Why shouldn’t they? Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers?

I’m being a bit hyperbolic here, but it’s funny that the circumstances you cite (sewing, basic safety) actually drove unionization in the early 20th century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_...

Turns out that if you don’t change the relations of power in your workplace, hold your bosses to account, they have a tendency to not be too concerned about your well-being.

> Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers?

Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around?

Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?

> Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you

Let's take a look at this. Your contributions to the end product are:

- Owning a sewing machine

- Paying someone to use it

Their contributions are:

- Making the thing (say, sewing a shirt)

I think there is an inherent tension between thinking about which of these is more valuable. Of course the sewing machine owners and payers are all going “Hey, the sewing machine belongs to us. You got compensated for your work, that should end your involvement with it. You can't tell us kind of clothes we should be making!”; whereas the people who sew the shirts are going “Without our collective work, you're going to be able to sew maybe one shirt a day, and you don't even know how to sew. So listen to us!”.

The increasing interest in unions (FAANG is hardly a good representative of jobs across the software industry, let alone the entire US) seems to indicate that the needle of society in general has moved more too far in advancing interests of the sewing machine, and the people who sew don't have enough of a say in how things are done.

There's inevitably going to be conflict between then owner of the sewing machine and someone who makes the thing - because when the thing gets sold, the money gets redistributed between owner of the machine and whoever made the thing.

When one gets more money, the other gets less. There is no way out of this, as long as owner of the machine and whoever makes the thing are different people.

I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial. Why did peasants revolt over feudal ownership of land? Why did indigenous people revolt against settler colonialism? Why did the American Civil War happen?

> I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person

You're conveniently ignoring the part in which I'm also paying the other person to do something, after the other person freely agreed to do said thing in exchange for being paid. Would you mind replying to what I'm actually saying?

You're conflating ownership of people with ownership of a tool & voluntary employment. That's a pretty bad-faith argument to make.

> I would say the premise that owning something gives you unilateral control over the actions of another person has historically and philosophically been quite controversial

I disagree. It is not historically controversial for the owner of property to decide what is done with it.

>with it.

With what, the slaves? /s

I don't know if you are trying to be disingenuous or are mocking people that would think this way.

But when someone comes into my house I have some control over what they are allowed to do within my house and I can ask them to leave with the support of the law if they don't obey my wishes.

When I enter a voluntary employment agreement and give an employee access to my equipment the same thing applies.

Let's flip the scenario. Someone comes to you and pays you to borrow your sewing machine. Then by your logic, you should not have any say in what they do with the sewing machine. It seems you are claiming that if A pays B, then A has complete say in what happens.

From a third party perspective, this is just weird. Society sees two people associating, one providing labor, that other capital, no matter how money is flowing within the association. Weirdly enough our system only allows capital owners to have any say in the running of the system (via shares and the board). Within this system, unions are one way in which the owners of labor get a say in the running of the corporation.

> Someone comes to you and pays you to borrow your sewing machine. Then by your logic, you should not have any say in what they do with the sewing machine

Yes, generally there is a contract that stipulated what can and can't be done with the sewing machine so that the machine is not completely destroyed.

Generally employment contracts do not give employees the right to do whatever they want with the sewing machine.

Because they want to be able to defend themselves from you and people like you (who own the means of living) from abusing and exploiting them.

Why do you mind if they have a say? If you don't plan on abusing and exploiting them, there's no harm, right?

EDIT: to put it into words I would think someone like you might understand better (power and money instead of empathy and solidarity) - because if you don't let them have a say, and exploit them, you might end up in a gulag, on guillotine or in wherever mass grave Mao put landlords.

Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewars. Once a thread gets to the gulags it's never coming back.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological or political flamewar. Let alone personal attacks.

We've had to ask you repeatedly in the past not to break the site guidelines. Would you please review them and stick to the rules when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> I'm paying them, if they don't want to be exploited by me don't accept my money.

If there is healthy competition among employers then workers have a real choice. If not then declining your money could mean: live destitute or starve.

As companies consolidate and collude (intentionally or subconsciously) even cushy office workers may face exploitation.

If you don’t want to be on the receiving end of violence, how about not exploiting people?

So let's have a thought experiment.

I own a sewing machine and I choose to sew clothes on it myself then sell it. Am I exploiting myself?

I own a sewing machine and I choose to not hire anybody to operate it and it sits unused. Someone that could operate it is sitting unemployed and unable to eat even though I could hire them. Am I exploiting someone?

I own a sewing machine and offer someone an amount of money if they operate it and produce the clothing I ask them to produce. Am I exploiting them?

I'm glad fringe maniacs that consider employment exploitation aren't taken seriously.

> It always comes down to violence with you people.

As it should. If they don't accept your power, they starve (or not get healthcare if we're talking about contemporary USA).

How is that any less violent? Because when you kill someone by starvation it's less bloody? Your kind are already using violence against us, you're just good at not caring about others or lying to yourself.