News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by randomdata on Thursday July 25, 2024 @09:11AM (#41068274)
> Unions aren't structured for investing, and that's not their reason to exist.

Depends on the union. A credit union is structured for investing and is literally their reason to exist.

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by alephnerd on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:46AM (#41069316)
Yk a Labor Union is entirely different from a Credit Union right?
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by randomdata on Thursday July 25, 2024 @11:43AM (#41069983)
Typically[1], but both are unions. Had the previous commenter been talking about labour unions then you might have something, but it clearly says "union" and "union" alone.

[1] Although definitely not necessarily. A group of labour unions in these parts collectively own one of the largest hedge funds out there.

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by alephnerd on Thursday July 25, 2024 @12:17PM (#41070407)
> Unions should put their money where their mouth is and invest in cooperatives

As in Labor Union.

Pedantry and HN - name a more iconic duo.

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by randomdata on Thursday July 25, 2024 @03:37PM (#41072517)
If labor was somehow significant to union, it would have been mentioned.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by alephnerd on Thursday July 25, 2024 @05:30PM (#41073622)
In colloquial American English, "Union" denotes "Labor Union".
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by randomdata on Thursday July 25, 2024 @05:32PM (#41073636)
What, then, does American English call a union?
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by alephnerd on Thursday July 25, 2024 @05:44PM (#41073716)
What do you mean? In English a single word can have multiple meanings.

A "Labor Union" is colloquially a Union. A marriage is also called a "Union". And so is the mathematical operation joining two sets.

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by randomdata on Thursday July 25, 2024 @06:04PM (#41073863)
Union in the broad labour union sense, but without the labour specificity. The same union we’ve been talking about all along.

Not sure why you think we’d randomly change the topic all of a sudden for no reason…

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by aleph_minus_one on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:52AM (#41069399)
For sure, but who says that they can't become more similar ...
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by triceratops on Thursday July 25, 2024 @10:31PM (#41075389)
Most marriages - a kind of union - also don't invest in cooperatives. Even if they meet the accredited investor standard.

Neither does the Union of European Football Associations, otherwise known as UEFA. They make up for it with a dope anthem.

Neither the Kalmar Union, nor any other personal union of monarchs, ever invested in a cooperative. Although some may have invested in joint stock companies, such as the various East India companies.

Maybe the Soviet Union was into worker cooperatives? Not sure.

And finally, the union of the set of workers at cooperatives and the empty set invests in cooperatives. Hey look, we found one type of union that definitely invests in cooperatives!

(I was just having fun making this as absurd as possible. Sorry, no malice intended).

Re:Every company should be owned by its employees by randomdata on Friday July 26, 2024 @12:04PM (#41079716)
> Most marriages - a kind of union - also don't invest in cooperatives.

Is that because most marriages exist in large urban centres where cooperatives are uncommon to non-existent? Out here in rural country, where cooperatives are the norm, most married people invest in cooperatives as most of the cooperatives are customer owned. You don't have much choice but to invest, assuming you want to be a customer – and no doubt you want to be, given that they provide basic services for the region.

I'm certainly an investor in several co-ops, and not because I went out of my way to do so. That is, with the exception of one co-op, which I provided additional investment to. That particular co-op runs a very successful operation and provides healthy returns in what is a comparatively stable environment to those who provide an over-and-above investment. They attract quite a lot of investment dollars as a result.

Which says something about unions that aren't investing. Why aren't they investing? Simple: The companies they see in front of them aren't worth investing in.