and organizing people who share a common purpose or ideal is easier than it ever has been in human history This is what a push to unionize _is_. The owners have the ability to respond to this - it's a growing industry of anti-union consultants and had made a few companies obscenely wealthy providing those services. > somehow it's considered perfectly fine and just to do nothing like that on your own, but, instead, reap the rewards of others' risk and resources by pretending, after the fact, that they had never had any value to begin with—that it's the workers and workers alone who provide the Real Value to the company, and always have, and always will See my point above about this being a strawman. Nobody is saying that the person that starts the company has ZERO value. Far from it. All they are asking is fair compensation for their work that has enriched the owner, which they are not getting. Employee productivity has almost doubled but their wages have been stagnant. Far from workers acting like owners have no value, it's the owners that are treating the workers as not having value.

adamrezich 3y ago
why did you disingenuously disconnect the two parts of my sentence (regarding "starting a business on one's own being perceived as being Literally Impossible" and "ubiquitous instantaneous communication has made collaboration in shared purpose easier than any prior point in human history", and then respond to them separately, as if they were two separate thoughts? they were two parts of the same thought, hence them sharing the same sentence. anytime enthusiastically pro-union people want to try to start a business on their own, together, by pooling their resources to collectively take on risk—if for no reason but to prove that unions don't exist more or less solely to tear down existing things that weren't built by the union themselves—they're more than welcome to give it a shot. but, since this doesn't really seem to happen, it's really easy to continue to perceive enthusiastically pro-union people as outwardly appearing entitled to rewards for risks and resources that were not theirs. anyone can destroy—it takes considerably more effort to create.
Jensson 3y ago
> What is actually being said is that the owner of a business couldn't make those profits _without_ the workers, which means that the workers, the people actually doing the work, share some of the credit for the success they bring to the owner and that they too should be entitled to at least some of share of profits. So if the company is doing badly then the workers that are actually doing the work share some of the blame of that failure and need to pay at least some of the losses? Workers prefer fixed salaries instead of revenue share to avoid risk. This is a normal way to do things, workers don't want to share profits and losses, they want a fixed salary. Moving to a profit share model would not make workers happy at all.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  It's not either or. You can be paid for labor, get equity and profit sharing at the same time.
  - adamrezich 3y ago
    what possible incentive would the owner of a company have to give workers equity/profit sharing while keeping all of the risk for himself?