4 ms·

The people who actually do the work? Or would you prefer the investors who did the work of "already having money"?

by luma 2y ago

jajko 2y ago
Without knowing all the details , that sounds awfully a lot like communism, and trust me, you don't want to live nor work in such environment. It may look great on paper, but its simply not working long term, we humans are deeply imperfect. If there is law broken, system and its protections should deal with it. A genuine question - can't people simply stand up and vote for better employer with their feet? Amazon ain't some 200-year old business that whole generations of towns evolved around with no other option in sight. Even then this should always be an option unless you live in some communist (eh) dictatorship.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  A Boogeyman argument against unionisation and a Let them eat cake argument to dismiss their position.
- apercu 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Steven420 2y ago
  Apparently there are a lot of communists around here... Judging by all the down votes. HN is a very toxic place these days
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
chrisjj 2y ago
> The people who actually do the work? Surely not even this union is dumb enough to think the workers can control the owners.
- dkdbejwi383 2y ago
  Strikes prove that workers can and do control owners.
  - serf 2y ago
    what do local shop closures as reaction to union movements prove?
    - Floegipoky 2y ago
      It proves that corruption is tolerated in the US.
  - chrisjj 2y ago
    Influence != control.
seneca 2y ago
Yes, I would prefer the investors, because I believe in property rights.
Y_Y 2y ago
Honestly? Unless you want to confiscate the money, then you have to persuade the people who already have it that is worth their while to give it to you. Usually that entails handing over some control and some chance of getting paid. You may be able to change some of the terms of the contract, but as an overall structure I don't see any possible alternative in this time and place.
- willyt 2y ago
  That's the whole point of joining a union it turns a unilateral contract negotiation, where one party has no leverage, into a bi-lateral contract negotiation. The worker's leverage in the negotiation is to withdraw all labour halting production. The downside is that you don't get paid while you are on strike and it only works really well in industries where there is a labour shortage or it takes time to train up new workers who need experience and qualifications that are hard to obtain: pilots, train drivers, doctors, police all have very effective unions in the UK at least. The difficulty that the amazon workers face is that they turn up and a screen says pick up these things from these boxes and take them over there, put them in other boxes, stick postage labels on and put it in the back of the truck. It doesn't take much training to do, so workers who unionise are very vulnerable to being fired until enough have joined the union to hold an effective strike. Unions are always going to naturally form in a pure libertarian society where the only rules are freedom of contract. Usually they are restricted by government regulation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - chuckadams 2y ago
    In a pure fantasy libertarian society where the powerful actually respect the rights of the powerless, then yeah, unions would form organically. In the world that has actually existed throughout recorded history, those contracts are "do what we say or starve, we've made sure everyone else gives the same offer", and unions are put down by force.
    - 2y ago
IncreasePosts 2y ago
If workers are all it takes, why can't all of the workers quit, reform a new company where they control 100% of it, and then put Amazon out of business? If AMZN is a $2T company and has 1.5M employees, every worker can become a millionaire if they just do this one simple trick. Why don't they? I'm also confused about what role you think investors should play in business if money is unimportant. What would YCombinator look like? A bank that just loans out money for a fixed interest rate?
- empath-nirvana 2y ago
  If management was all it takes, why can't they fire all the workers and work the warehouse floor themselves?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    but nobody is making that claim
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  > why can't all of the workers quit, reform a new company where they control 100% of it, and then put Amazon out of business? A dude called Karl wrote a book that answers this.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >I'm also confused about what role you think investors should play in business if money is unimportant. What would YCombinator look like? A bank that just loans out money for a fixed interest rate? In my libertarian-socialist days, I have actually gave some thought to this question. The best I could come up with was 1) variable return lending or 2) profit sharing agreements with a sunset duration. Both seem like a more expensive option for companies in an environment with economic growth. The beauty about selling stock/corporate ownership is that you never have to pay your investors a dime as long as the company has growth prospects. The return for investors simply comes from sale to other investors. When a company issues a bond or makes a profit sharing agreement, they actually have to pay that back. Maybe in a growth environment, they could perpetually use new loans to pay old debt, but this would put them at the mercy of the outside lending rate. By way of example, instead YC buying 20% of a company, it could receive the rights to sell a 20-year contract for 20% of the company profit.

The people who actually do the work? Or would you prefer the investors who did the work of "already having money"?

by luma 2y ago

The people who actually do the work? Or would you prefer the investors who did the work of "already having money"?

Without knowing all the details , that sounds awfully a lot like communism, and trust me, you don't want to live nor work in such environment. It may look great on paper, but its simply not working long term, we humans are deeply imperfect. If there is law broken, system and its protections should deal with it. A genuine question - can't people simply stand up and vote for better employer with their feet? Amazon ain't some 200-year old business that whole generations of towns evolved around with no other option in sight. Even then this should always be an option unless you live in some communist (eh) dictatorship.

AlecSchueler 2y ago
A Boogeyman argument against unionisation and a Let them eat cake argument to dismiss their position.
apercu 2y ago
[flagged]
Steven420 2y ago
Apparently there are a lot of communists around here... Judging by all the down votes. HN is a very toxic place these days
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

chrisjj 2y ago

> The people who actually do the work? Surely not even this union is dumb enough to think the workers can control the owners.

dkdbejwi383 2y ago
Strikes prove that workers can and do control owners.
- serf 2y ago
  what do local shop closures as reaction to union movements prove?
  - Floegipoky 2y ago
    It proves that corruption is tolerated in the US.
- chrisjj 2y ago
  Influence != control.

seneca 2y ago

Yes, I would prefer the investors, because I believe in property rights.

Y_Y 2y ago

Honestly? Unless you want to confiscate the money, then you have to persuade the people who already have it that is worth their while to give it to you. Usually that entails handing over some control and some chance of getting paid. You may be able to change some of the terms of the contract, but as an overall structure I don't see any possible alternative in this time and place.

willyt 2y ago
That's the whole point of joining a union it turns a unilateral contract negotiation, where one party has no leverage, into a bi-lateral contract negotiation. The worker's leverage in the negotiation is to withdraw all labour halting production. The downside is that you don't get paid while you are on strike and it only works really well in industries where there is a labour shortage or it takes time to train up new workers who need experience and qualifications that are hard to obtain: pilots, train drivers, doctors, police all have very effective unions in the UK at least. The difficulty that the amazon workers face is that they turn up and a screen says pick up these things from these boxes and take them over there, put them in other boxes, stick postage labels on and put it in the back of the truck. It doesn't take much training to do, so workers who unionise are very vulnerable to being fired until enough have joined the union to hold an effective strike. Unions are always going to naturally form in a pure libertarian society where the only rules are freedom of contract. Usually they are restricted by government regulation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chuckadams 2y ago
  In a pure fantasy libertarian society where the powerful actually respect the rights of the powerless, then yeah, unions would form organically. In the world that has actually existed throughout recorded history, those contracts are "do what we say or starve, we've made sure everyone else gives the same offer", and unions are put down by force.
  - 2y ago

IncreasePosts 2y ago

If workers are all it takes, why can't all of the workers quit, reform a new company where they control 100% of it, and then put Amazon out of business? If AMZN is a $2T company and has 1.5M employees, every worker can become a millionaire if they just do this one simple trick. Why don't they? I'm also confused about what role you think investors should play in business if money is unimportant. What would YCombinator look like? A bank that just loans out money for a fixed interest rate?

empath-nirvana 2y ago
If management was all it takes, why can't they fire all the workers and work the warehouse floor themselves?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  but nobody is making that claim
RobotToaster 2y ago
> why can't all of the workers quit, reform a new company where they control 100% of it, and then put Amazon out of business? A dude called Karl wrote a book that answers this.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
>I'm also confused about what role you think investors should play in business if money is unimportant. What would YCombinator look like? A bank that just loans out money for a fixed interest rate? In my libertarian-socialist days, I have actually gave some thought to this question. The best I could come up with was 1) variable return lending or 2) profit sharing agreements with a sunset duration. Both seem like a more expensive option for companies in an environment with economic growth. The beauty about selling stock/corporate ownership is that you never have to pay your investors a dime as long as the company has growth prospects. The return for investors simply comes from sale to other investors. When a company issues a bond or makes a profit sharing agreement, they actually have to pay that back. Maybe in a growth environment, they could perpetually use new loans to pay old debt, but this would put them at the mercy of the outside lending rate. By way of example, instead YC buying 20% of a company, it could receive the rights to sell a 20-year contract for 20% of the company profit.