undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter8y ago0 comments

> - if the board had a fiduciary responsibility to employees first and shareholders second, maybe workers would be better off.

If the workers were by definition the shareholders, you wouldn't have to worry about which came first.

0 comments

candiodari8y ago

And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ?

There are plenty of employee-owned companies. Lots. I mean, they're not all that successful, mostly, but that's hardly relevant.

dragonwriterOP8y ago

> And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ?

Which said laws were preventing this?

OTOH, if it's a desirable social norm, then it's perhaps insufficient for law to fail to prevent it; it may be desirable for law to encourage or even require it as a precondition for the protections associated with the corporate form.

candiodari8y ago

The left's history with such a social norm, voluntary co-ownership is ... sordid. Just read up on how leftist parties treated Israeli Kibbutzim, for example.

People abandoned them, first in small numbers, and then of course the left no longer wanted anything to do with them, and they started getting sabotaged by (leftist) governments ...

And of course, now half of them are referred to as those settlers. It's not the same thing of course, but because of land prices they pretty much have to be, unless they're "historical".

TLDR: most of the existing ones failed and because of that everybody hates the new ones.

Let's not go there. Let's just skip it this time around, ok ?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

candiodari8y ago

And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ?

There are plenty of employee-owned companies. Lots. I mean, they're not all that successful, mostly, but that's hardly relevant.

dragonwriterOP8y ago

> And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ?

Which said laws were preventing this?

candiodari8y ago

The left's history with such a social norm, voluntary co-ownership is ... sordid. Just read up on how leftist parties treated Israeli Kibbutzim, for example.

People abandoned them, first in small numbers, and then of course the left no longer wanted anything to do with them, and they started getting sabotaged by (leftist) governments ...

And of course, now half of them are referred to as those settlers. It's not the same thing of course, but because of land prices they pretty much have to be, unless they're "historical".

TLDR: most of the existing ones failed and because of that everybody hates the new ones.

Let's not go there. Let's just skip it this time around, ok ?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse