2053
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
2053 points (98.4% liked)
Work Reform
9652 readers
424 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When a company spends money to discourage collective bargaining, whether that's in production of "training" videos, or closing facilities, or punishing organizers (who are more likely to call foul on that illegal activity), it means that they think that will cost them less than bargaining with labor in good faith.
They know they're taking advantage of labor, and it costs them less to keep the bootheel on than it does to negotiate. Seize the means of production.
sure sure seize it, then who's gonna manage it afterwards, and how much will they get paid, more, less, the same, for what sort of responsibility, who determines that, do managers count as much as front line assembly staff, do they have to work more or less. sooner or later the pigs become the man and the man becomes the pigs. seize it, we'll all be back here in a hundred years telling people to seize it from you.
Management of labor resources is labor. So is accounting, and marketing, and training. Ownership is not labor. Stifling collective bargaining serves the purposes of owners by ensuring that more of the compensation for work product is taken away from those who labor and given to those who own.
Seize the means of production.
Always said the biggest challenger for organisers is the Manager who thinks he’s not a worker.
Everyone forgets that things like leadership and management provide value, and deserve fair compensation. Simple ownership can provide some value, if the owner(s) are putting real capital at real risk in order to operate a business which creates a product or service.
For large companies, there is no real risk. They regularly get bailed out by government (i.e., taxpayers, all of us). "Privatize rewards, socialize risk," you know.
Owners ultimately determine the direction of the business, and the compensation of all labor. When executives have giant compensation packages, where a huge proportion of that compensation is in the form of company stock - more ownership - and they're protected by giant golden parachutes, so that they get a big cash out even if they fail miserably, those owners take on no risk whatsoever. Executive ownership inappropriately pits labor (that which adds value but does not have control) and ownership (that which does not add value, but does have control) against one another, in the same person, high on the power ladder of a company. Executive owners are incentivized to serve the purposes of the ownership portion of their roles, because that is what brings them personally more wealth.
Not only should "regular" labor see a greater share of compensation, the amount that anyone is compensated with company stock should be limited to a very small fraction of their overall compensation amount. If you want to add a stock incentive to someone's compensation, it should really be in the form of options.
I don't understand. Why? Wouldn't more stock options to regular workers be a form of seizing the means of production? Always sounded like a good idea to me.
Let's first clear up the difference between a stock option and a stock grant (in the US).
A stock grant is "Here's some stock, you own it." It is taxed as income at the price it has when you take full ownership of it. Many employee stock plans also include a vesting schedule, where you have the stock, can vote with it, and receive dividends on it - but you cannot sell it until it vests. In that case, you would pay taxes on its price when it vests.
Stock options, on the other hand, are the ability to buy the given stock at the price it had when you were issued the option. You pay no taxes upon receiving an option, you pay no taxes when you exercise the option (choose to buy the stock at the option price). You do pay taxes on the profit made between the price at purchase and the sale price, as with any stock trade. Options can also expire, and if you don't exercise them before they expire, they are gone.
For regular people, you would do a trade which exercises and sells your options at the same time. Option price $5, current price $10, exercise and sell, and you have $5 cash. This requires no outlay of funds from you. It is also possible to just exercise the option and the hold the stock, which has a tax benefit if you hold it longer than a year, when it is taxed not as income, but at the lower capital gains rate. But regular people don't have the liquid cash to be able to lock up for a year like that.
Anyway, the amount of stock grants that are given to regular workers are an absolute pittance compared to what is given to executives. There is no practical way to wrest corporate power away from primary shareholders by increasing the amount of stock granted to employees - especially since the primary shareholders are usually the CEO and board members, or some capital organization (venture capital, holding company, what have you). The primary shareholders would never let that happen. Even if they would, employees who need that wealth to live right now are far more likely to just sell their stock grants when they vest and pay off loans and bills, do home/car repairs, maybe go on a short vacation. They're not going to hold the stock and wield their ownership votes - which are far too few to challenge anything anyway.
I think that, for public companies, separating control of the company direction from ownership is the best choice. Shareholders (really the primary shareholder) should be able to vote on corporate board members and executive committee roles. And that's it. The board and executive committee should have control over the company's direction without being primary shareholders.
Just so you know. This idea is literally the same idea the evil guys have in the book 1984. They convince the main character that revolutions never make anything better, they only change who is in charge, and so there is no reason for anyone to change the dystopian system they have created.
Holy shit literally 1984.
I find it funny that the protagonist's arc peaks at him realizing (what he already knew) that the one thing that will free people is the lower class learning class consciousness but somehow* it's the big gobbunism bad book.
*McCarthyism, American School system
People don't want to accept that Orwell was a socialist. Probably because of Animal Farm. Being disillusioned with the Soviets didn't make him less of a socialist.
It's funny (in a frightening way) how relevant this meme is these days.
It’d be managed democratically by the workers in the way that best fit their needs. You act like those are all questions that couldn’t be discussed and voted on.
Right… since people never step in to fill a power vacuum and no matter their intentions become corrupt… because absolute power corrupts absolutely… and once you get a taste historically people want more…
Seizing the means and fantasizing about a functional democratic version of communism in the workplace is absurd…
The real goal should be to regulate the wage gap. Because the top won’t voluntarily shrink the wage gaps laws need to be in place or bargained for that set a limit to the gap between the top and bottom… i.e. the CEO can only ever make 30% more per year than the lowest paid employee in their business. That way when the business is more successful everyone is brought up. There is recognition that various roles have more or less responsibility (and should be compensated as such) but everyone in the org benefits equally when the org does better…
I mean under that same logic capitalism is always going to be corrupt because at its core it concentrates wealth and thus power at the top in the hands of a few. I’d rather at least try a way of organizing that puts the power in the hands of the people. No matter how much you try to regulate capitalism the rich will always try to gain more wealth and power.
Seems like the anti-union people are out in force this morning, huh?
And the stupid ones aren't being paid a dime to do it.
And they're engaging in one of my favorite logical pretzels: presenting their ignorance as proof in and of itself that their opponents are ignorant. "I don't know what your plan is, which means you don't have one!"
I think they also referenced Animal Farm, a book written by a socialist.
I mean… I’m not anti Union… have lived and worked in TX and CA… TX is as anti union as anywhere and it sucks because of it.
I’m anti corrupt unions, anti blind faith in “unions”, I’m anti overly simplistic internet bullshit rhetoric that sounds good in a vacuum but isn’t helpful in the world we live in…
But you do you Boo… nothing much our internet discourse here will accomplish other than both of us being annoyed and feeling morally superior to the other for no reason. 🍻
We agree on all those points, even if you're implying that my position is "overly simplistic internet bullshit rhetoric that sounds good in a vacuum but isn't helpful in the world we live in."
One way to make sure that no unions are corrupt is certainly to have no unions at all, but I highly doubt that that would reduce overall corruption in business. I believe it is better to have strong unions first, and address all corruption, wherever it hides, than to abandon unions and kneecap their ability to fight corruption in ownership. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Fair nuff friendo.
And you’re right. Elimination of unions across the board would absolutely not lead to a positive outcome.
I’ve just become cynical and disillusioned with society and that leaks out sometimes… but you’re right, we should not let perfect be the enemy of good. 🍻
And you said nothing good would come from discourse.
👊
I’m a big enough man to admit when I’m wrong. Well done fellow Lemming. Appreciate the respectful discourse. 🍻🤛
Understanding what conditions lead to business unionism, in which the people at the top of the union no longer represent the rank and file members, is a vital part of the current labor movement. Every other post you have made in this thread lack any nuance whatsoever.
Rank and file union members need a militant approach to business owners. Being apart of a union isn't just paying dues and expecting other people will take care of it. No full time union staff should take home more than the average union member wage, keep their skin in the game and give them a reason to fight. Unions power doesn't come from a leaders ability to negotiate with the bosses, it is in fact the opposite, unions leadership ability to negotiate comes from the power of the rank and file members.
I agree… unregulated capitalism will always be corrupt. We’re seeing that now…
But again… you literally can’t place power in the hands of the people because someone (or a small cabal) will always rise to the top and assume control and we end up in the same spot under a different name…
If you looks at history “regulated” capitalism eventually deregulates because it’s in the interests of the rich to do so and even “regulated” capitalism has exploited the global south for decades and decades. I reject your idea that a few will always rise to the top and be malicious with the power, but even saying that’s true how is that any worse than the current state? I would rather at least try to find a new way to do things than resigning the world to having this be its peak where millions are hungry and destitute.
Echoing you here:
Yes, we've already seen that in every version of "owners taking advantage of labor" from feudalism to capitalism has tended to produce corrupt people at the top. It's kind of built into that kind of system. People are incorrectly assuming that changing the fundamental system to "labor produces and is compensated for it" will experience the same corruption. Maybe it will, if corrupt people gain ownership of that system, and take it back to "owners taking advantage of labor."
But how about we fucking give it a try and see what happens? You're right; it can't be worse than what we already have.
as evidenced by how successful the ussr, china, cuba and venezuela, and every other fucking group who has ever tried it, have been in their efforts in this regard, yeah yeah i know, you've got a "better plan". see you in a hundred years.
Tell us more, I need a laugh
Sources and refrences please.
Im not as familiar with Venezuela but the first 3 you listed massively increased the quality of life for their citizens versus how it was pre revolution. Cuba today is still a massive achievement considering the embargo. Just like capitalism didn’t achieve its optimal form when it first came to being, socialism hasn’t been perfect either but we learn from past mistakes and strive for something better than thinking that the current system that only benefits the global north at the expense of the global south is somehow the peak of how human society can be.
A lot of people don't realize the USSR went from being relatively technologically primative to launching satellites into space within 35 years. It wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but what other country can claim the same?
You know oxford polish is toxic, right? You shouldn't be dragging your tongue through all that c-suite shit; that's a quick route to throat cancer.
Checking the SDS, it also causes brain damage. Obviously.
China and the USSR didn't "try" it. They just claimed that thsy do it in the workers' interest. Don't know too much about Guba and Venezuela, but I'd wager that the same happened then.
... Ever heard of Catalonia, bootlicker?
It's like there's a playbook for how to sound like someone with issues with, but no actual knowledge of, alternate economic systems and you're quoting directly from it.
Idk if you noticed but unions arise naturally in free markets in democracies. There's a reason dictators like hitler tend to go after unions and labor organizers - they don't like workplace democracy similar to how they don't like fair elections.
The people the workers choose to be managers?
They will be paid by what the workers and the individual agree is fair?
The workers.....
I feel like all of that is hard to apply to every situation...... the whole point is that labour will able to come to a consensus about all of these organizational theoreticals you've erected.
Lol, are you saying that certain people are inherently the management and owner class? And after a hundred years of a system with a completely different organizational hierarchy, they should somehow still inherently perceive themselves as a higher class?
Do you hold the same insane opinions about other political hierarchies. Do you think there are like a group of deposed Royals that people are just aching to put back on thrones?
Just asking questions that have been answered a million times already.
And the bosses have no vested interest selling this idea to you. Corporate media has no vested interest feeding this narrative to you. Worker owned co-ops are a thing, and seizure from a corporation can be successful.
Believe it or not, there’s actually a lot of books about all of those things, and even better, they aren’t fantasy books used by North American and other capitalist schools to make young kids think communism is bad and drive them to inaction.
we will,much beter than any capitalist pig