Hacker News Reader

Comment by prolikewh0a | Hacker News Reader

>What value does workers electing their directors add for anybody?

It provides workers say in what they do, since the workers do LITERALLY ALL THE WORK. The shareholders do literally no work in a quest for profit at the expense of the people who DO THE WORK. The company/business cannot survive without workers, they are the most important part.

Have some solidarity for your fellow people. It's truly sickening that anyone would think workers shouldn't have any say at all and should just be useless cogs in the machine getting all representation gutted year after year so a few people can massively profit at the expense of everyone else.

View on HN

This is such an emotional response.

It's not about who does the work. It never has been about who does the work. It's about who takes on the initial burden of risk and what kind of compensation that risk demands. A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary. An entrepreneur taking on massive amounts of leverage can be completely ruined when that venture fails.

There is nothing to stop a worker from quitting their job and taking on the risk of starting their own business. It happens all the time and if they succeed, they deserve to reap the rewards. If a worker chooses the safe path, they cannot then in good faith argue that they now deserve a bigger piece of the pie just because the enterprise has succeeded. Life does not work that way.

This is such a craven, capitalist dogma response.

> A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary.

They are devoting an irreplaceable fraction of their life to the company. A large fraction of that time is spent learning the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All of that value is lost when they change jobs.

When you work for a company, you have a very material investment in your long-term employment because the value of much of your previous time investment evaporates if you change jobs.

Also, many workers move to work for a specific company. The area may have few other similar opportunities. Switching jobs means moving away from friends and family, selling a house (and taking a significant financial hit from the transaction), uprooting your children from their school, etc.

The idea that jobs are somehow a commodity in a perfect market that workers can freely choose from is in no way connected to reality. Therefore, the idea that workers don't take real risk when choosing a job doesn't make sense.

> An entrepreneur taking on massive amounts of leverage can be completely ruined when that venture fails.

Do you really believe that? How many entrepreneurs actually risk their own well-being? If you have $100 million dollars and end up losing $90m on a venture, you're comfortably still set for life. Maybe you have to sell one of your boats.

> There is nothing to stop a worker from quitting their job and taking on the risk of starting their own business.

In the US, you risk dying from lack of insurance coverage.

> This is such a craven, capitalist dogma response.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is something to be said about proponents of the left who feel the need to argue emotionally rather than objectively.

> They are devoting an irreplaceable fraction of their life to the company. A large fraction of that time is spent learning the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All of that value is lost when they change jobs.

And a large fraction of the company's time is also spent teaching the company's unique culture, social networks, processes, technology, history, etc. All compensated for of course, and lost when the employee changes jobs.

>When you work for a company, you have a very material investment in your long-term employment because the value of much of your previous time investment evaporates if you change jobs.

The company owes you long term employment as much as you owe the company your long term labour. Nothing is owed, nothing is done out of favour. If a worker deems their salary and options vesting to be fair compensation for their potential time investment then they take the job. Taking the job is not a favour to the company and the company is not hiring the worker out of altruism. It's simply a mutually beneficial relationship. The second that relationship is no longer mutually beneficial, either party is free to terminate the relationship.

> Also, many workers move to work for a specific company. The area may have few other similar opportunities. Switching jobs means moving away from friends and family, selling a house (and taking a significant financial hit from the transaction), uprooting your children from their school, etc.

A company cannot be responsible for all of an employee's future job prospects, family life, and fiscal decisions. It cannot be responsible for which areas have job opportunities and which areas do not. All it can do is offer a value proposition which the employee is free to turn down should they not find it palatable.

> Do you really believe that? How many entrepreneurs actually risk their own well-being? If you have $100 million dollars and end up losing $90m on a venture, you're comfortably still set for life. Maybe you have to sell one of your boats.

Why shouldn't I actually believe that? Do you actually believe that every entrepreneur starts off with $100 million dollars? Or is it more likely that they take 100k out of their savings and mortgage their house?

> In the US, you risk dying from lack of insurance coverage.

Another reason why starting one's own business is a risky proposition and should be properly compensated beyond that of the common worker.

I’m a big proponent of this argument and often repeat it myself. However, it is worth considering that it only applies to founder level executives who were there at the beginning. For a 100+ year old company like GE, the argument falls apart as the original founders are not around anymore and most employees have taken the same amount of risk (or lack thereof).

>It's about who takes on the initial burden of risk and what kind of compensation that risk demands. A worker takes on little to no risk when offering his/her labour in return for a steady salary.

Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business? Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground? Oh, right, it all comes back to the worker. Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck.

Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr?

> the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance

Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance.

> Who creates the profit that allows the owner to pay back that loan? Who dug the metal out of the ground?

If digging the metal out of the ground commanded an executive's or major stakeholder's compensation, the market would compensate them. The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary. Almost anyone can do it. Can the same be said about directing a multinational organization?

> Workers risk their lives and livelihood. The worker takes on just as much risk, if not more, especially with 80% of our country living paycheck to paycheck.

I would hazard that the vast majority of occupations (in the US) do not involve workers risking their lives and livelihoods.

> Let me know how you start a business on $7.25/hr?

Wozniak sold his HP calculator for $500 and Jobs sold his Volkswagen for $1500. No one said it would be easy, but plenty of people started with less.

  Hyperbole aside, I'm pretty sure this is illegal and no worker should ever be allowed onto a job site without insurance.

only because of the agitation of workers to assert the value of their labor. which is the same concept we are all talking about here.

> The fact, right or wrong, is that the barrier of entry for menial labour does not command a high salary.

This is merely a description of the current state of affairs. It is not relevant in a debate about the desired state of affairs.

Really?

What kind of answer do you expect? "No I do not mean what I say, I'm just a markov chain."?

> Who takes more risk, the worker standing 70 stories up on an I-beam with no health insurance or life insurance (couldn't afford it!), or the guy who borrowed money to start a business?

In the capitalist value system, the latter: he might lose (temporarily, at least) his credit rating and ability to acquire capital if the venture fails; all the other guy is going to lose is the life of a worker, and who cares about that?

Please don't use allcaps for emphasis, regardless of how strongly you feel. It's basically online yelling. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Also, rant tropes like "it's truly sickening" aren't a good fit here, and fall under what the site guidelines refer to as name-calling. The idea on HN is to make a substantive point thoughtfully, which sometimes requires waiting until the heat of the moment subsides a bit.

You do have a say, and companies already answer to more than just their shareholders. See [0] for instance:

    “In recent years, large technology companies have been investigated for colluding
     with a secret agreement not to hire one another’s best workers; **fined billions** of
     dollars for unfairly favoring certain services on their platforms over other rivals;
     and been accused of mishandling sensitive consumer information or of obtaining new 
     customers under false pretenses,”

So this naive idea that companies run amok without recourse is political theatre in the clothing of concern.

Finally, and I hate to bring this up, but if you don't like it, then quit. That's what I did to start a business. It's tough and it's stressful, and some days are just no fun at all and I wonder what the heck I did. But it's my company, and I only answer to my clients. Yes, I am the shareholder, but honestly, what's in my best interest is serving my clients better than my competition.

    I am the labor and the shareholder.

Yes, it comes with issues, but so does everything. If you don't like the control a company has over you, then leave. And before anyone says "I can't leave because....", remember, if you get fired, you've still left, and you still have to deal with those same "..." issues. So yes, you can leave. It may be uncomfortable as hell, but you can. You'll be amazed at how hard you will work for a single dollar when it's your own firm. I've never worked this hard for another company. Ever.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/07/2...

> Finally, and I hate to bring this up, but if you don't like it, then quit. That's what I did to start a business.

Technology workers who are able to start their own contracting company are a tiny minority of the employed population. To claim everyone has this option and thus should not attempt to affect change at their employer or exercise their power to vote for representatives who enact worker-friendly policies, is naive at best and insulting at worst.

IMHO, this perspective is everything that's wrong with the Silicon Valley mindset. I got mine so f* you if you can't do exactly the same thing as I did.

I don't think you read my post, because I didn't say anything that you proposed I did:

1 - I live in Texas, not Silicon Valley; 2 - I don't work in technology; 3 - I'm not a contracting company.

Finally, if you read at all what I said with any kind of open mind, then you'd have noticed how hard I said it is. But people rule out the option without really looking at it.

I'm glad that worked for you.

> It's truly sickening that anyone would think...

I think discussion would be improved with a less polarizing approach. This is just hyperbole.

there is a moral valence to this topic, and that ought to be expressed somehow.

But the current model is that you are just a human resource, little different than the desk you sit at.

They don't ask the machines in the factories how the company should be run and thus why would they ask the workers?

You are essentially company property - they have bought your time.

It's a sad state of affairs as it probably causes a great deal of workers to become alienated and disillusioned with their work.

That's the point. Treating low paid workers as interchangeable, disposable resources needs to change and this is a small step towards giving them a little more control of their situation.

I recognize the problem, but I’m very skeptical that the solution is a democratic process to elect directors. It optimizes for the completely wrong qualities necessary for a directorship, and I could easily see it hurting the workers more than helping them.

What I find amusing is that the same people who support this bill are upset that Trump was elected through a democratic process. Many of these supporters would say the democratic process failed the American people. So why would they want to apply the same framework to corporate governance? It seems a bit hypocritical to be honest.

The workers are free to start their own company whenever they want, btw.

> It optimizes for the completely wrong qualities necessary for a directorship, and I could easily see it hurting the workers more than helping them.

No it doesn't (see other people can make completly unqualified statements too).

If the past election cycle has taught us anything, it’s that experience and job qualifications have little correlation with popularity. Basically Warren is advocating for director appointment via popularity contest. Can you really argue that the average Walmart employee, for example, has the necessary information to make the right decision on who should be COO of Walmart?

It reduces the process of choosing directors to a contest of who can make the most empty promises to employees.

So you're arguing against all democracy? If there are regular votes to keep/replace this director if they are not performing to the benefit of the workers I don't see an issue. Sure they're will be some bad choices sometimes but the existence of the position in itself will exert some pressure to consider worker issues that the company didn't have to think about before.

Treating low paid workers as interchangeable, disposable resources needs to change and this is a very small step towards giving them a little more control of their situation. It's not perfect but it's better.

No, I’m arguing against applying democracy as a solution to any problem that seems too hard to solve. “Fuck it, we’ll vote on it!” is a lazy solution.

> “Fuck it, we’ll vote on it!” is a lazy solution.

It's a far better solution than no option at all. If people make a bad choice they'll just be back to where they started, with people in charge who care little about their welfare.

Democracy is only selected as a solution to the problem of “how do we select among competing solutions when different people weigh the pros and cons differently”. It is not, itself, chosen as the solution to other problems.

Democracy is not a solution looking for a problem, it's a basic right.

Democracy is great at reducing corruption, but it's bad at finding the most qualified person for the job. That's why we don't vote for very technical positions in government (e.g. Director of the FBI, Supreme Court Justices, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, etc). If it made business sense to let workers vote, more companies would allow them to do so.

The piece states 40% of directors and gives some voices to the workers. There will still be many other technical voices leading the company and the elected people may still be technical. This adds some people that at least have to consider worker issues and adds some other incentives. The trade-off seems reasonable to me. This is a small change and anyone saying it's a big issue is overstating it's effect. It's a small step in the right direction.

It's not like all the management will be elected and if a large company can't handle some voices in it's upper management structure that arn't entirely focused on shareholder profit then something else is wrong with that organization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com