Comment on Unions work. That's why the corporations don't like them.
Nougat@kbin.social 1 year ago
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.
downpunxx@kbin.social 1 year ago
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.
Nougat@kbin.social 1 year ago
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 to and given those who own.
Seize the means of production.
doublejay1999@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Always said the biggest challenger for organisers is the Manager who thinks he’s not a worker.
Nougat@kbin.social 1 year ago
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.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
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.
Zehzin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
Gestrid@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
It’s funny (in a frightening way) how relevant this meme is these days.
Image
TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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?
frezik@midwest.social 1 year ago
Just asking questions that have been answered a million times already.
Cruxifux@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And the bosses have no vested interest selling this idea to you. Corporate media has no vested interest feeding this narrative to you. It worker owned co-ops are a thing, and seizure from a corporation can be successful.