3 ms·

Some did. Assembly line workers didn’t. Framers didn’t.

Dylan16807 2y ago
At that point we're begging the question by going too deep into the analogy and finding the original situation again. The point has still been made that working on something without ownership can be enough to justify a say. And the framers might have a say, it depends on the company.
- grandempire 2y ago
  True, let’s simplify. The people who have a say are higher up managers who have been granted that power by the owners.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Are we discarding the analogy then? Okay. The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      > Are we discarding the analogy then It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context. Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them. > They don't naturally start with power over the employees. Indeed. What they have power over is what their employees do while the employee chooses to rent their time to them. The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property. If you seek voting rights, you should negotiate that as part of your employment - or don’t agree to it. Many white collar employees receive this in the form of stock.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context. Right, and it shows that ownership isn't the one factor that matters. > Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them. It's not like delegation is optional. But more importantly, the suggestion had nothing to do with ownership. The suggestion was voting power. I am glad you seem to have stepped back from the "someone else built" language you originally used. > The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property. And sometimes it's good to negotiate parts of employment contracts as a whole society, by putting it into law. It's not "entitlement" in any derogatory sense. It's a very mild limit on which things can be negotiated.

At that point we're begging the question by going too deep into the analogy and finding the original situation again. The point has still been made that working on something without ownership can be enough to justify a say. And the framers might have a say, it depends on the company.

grandempire 2y ago
True, let’s simplify. The people who have a say are higher up managers who have been granted that power by the owners.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Are we discarding the analogy then? Okay. The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    > Are we discarding the analogy then It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context. Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them. > They don't naturally start with power over the employees. Indeed. What they have power over is what their employees do while the employee chooses to rent their time to them. The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property. If you seek voting rights, you should negotiate that as part of your employment - or don’t agree to it. Many white collar employees receive this in the form of stock.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context. Right, and it shows that ownership isn't the one factor that matters. > Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them. It's not like delegation is optional. But more importantly, the suggestion had nothing to do with ownership. The suggestion was voting power. I am glad you seem to have stepped back from the "someone else built" language you originally used. > The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property. And sometimes it's good to negotiate parts of employment contracts as a whole society, by putting it into law. It's not "entitlement" in any derogatory sense. It's a very mild limit on which things can be negotiated.