5 ms·
No matter how nice you make it, a company town is a company town and is dangerous for the workers. After the last few years, tech workers should see that great
by advisedwang 3y ago
No matter how nice you make it, a company town is a company town and is dangerous for the workers.
After the last few years, tech workers should see that great pay, benefits and working conditions last only as long as the market makes companies provide them. Even if a company town is great today, by accepting that world more power is handed over to business which will use it to squeeze workers hard when times eventually change.
I don't want to see any benevolence from companies. I want to see workers and democratic state institutions making companies behave.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoWhat exactly are you decrying as "dangerous" here?
- callalex 3y agoThe existential risks that residents of a company town face. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
- calamari4065 3y agoHistorically, companies would build towns for their workers, and pay them in company script that is only valid at company stores. This was effectively a fancy form of slavery with all that entails.
- dabluecaboose 3y agoSorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. The term is "Scrip"[1], not "script" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip
- olliej 3y agoCould be autocarrot - I know in the past for me this was a "correction" they wanted to make, though just now in this thread I didn't have to fight it.
- deafpolygon 3y agoNot to be confused with the crips.
- Freak_NL 3y agoscrip*
- olliej 3y agoCompany towns are a thing that have existed in the past, and the results are very well documented. It's similar to company scrip (a thing Facebook tried to reintroduce a few years back), and in fact the two concepts support each other. The net effect of both is to give the company extraordinary control of the lives of its employees beyond the time they're actually at work, and that power lets them functionally reduce compensation, and limit the freedom to work elsewhere (you can't get a new job without also moving, but it's also been made difficult to live outside of the company town while working for the company, etc).
- newsclues 3y agoThe precarious nature of some workers lives doesn’t seem much different is their landlord is their employer or another corporation or a private capitalist. I also don’t see how this is more dangerous than the status quo.
- Ekaros 3y agoIt could be lot worse. At least with other capitalist there is some competition. But with company owned housing you could have setup of them giving discounts to employees. And this discount effectively being part of compensation. So when you change job, you would need much higher change in compensation or you would have to leave... Tenant protections of not being immediately kicked out when you are laid-off or resign could be circumvented in many ways...
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoI love how some insecure asses downvoted a simple question. Way to elevate the site.
- duxup 3y agoI think even the most benevolent companies would find their role as town owner would present a lot of unanticipated and difficult conflicts. It's just a situation everyone should want to avoid.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoCompany towns are still pretty common in China. My wife’s aunt lives at one in the middle of nowhere hunan, although this is the power sector. Lots of employers provide housing to employees, especially for lower wage jobs. Though this housing is often haphazard (eg waitresses converting the dining area into a sleeping area after closing). Surely China has along way to go here, although things are much better than they were 20 years ago.
- epanchin 3y agoThe UK disproves your point. Vast amount of todays housing stock are ex company towns, a point which is quite clear in the article. Company towns don’t always remain company towns.
- DragonStrength 3y agoVast amounts of America are former company towns as well. Former being why everyone is so convinced they're a bad idea.
- gjsman-1000 3y agoIf you define your HOA as being, in almost every way, a company with the intention of maintaining it’s brand… half of America is company towns.
- sweetjuly 3y agoThis is not what people mean when they say a "company town". It's about that same company being your employer.
- gjsman-1000 3y agoTrue, but my point is that the unethical company town model, and our modern system of HOAs that are typically outsourced to management companies, is an increasingly fine line.
- Novosell 3y agoIs it though? HOAs are close to becoming the same company as your employer? It's not about companies owning and renting out/selling property, it's about directly tying your housing to a specific employer.
- gjsman-1000 3y agoIf you are a tech worker in America who is in the progress of immigrating from India, is in America on a work visa, and can only afford rent in San Francisco from your tech salary; the only difference is formality. But if there was a formal recognition that the housing is employer-provided, there might be a greater incentive to uphold standards than letting the employee live under a bridge.
- Ekaros 3y agoProblem really isn't during the employment. It comes after it ends. If you tie your housing to being employed, it can mean that you will get kicked out if you quit. And this could happen in multitude of ways. People in USA already worry about losing their health care, but what about also losing your home?