Hacker News Reader

Comment by llsf | Hacker News Reader

Michelin started his own experiment in 1920's.

"The Group provided housing, schools, health clinics, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in a system that became known as paternalisme (paternalism) or in more modern terms, societal or responsible support."

"Rather than relying on union representation, Michelin management tried to foster the loyalty of employees through the generous provision of social benefits."

source: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/Sucher%20Micheli...

View on HN

Aside: Many HN readers may remember that Basecamp's drama from 2 years ago [1] made mention of "paternalism" and how they planned to end the practice within their benefit structure. I recall the phrasing to be a source of confusion and argument. I think there were still a lot of folks (myself included) who saw this as a form of societal absenteeism in an economy with challenges that are often not easily overcome with simply more money at an individual level. I do, however, think this is a dicey area where companies can spend more efficiently on some paternalistic benefits rather than flatly increasing salary (which may have fewer tax incentives). This needs to be balanced with the fact that US corporations are not legally incentivized to maximize employee happiness, they're incentivized to maximize profit and without a legal entity around worker benefit, this form of paternalism can feel cheap or dystopian with callbacks to "company stores" and jumping through hoops and checking boxes to maximize your salary.

[1]: https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5o

There is no legal incentive to maximise profit, this is a myth.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the US Supreme Court made this explicit.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Regardless of whether or not it's a legal requirement of the board, I think even this confusion on the matter is evidence that not enough protection is in place for long term longevity or worker benefit in normal corporate bylaws. With LLCs you can offer bylaws, with PBCs you can offer a benefit charter, with LCAs you can offer direct worker ownership; there are other corporate entities besides C corps which can offer better protection that is more explicit and less prone to financial debate - that's my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com