Two University of California tech workers explain their unionization process — and how unions can help recapture the original promise of tech being used to better people’s lives rather than make the worst people in the world ever richer.
I think the boom and bust cycle of tech is result of capitalists trying to make big bets and then mostly failing.
With worker owned companies, you wouldn’t have this type of risky investing. Workers would optimization not for massive returns, but sustainable business practices, products, working conditions. A worker owned company wouldn’t burn cash for 10 years, artificially keeping prices low to starve out competition.
In order to transition to worker owned companies, it would be difficult as you mention, but governments could provide financial to help to get worker owned companies started.
In order to transition to worker owned companies, it would be difficult as you mention, but governments could provide financial to help to get worker owned companies started.
Hang on. You’re proposing seizure of existing private companies and forcing the creation of the worker co-ops? Thats a very different thing. Should I assume your system would ban future private companies then?
I wouldn’t agree either of those approaches. Choice is important. Forcing people into co-ops because you think its better for them isn’t a system I’m interested in being inside.
No I wasn’t suggested it be forced or companies be nationalized.
I was saying governments could provide incentives and support for workers to form worker owned companies. At the moment western governments heavily favor formation of capitalist companies.
No I wasn’t suggested it be forced or companies be nationalized.
My mistake then. So in your proposed system private companies would continue to exist.
I was saying governments could provide incentives and support for workers to form worker owned companies.
If that’s the case, I’ll go back to my first statement then. Tech workers will likely choose the higher risk but higher reward private company rather than one that my only have a modest return. If the private companies exist along side the co-ops, the boom and bust cycles will still exist except the co-ops won’t be the beneficiary, but will certainly be on the losing side of cycles.
I think the boom and bust cycle of tech is result of capitalists trying to make big bets and then mostly failing.
With worker owned companies, you wouldn’t have this type of risky investing. Workers would optimization not for massive returns, but sustainable business practices, products, working conditions. A worker owned company wouldn’t burn cash for 10 years, artificially keeping prices low to starve out competition.
In order to transition to worker owned companies, it would be difficult as you mention, but governments could provide financial to help to get worker owned companies started.
Hang on. You’re proposing seizure of existing private companies and forcing the creation of the worker co-ops? Thats a very different thing. Should I assume your system would ban future private companies then?
I wouldn’t agree either of those approaches. Choice is important. Forcing people into co-ops because you think its better for them isn’t a system I’m interested in being inside.
No I wasn’t suggested it be forced or companies be nationalized.
I was saying governments could provide incentives and support for workers to form worker owned companies. At the moment western governments heavily favor formation of capitalist companies.
My mistake then. So in your proposed system private companies would continue to exist.
If that’s the case, I’ll go back to my first statement then. Tech workers will likely choose the higher risk but higher reward private company rather than one that my only have a modest return. If the private companies exist along side the co-ops, the boom and bust cycles will still exist except the co-ops won’t be the beneficiary, but will certainly be on the losing side of cycles.