Worker Unions (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    673
    Reaction score
    705
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline
    Unions are good. In many lines of work, if you as one of many employees don’t want to be bent over by your employer who proceeds to have its way with you, a union gives you some control over your professional life. It gives you the power of the group versus the individual against the corporation And it offers job protections so you can’t arbitrarily be fired in a dispute, Union naysayers will counter with “you can always quit! “ which is true, but when you have a job that is valuable, and may include a pension, it is worth fighting for, For most cases a union is the only mechanism that gives workers any power and protection.

    My first significant job was the US Military, no unions there, but this was a situation where pay and many work provisions were determined by Congress, and yes, the needs of the military took precedence over your life. I stayed for 9 years, it involved long periods of family separation, but I was lucky enough to be in during the Cold War, without an active war. After separating from the USN, I was hired as an airline pilot and was introduced to the union, in my case ALPA, Airline Pilots Association.

    Not all unions are good unions, they are only as good as their leadership, which is no different on the employer side of the equation. Some unions have made unrealistic demands and actually harmed their jobs, some walk off professional cliffs when they're all fired. I was lucky enough to be in one of the best unions comprised of highly skilled professional people who were not easy to replace, because too much training involved, and experience is required. That is a huge factor in the equation. But any large group has an advantage. They won’t always prevail, but for them even to exist, the backing of the Federal Government is vital. When considering worker’s rights, the right to unionize is a must

    Take a look at the Writer’s strike, and now rhe looming Screen Actors Guild Strike. One of the items on the agenda is job protection from Artificial Intelligence. The Corporate Capitalists have been destroying domestic jobs for 5 decades as millions of jobs have been shipped out of the Country for shareholder profit at the expense of the former employee,it can be argued at the expense of the Nation. Look at the industrial robots where hundreds of thousands found employment, now lost. Do you think that AI will be any different?? NOPE.

    In the USA, the 20th Century’s New Deal was just a temporary reprieve from life at the hands of the Robber Barrons. And WWII were the US got a huge economic boost by virtue of being the major country left economically intact. This is why I continue to argue that Capitalism will eventually fail, when it no longer servers the majority. In fact it can be argued that it’s not served the majority for decades as our domestic Middle Class evaporates. Under Capitolidm, AI will just be another tool to disenfranchise workers, even as the domestic buying power is canabalized so a smaller and smaller group of people can live comfortabley, and even less become filthy rich.

    This is not an argument against technological advancement which is inevitable. It is an argument against Capitalism, at least not regulated enough Capitalism, and for something that will carry most, if not all of us, forward economically. Highly regulated Capitalism with wealth caps might do it, or possibly socialism. But for Socialism to work requires an attitude adjustment by the majority, And no matter what we choose corruption is unacceptable, it destroys any economic system. Corruption is the reason why Communism has been so bad.


     
    Last edited:
    I think you misunderstand something about a Social-democracy. People are really not allowed to sit home and veg if they in any way are able to work - even if it is only 5 hours a week. They will be offered multiple levels of help to get them back out as a productive member of society. That could be education, on-the job training, mentoring, treatment (if ill or suffering from mental illness or addictions), or jobs specifically designed to fit their abilities - could be 8 hours work a week with supplemental pay from the state. If you have a handicap of any kind, the state will pay for necessary equipment needed for you to remain in an existing/get a new job. I have some special equipment at my job because I am hearing impaired and it was provided for free to me to use at the office when attending in-person meetings. So the aim is clearly to get as many people working at whatever capacity they are able to and not just to sit at home. And no - this is not broom pushing. They really try to find something that match both interests and abillities, because that is how they get the best results
    Thanks for the clarification! I see everyone fed and given a place to live and then wonder how many would be content to just veg. I’ll observe that such a system as you describe has to be setup to support this with substantial resources and dedication to this ideal. I also perceive that people carelessly producing children would have to be addressed.

    And finally the USA is a Capitalist mess. What little social and job protections that were created almost a century ago, Capitalist forces led by the GOP are hard at work dismantling them. Public education being trashed, Social Security threatened. It strikes me that until they show me something different, the masses are just a bunch of sheep whose purpose in life is to be headed about and sheared. :oops:
     
    But that's the thing: you'll find enabled, corrupted, power hungry people in every socio-economic system. I'm just going to copy and paste what i posted above, but if you look SoTB, MX is basically a socialist country with Capitalistic features. MX has national healthcare, national free education all the way to post-graduate, power production and delivery are State owned, oil production and most of the delivery is State owned, since 1934 there is a program to return land to indigenous people, gold/silver/lithium mines are owned by the State, very stringent rules about elections, a list of basic foods that are priced controlled, and so forth and so on... that all sounds great, and I guess if the people in power would follow the law and weren't greedy for both power and money, it would be great, but spend a few months here, and you'll see the effects of the greed for power and money.

    For all of the social safety nets, a large portion of the population still struggles.



    You keep saying "slave wages". What are "slave wages"? Minimum wage? What's minimum wage these days? $10 an hour? In MX, the minimum wage is kind of complicated since the government put out a list of minimum wages for different jobs, but in average, it is ~$220 pesos a day, which at current rates is about $12. People would say "things are cheaper in MX", and that is true to an extent, but not across the board.

    And manual labor? Cheap. That's why so many people want to cross the border into the U.S.



    That ideology has been around for much, much longer than the 80's. Greed has moved humanity since humanity became humanity.


    So, again, what are "slave wages"?

    Darn skippy.
    It’s possible we agree that people are the problem that stand in the way of an ideal society. And we do agree that any socio-economic system is torpedoed by corruption. If a large group of people agreed to a joint ownership Communist System that was Democratic, then it could work, but it would always be threatened by the democracy that might vote to get rid of it. But I suppose this is true of any democracy within any economic system.

    Right now the CORRUPT GOP, a minority, is busy at work attempting to dismantle democracy in the USA. Will we let them, or, get our collective heads out of our arses, rise up and say HELL NO!?

    Slave wages is less than a living wage for full time work.

    The largest single issue I perceive is the idea that “if I have a really good idea, I can become a billionaire.” This must be nipped in the bud. In a society, there should be no billionaires, and limited millionaires, ie wealth must be capped and that wealth must be responsibly plowed back into society for the benefit of society and it’s members. I predict this will be even more crucial as automation and AI advances.
     
    It’s possible we agree that people are the problem that stand in the way of an ideal society. And we do agree that any socio-economic system is torpedoed by corruption. If a large group of people agreed to a joint ownership Communist System that was Democratic, then it could work, but it would always be threatened by the democracy that might vote to get rid of it. But I suppose this is true of any democracy within any economic system.

    Right now the CORRUPT GOP, a minority, is busy at work attempting to dismantle democracy in the USA. Will we let them, or, get our collective heads out of our arses, rise up and say HELL NO!?

    Slave wages is less than a living wage for full time work.

    The largest single issue I perceive is the idea that “if I have a really good idea, I can become a billionaire.” This must be nipped in the bud. In a society, there should be no billionaires, and limited millionaires, ie wealth must be capped and that wealth must be responsibly plowed back into society for the benefit of society and it’s members. I predict this will be even more crucial as automation and AI advances.

    I see no problem in people becoming Billionaires if they have a really good idea. We have those here too ( Lego, Danfoss, Mercandia etc..) but they do pay their taxes and a lot of it too. We have a progressive tax scale and if your earnings are super high, you will pay an extra top-tier income tax. In return they get a well educated and dedicated workforce, a strong and modern infrastructure and a non-political justice system.

    To understand the scandinavian culture when it comes to community, cooperation and social responsibility you may want to look at the law of Jante. In many ways it is the complete opposite of American culture.

    https://www.scandinaviastandard.com/what-is-janteloven-the-law-of-jante/
     
    I see no problem in people becoming Billionaires if they have a really good idea. We have those here too ( Lego, Danfoss, Mercandia etc..) but they do pay their taxes and a lot of it too. We have a progressive tax scale and if your earnings are super high, you will pay an extra top-tier income tax. In return they get a well educated and dedicated workforce, a strong and modern infrastructure and a non-political justice system.

    To understand the scandinavian culture when it comes to community, cooperation and social responsibility you may want to look at the law of Jante. In many ways it is the complete opposite of American culture.

    https://www.scandinaviastandard.com/what-is-janteloven-the-law-of-jante/
    An amiable disagreement. Regardless of how good an idea you came up with, becoming a billionaire is the equivalent of being a glutton if you are religious (I’m not) but I’ll also maintain it is bad for you, it distorts your reality, not good for the equivalent of your soul.

    If you go with the premise that an honest government and governance is possible, in any society that expects to push into the future, then this huge excess of wealth should not be controlled by an individual and instead be plowed back into the system for the common good, the good of the planet. Smart people should be calling the shots, and have the positions of responsibility, but they don’t need to excessively, personally financially enriched because of this.

    And in my old age, I’ve finally recognized we as a species, might not be cut out to make it past The Great Filter. :unsure:
     
    An amiable disagreement. Regardless of how good an idea you came up with, becoming a billionaire is the equivalent of being a glutton if you are religious (I’m not) but I’ll also maintain it is bad for you, it distorts your reality, not good for the equivalent of your soul.

    If you go with the premise that an honest government and governance is possible, in any society that expects to push into the future, then this huge excess of wealth should not be controlled by an individual and instead be plowed back into the system for the common good, the good of the planet. Smart people should be calling the shots, and have the positions of responsibility, but they don’t need to excessively, personally financially enriched because of this.

    And in my old age, I’ve finally recognized we as a species, might not be cut out to make it past The Great Filter. :unsure:


    I still think that it depends on the person/persons and what they do with that power. Both Lego and Danfoss mentioned above are spending a lot of money on projects and research essential for the future. Danfoss in particular are funding a science park with focus on sustainable energy and Lego is sponsoring a lot of projects with focus on education and childhood development.

    None of the current owners (plural) are living the life of an US millionaire even if their wealth may be just as large, No private planes or huge mansions. That is really not the "scandinavian way" Our prime minister even take the bike to work when the weather is good lol as does quite a few other members of parliment.

    And again - I really dont see why innovation should not be rewarded. It does after all also increase the tax the individuals contribute to the overall good of the society as well.
     
    I still think that it depends on the person/persons and what they do with that power. Both Lego and Danfoss mentioned above are spending a lot of money on projects and research essential for the future. Danfoss in particular are funding a science park with focus on sustainable energy and Lego is sponsoring a lot of projects with focus on education and childhood development.

    None of the current owners (plural) are living the life of an US millionaire even if their wealth may be just as large, No private planes or huge mansions. That is really not the "scandinavian way" Our prime minister even take the bike to work when the weather is good lol as does quite a few other members of parliment.

    And again - I really dont see why innovation should not be rewarded. It does after all also increase the tax the individuals contribute to the overall good of the society as well.
    Being smart, making a large contribution to society should definitely be rewarded, but how much money does it take to live a good life? Accumulating a billion even millions, is not good for you, imo, not when you live in a society with millions that struggle just with the basics.

    But I’ll clarify that at this point, where the world appears approaching collapse due to global warming that we basically ignored for 4 decades, I don’t have a lot of confidence in human beings to do the right thing or navigate out of this crisis. :unsure:
     
    Slave wages is less than a living wage for full time work.
    You mentioned a very specific scenario, and you claimed people were being paid slave wages. I wanted to know what the slave wage in that particular case was.

    The largest single issue I perceive is the idea that “if I have a really good idea, I can become a billionaire.” This must be nipped in the bud.
    Why?
    In a society, there should be no billionaires, and limited millionaires, ie wealth must be capped and that wealth must be responsibly plowed back into society for the benefit of society and it’s members. I predict this will be even more crucial as automation and AI advances.

    Creating jobs is not "plowing back into society"? Paying/generating tax revenue is not "plowing back into society"? You just want them to give you the cash so you can live to your standards of comfort?

    And speaking of generating tax revenue, it may be that Bill gates doesn't pay taxes equivalent to what you pay, but you don't generate the billions in tax revenue Bill Gates generates directly and indirectly, you don't generate the billions in payroll Bill Gates generates directly and indirectly, nothing you have done has revolutionized the workforce and people's daily lives...
     
    Being smart, making a large contribution to society should definitely be rewarded, but how much money does it take to live a good life? Accumulating a billion even millions, is not good for you, imo, not when you live in a society with millions that struggle just with the basics.

    But I’ll clarify that at this point, where the world appears approaching collapse due to global warming that we basically ignored for 4 decades, I don’t have a lot of confidence in human beings to do the right thing or navigate out of this crisis. :unsure:

    Being a selfmade billionaire mostly does not mean that you have billions in the bank but that you have created a business worth billions. That money is hard at work funding research, raw materials, production, paying the salaries of the employees and paying taxes. I work in IT and the company I work for may develop a whole new program suite which when done could or could not, be worth hundreds of millions - BUT the company is paying 100 employees salaries and benefits for 18 months without ever knowing if they will get that money back.
    That is an investment in the company, its employees and the community (providing jobs and taxes). If that program suite is successfull then yes the company value will increase as will the value of the owners shares in said company..

    If the program suite does not fullfill its promise, then the value of the company will be less, as will the value of the owners shares as well. So this is not "dead money" but wealth invested in jobs, progress and community. And yes - if successfull will definitely increase the worth of the company and by association the wealth of the owner/shareholders.
     
    You mentioned a very specific scenario, and you claimed people were being paid slave wages. I wanted to know what the slave wage in that particular case was.


    Why?


    Creating jobs is not "plowing back into society"? Paying/generating tax revenue is not "plowing back into society"? You just want them to give you the cash so you can live to your standards of comfort?

    And speaking of generating tax revenue, it may be that Bill gates doesn't pay taxes equivalent to what you pay, but you don't generate the billions in tax revenue Bill Gates generates directly and indirectly, you don't generate the billions in payroll Bill Gates generates directly and indirectly, nothing you have done has revolutionized the workforce and people's daily lives...

    In summary:
    • Profit driven Corporations
    • Capitalism
    • Millions of jobs exported
    • Automation
    • AI
    = The Need for Unions, the only entity besides a government that might support worker rights.

    Additionally no one living in a society should be or have the ability to become a billionaire. I don’t care how smart you are or how you were able to capitalize on the economic system you are living under, instead put your talents towards helping your fellow humans and your planet and be happy for the gratitude, feeling good about yourself, and an ample reward which is not $billions or even $10s of millions.

    Thanks for your input, I accept your disagreement In advance. :)
     
    Being a selfmade billionaire mostly does not mean that you have billions in the bank but that you have created a business worth billions. That money is hard at work funding research, raw materials, production, paying the salaries of the employees and paying taxes. I work in IT and the company I work for may develop a whole new program suite which when done could or could not, be worth hundreds of millions - BUT the company is paying 100 employees salaries and benefits for 18 months without ever knowing if they will get that money back.
    That is an investment in the company, its employees and the community (providing jobs and taxes). If that program suite is successfull then yes the company value will increase as will the value of the owners shares in said company..

    If the program suite does not fullfill its promise, then the value of the company will be less, as will the value of the owners shares as well. So this is not "dead money" but wealth invested in jobs, progress and community. And yes - if successfull will definitely increase the worth of the company and by association the wealth of the owner/shareholders.
    I always thought being a billionaire means your net worth of property, business value you own, and money in the bank = a billion or more.
     
    I always thought being a billionaire means your net worth of property, business value you own, and money in the bank = a billion or more.
    For most selfmade billionaire 92% of their net worth consists of business value and about 5% of property and as I described above most Business value is an investment in ideas, people and communities.
     
    Being a selfmade billionaire mostly does not mean that you have billions in the bank but that you have created a business worth billions.
    I'm sincerely asking for understanding with no sarcasm or barbing at all. How does someone become a self-made billionaire? To be a self-made billionaire one would have to earn billions of dollars without anyone else's help or assistance in any way. Who are the self-made billionaires and how did they go about earning billions without anyone else's help or assistance?

    Did these self-made billionaires build their own transportation system all by themselves?

    Did they build communication systems all by themselves?

    Did they build the militaries and police forces all by themselves?

    Did they teach themselves everything they know all by themselves?

    Did they make all the scientific discoveries that they rely on all by themselves?

    Did they invent and build all of the equipment they use all by themselves?

    Did they create the monetary and finanical systems they rely on all by themselves?

    Did they create the healthcare system that let them be born healthy and remain healthy all by themselves?

    Did they provide all of their food all of their life all by themselves?

    Did they perform every task necessary to run their businesses all by themselves?

    To be truly self-made billionaires they would have had to do all of that themselves and no on in the history of our species has ever accomplished anything all by themselves. The self-made anything is a myth. We all rely on and build upon the accomplishments of others.

    This is why no one person is entitled to hording billions of dollars for themselves. Sure, we can agree to let them and there are good arguments for letting people do it as long as they give back a healthy percentage of their personal benefit that relied on the collective efforts of all of us, but they still are not entitled to it. A sense of entitlement it what is eroding democracy in the world. Feelings of insecurity coupled with a sense of entitlement is what populists across the planet are exploiting in their assaults on democracy.

    Super wealth itself is not the real problem. The myth of self-made super wealth and being entitled to super wealth is the real underlying problem.

    If Jeff Bezos had been born into a poor family in a poor African country, he would be selling fruit by the side of the road. I didn't come up with that myself. Bezos partner and billionaire, Nick Hanauer, is the one who said it.

    So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won’t admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we’d be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It’s not that Somalia and Congo don’t have good entrepreneurs. It’s just that the best ones are selling their wares off crates by the side of the road because that’s all their customers can afford.

    Listen to his 20 minute TED talk to get a full sense of what I'm getting at. Note that this video is from 2014.



    Capitalistic democracy can not survive extreme wealth inequality. It never has and it never will. Government regulations and strong worker unions are necessary to keep wealth inequality moderate. Both of them are needed to keep individual entitlment and greed in check. Without them, wealth inequality historically and without fail becomes so extreme that capitialstic democracies collapse in ways that are destructive and tragic for everyone.
     
    Last edited:
    I'm sincerely asking for understanding with no sarcasm or barbing at all. How does someone become a self-made billionaire? To be a self-made billionaire one would have to earn billions of dollars without anyone else's help or assistance in any way. Who are the self-made billionaires and how did they go about earning billions without anyone else's help or assistance?

    Did these self-made billionaires build their own transportation system all by themselves?

    Did they build communication systems all by themselves?

    Did they build the militaries and police forces all by themselves?

    Did they teach themselves everything they know all by themselves?

    Did they make all the scientific discoveries that they rely on all by themselves?

    Did they invent and build all of the equipment they use all by themselves?

    Did they create the monetary and finanical systems they rely on all by themselves?

    Did they create the healthcare system that let them be born healthy and remain healthy all by themselves?

    Did they provide all of their food all of their life all by themselves?

    Did they perform every task necessary to run their businesses all by themselves?

    To be truly self-made billionaires they would have had to do all of that themselves and no on in the history of our species has ever accomplished anything all by themselves. The self-made anything is a myth. We all rely on and build upon the accomplishments of others.

    This is why no one person is entitled to hording billions of dollars for themselves. Sure, we can agree to let them and there are good arguments for letting people do it as long as they give back a healthy percentage of their personal benefit that relied on the collective efforts of all of us, but they still are not entitled to it. A sense of entitlement it what is eroding democracy in the world. Feelings of insecurity coupled with a sense of entitlement is what populists across the planet are exploiting in their assaults on democracy.

    Super wealth itself is not the real problem. The myth of self-made super wealth and being entitled to super wealth is the real underlying problem.

    If Jeff Bezos had been born into a poor family in a poor African country, he would be selling fruit by the side of the road. I didn't come up with that myself. Bezos partner and billionaire, Nick Hanauer, is the one who said it.



    Listen to his 20 minute TED talk to get a full sense of what I'm getting at. Note that this video is from 2014.



    Capitalistic democracy can not survive extreme wealth inequality. It never has and it never will. Government regulations and strong worker unions are necessary to keep wealth inequality moderate. Both of them are needed to keep individual entitlment and greed in check. Without them, wealth inequality historically and without fail becomes so extreme that capitialstic democracies collapse in ways that are destructive and tragic for everyone.



    I do agree that strong legislation and unions are important in a modern society but one does not exclude the other and when talking about Billionaires here (DK) at least, they aren't "hording" Yes they are rich but as I wrote, most of their wealth are tied down in investments which benefits the entire community. They also pay close to 65% of their earnings in taxes while most of the middle class pay close to 50% (remember - Free healthcare, Free education, subsidized appartments for those earning below a certain amount, A social security network if you are unable to work as well as a pension when you turn 67)

    Another thing - Billionaires cant buy political influence. A private person can not donate more than 2000$ to any political party or politician and the money is taxable for the reciepient and cant be deducted by the donor. Donations can be made annonymously for the public but must be reported when you do your taxes (both donor and receipient)

    They cant buy a political party either using company money. A company or organization can not donate more than 4000$ to any political party or politician and the money is taxable for the reciepient and cant be deducted by the donor. Donations cant be made annonymously
     
    For most selfmade billionaire 92% of their net worth consists of business value and about 5% of property and as I described above most Business value is an investment in ideas, people and communities.
    Would you agree that some of those billion dollar businesses have been sold for billions? Who pocketed it?
     
    I do agree that strong legislation and unions are important in a modern society but one does not exclude the other and when talking about Billionaires here (DK) at least, they aren't "hording" Yes they are rich but as I wrote, most of their wealth are tied down in investments which benefits the entire community.
    Billionaires here are hording. See Apple corp for case in point. They are sitting on billions worth of currency. That currency is not being circulated back into the community.

    They also pay close to 65% of their earnings in taxes while most of the middle class pay close to 50% (remember - Free healthcare, Free education, subsidized appartments for those earning below a certain amount, A social security network if you are unable to work as well as a pension when you turn 67)
    That is how it should be if people are allowed to amass billions in wealth. That is not how it is here in the US. Billionaires in the US would not be as opposed to a flat tax of 20% to 30% like they are if they were actually paying a higher rate.

    Though the tax tables say billionaires are required to pay a higher tax rate, if you look in depth at the tax code in it's entirety you will see that there are countless exemptions that allow billionaires to pay a lower rate than most people in the middle class here do.

    The difference between our two countries is that your country has laws that better regulate wealth accumulation. The US does not. That is why the US is doomed to lose it's capitalistic democracy. It's not a mater of if, it's a matter of when.

    Another thing - Billionaires cant buy political influence. A private person can not donate more than 2000$ to any political party or politician and the money is taxable for the reciepient and cant be deducted by the donor. Donations can be made annonymously for the public but must be reported when you do your taxes (both donor and receipient)

    They cant buy a political party either using company money. A company or organization can not donate more than 4000$ to any political party or politician and the money is taxable for the reciepient and cant be deducted by the donor. Donations cant be made annonymously
    We used to have restrictions like that here in the US, but they were gutted by all three branches and both parties of our government. That's why capitalistic democracy is a dead man walking in the US.

    Of course, none of this refutes the fact that there is no such thing as a self-made billionaire. It's a myth that we need to let go of if we want to survive more than a few more generations as a civilization and quite possibly as a species.

    Climate change due to global warming is the direct result of unchecked and unregulated entitlement and greed based selfishness. If sea levels rise only 10 feet, civilisations all across the planet will collapse due to billions of refugees with not enough food to go around and the majority of trade and energy insfrastucture being rendered useless faster than it can be rebuilt.
     
    Well the 3 companies I mentioned is still owned by the same families/original owners but yes some will certainly sell but that does not necessary mean that they all the sudden throw around money. Self promoting and trying to impress the world by flashing their riches is culturally not very well received here (see article about the law of Jante I posted earlier in this thread)

    I used to work for a small IT company with 40 employees. The 2 founders/owners both worked 80 hour weeks for years to build up that company. A very successfull company which was bought up by an international cooperate last year. I still work for my "old" company except now I do it in a building with 500+ others.

    The two owners of that company both received the equivalent of $6M - one chose to stay as managing director and invested his share in the new company. The other chose to accept a non-paid voluntary job as managing director of one of our national environmental organisations. He still works 50 hours a week on something he really cares about but is receiving no pay at all.
     
    Yes the situation in the US really astound me repeatedly.

    But I think it is a cultural thing mostly. Your education system is really lagging in many ways... and it is getting worse.

    Censoring the information and debate that is "allowed" even in grades 9-12 is destructive. Whitewashing history deny the students the right to learn from previous generations mistakes. And somehow remnants of McCarthyism is still actively fighting against workers rights and making unions a bad word. It really doesn't help a lot that mobsters got involved with unions as well, like asking the fox to mind the hen house.

    Unions is a part of the system here. And on all levels - from the man on the floor to the top executive suite. Unions provide necessary legal aid and help solve disputes assisted by laws and a special court system which serves as an arbitor when disputes arrises. Ad to that laws that secure certain rights to all employees. 6 weeks vacation, sick pay, pensions, child sick days and child care days. Laws governing how employees can be laid off and how long the severance should be.

    And regarding non-competing clauses the law is very specific. If you have a 6 month non-comp clause, then the company will have to give you the usual severance + 6 months (or whatever the non-compete is )
     
    Well the 3 companies I mentioned is still owned by the same families/original owners but yes some will certainly sell but that does not necessary mean that they all the sudden throw around money. Self promoting and trying to impress the world by flashing their riches is culturally not very well received here (see article about the law of Jante I posted earlier in this thread)

    I used to work for a small IT company with 40 employees. The 2 founders/owners both worked 80 hour weeks for years to build up that company. A very successfull company which was bought up by an international cooperate last year. I still work for my "old" company except now I do it in a building with 500+ others.

    The two owners of that company both received the equivalent of $6M - one chose to stay as managing director and invested his share in the new company. The other chose to accept a non-paid voluntary job as managing director of one of our national environmental organisations. He still works 50 hours a week on something he really cares about but is receiving no pay at all.
    I'm grateful and appreciative that you have been sharing information about the law of Jante. I've looked into it and find it admirable, desireable, morally correct and what is best for everyone. As you have noted, we have just the opposite here. We follow the law of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

    Also to be clear, there is a place in a functionally healthy society for billionaires. My point is that, because no billionaiare is self-made, they are not entitled to being unregulated and allowed to do whatever they want with a 100% of their billions. We all contribute to their billions and what they do with their billions has a profound impact on all of us, so we all have a right to regulate them and their billions. It's the same as people in a neighborhood having a right to regulate their neighbors from doing things that adversely impact the neighborhood.
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom