'So long as we have monarchy in the factory, we cannot have the republic in society' —Marc Sangnier

It reminds me of a thought why you can’t bring democracy into a country by invading it - because democracy doesn’t exist in a vacuum and therefore voting is done not only during elections, but also with you wallet and ability to switch jobs easily.

> ability to switch jobs easily

that's a funny way to write 'willingness to act collectively with fellow workers'

A little off topic but what boggles my mind is seemingly everybody supports "equal pay for equal work" but nobody seems to support the idea that all salary/bonus/non-monetary compensation for everyone within a company should be freely accessible to everyone including contractors and seasonal workers within the company. This is so obvious to me as a first step in actual pay equity. How can we have pay equity without transparency?

I believe it's the "equal work" bit that makes that a problem. I think I work harder than some of my coworkers and should therefore make more. Who decides what equal work is?

I'm happier not knowing

Not to be daft, but I can't imagine a single reason this is better for you career or labor organization-wise. If anything, it strikes me like that old quote:

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Not knowing the wages of those around you makes collective organization and bartering harder which is bad for workers in aggregate.

I agree but because I don't think those at the top would ever let the transparency be complete. Unless the company was started that way and managed to keep it while growing. Which experience seems to show is hard or unlikely.

An alternative to the total transparency you call for might be that an auditor examines everyone’s compensation, and provides statistics for each job role. Lots of employees prefer not to have their exact compensation revealed. Sometimes you may work well with someone (a lawyer, say) and think him a good team player, until you realize he is making tons more than you and envy becomes a factor. Your attitude might go from positive to negative. Would salary transparency be good in that case?

> Sometimes you may work well with someone (a lawyer, say) and think him a good team player, until you realize he is making tons more than you and envy becomes a factor. Your attitude might go from positive to negative. Would salary transparency be good in that case?

It isn't me against the other lawyer. It is me AND the other lawyer against the company. Remember, the company has full vision into everyone's compensation.

I remember this one joke about a survey of drivers where over 80% (? I forget the exact number. It is a joke iirc.) of drivers rated themselves at least at "over average" or better. Similarly, I suspect a lot of employees think they are "smart negotiators". Nothing can be farther from the truth.

I had a coworker who made about USD 80k a year and he was very opposed to raising the minimum wage in New York. He was open about why he opposed it. He thought his wages will not increase as minimum wage increased and that the increase in minimum wage will cause his rent to go up. You may hate him but at least he is honest.

I'd eventually like all compensation information for everyone to be public but I understand that is a tough sell. I think if you support pay equity, you must support transparency within the organization.

> Lots of employees prefer not to have their exact compensation revealed.

In fact, I am pretty confident (no proof though) that many for-profit companies as well as non-profits (including Research Foundation of the City University of New York) share this information with third parties such as Equifax or Intuit (makers of TurboTax).

All this information is already out there. We are just one more data breach away from having this information leaked.

It is a fallacy to believe that public information about a non corporal entity would help establish fairness. All corporations operate under the act of blame and judgement to increase profits, or they simply cease to be.

Is that fallacy also true for cooperatives?

What do you mean?

I mean that if your employer is for example, a monopoly in a relatively stable-yet-poor-country, the rational vote is to always vote for the preservation of your existence (ie the preservation of your job rather than de-monopolisation of the market) and thus it’s really hard to transform the country even if the voting is inherently fair.

Are there any examples of people voting strategically and getting what they want? Because the way I see it - strategic voting is almost always a populist vote and thus is rarely rational.

I think the parent poster is poking fun at the common "libertarian"/"meritocracy" techbro-speak about why we supposedly don't need tech unions.

Love it, thanks!

How much are you willing to bet they don't even know that's one of their thousands of investment vehicles?

This one involved strategic executive shuffling, secretive organization policy changes, shell companies, and over a billion dollars initial investment. They were probably right in the middle of it. Especially considering the thing they were buying for $1B is likely actually worth $2B+.

The crazy thing is that this is probably all within the confines of the law.

Unfortunately, a three tiered government means the law is written by congress, not by the people who see the injustice of the law and want to fix it =(

Do you mean like a family office, or like they all invest in Blackrock index funds?

Citation?

https://medium.com/savedotorg/whos-going-to-run-org-in-a-wor...?

I'm sorry but a blog post about "a screenshot of an email" doesn't do it for me.

Can you do better?

(I can't even see the screenshot because I don't enable JS so it's just a blurry thumbnail image. Oh how I wish people didn't use JS to serve static content!)