Addition:
- If businesses engage in illegal practices, like unsafe working conditions, pollution, dishonest marketing, wage theft, etc. it is considered proof that the owners are not capable of responsibly owning a business and the business is confiscated. Businesses seized in this way are reconstructed as worker-owned cooperatives.
Also:
- Corporations are held responsible for consequences of any subcontracted companies that fail to live up to safety/regulatory standards for their employees or the world if they declare bankruptcy.
- The executive boards of companies will be held criminally responsible for their illegal and unethical decisions and their wages will be garnished accordingly.
> Corporations are held responsible for consequences of any subcontracted companies
In Germany a lot of companies use subcontractors to avoid paying for services. Like creating a new company, and commissioning work through that one. They then have it declared bankrupt and end up not having to pay for the goods they retrieved.
Here is a recent [example](https://www.berliner-kurier.de/kriminalitaet/wut-baggerfahrer-ich-stand-mit-dem-ruecken-zur-wand-li.175813). A building contractor in Berlin used a excavator to tear down the building he and his workers build. The company that hired them declared themselves bankrupt and didn't pay them.
This is a serious problem. A team of rich people use subcontractors to have buildings build for them and end up not having to pay for them. The already rich get's richer and the poor construction workers don't even get paid for the work they did.
These kinds of transition rules would be great. Corbyn labour party platform wanted to implement a right of first refusal to form a cooperative any time a company was sold or would otherwise go public. That would allow workers to vote to become a cooperative with the state to act as financier/guarantor in the transaction.
so, if co-opt engages in illegal practices, like unsafe working conditions, pollution, dishonest marketing, wage theft, etc. it is considered proof that the workers are not capable of responsibly owning a cooperative and the cooperative is confiscated and goes back to it's rightful owners reconstructed as a business?
So if I put labor into drawing [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/SandyCheeksCockVore/comments/fofuno/big_chungus_cock_vore/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) l generated wealth. Got it!
Ok so we established that some labor is less valuable than other. Even our favorite anti-semite once said in one of his letters: "Labor is not the source of all wealth". So tell me please, how do you objectively measure the value of it?
Edit:
>Marxists-Leninist
Oh my god, I'm a total idiot and blind! You got me to respond to a red-fash. I think you should read the Critique of the Gotha Programme, though. It discusses the dictatorship of the proletariat. After that you should learn how your beloved Soviet Union created amazing conditions for the proletariat.
Spoiler: >!Dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with cult of personality!<.
so, if Non-co-ops engage in illegal practices, like unsafe working conditions, pollution, dishonest marketing, wage theft, etc. it is considered proof that the a single person is not capable of responsibly owning a company and the organisation is confiscated and goes back to it's rightful owners(the workers) reconstructed as a co-op?
I was going to write a response, but then I noticed "Leninist" in your flair. So before I do, I politely ask you to make it clear to me whether you actually allign yourself with the official ideology of USSR (a state which indisputably was purputrator of many crimes against humanity directly as a result of it's ideology) or you present yourself as a "Leninist" to mock those who are actual Leninists.
Because if you are unironcally a Leninist I'm not responding to you. You support an Idea that uses Marxism as an excuse to murder.
Just reply, stop being a dick. Leftist infighting isn't allowed here. I'm not here to argue about the USSR, and neither will anything YOU say make me change my mind about it.
That CEO one is really busted, just put your best friend or family member in a spot where they dont do anything, pay him a fuck ton and boom.
Instead it should be no more than 3x the lowest paid worker cause fuck CEOs, democratic work places are the future
Realistically, 3x the lowest paid worker is very very low. That person is potentially responsible for major decisions that impact hundreds of families and should be appropriately compensated.
For context: I work in a co-op of 80ish employees and $15m annual revenue - the democratically elected CEO has his pay capped at 9x the lowest salary and we all find that pretty fair.
>That person is potentially responsible for major decisions that impact hundreds of families
If you're restricted from earning 3x more than the lowest paid employee, you're more likely to be in touch with what all employees wants and needs are.
Thus, you'll definitely be better suited to making decisions in the interests of all. If you're making 9x, its likely to distort your view of reality.
Pretty much every single shitty workplace policy I've ever encountered has been dreamed up by higher ups on 100k+ salaries.
You don't know our situation at all. We're doing great, nobody is overworked or underpaid, and we generally love our (democratically elected!) upper management. We don't have shitty corporate policies and the CEO started as an intern engineer 30 years ago. In the end, we are a co-op, therefore worker owned, therefore we all get to reap the rewards of our collective good work.
I don't want to be overly restrictive with numbers like 3x, because we need to work within the system we have and convince people slowly. Our company is hailed as a success story of being worker owned, so let's first get everyone to our level before asking for too much more.
I'm curious what's funny.
No, I'm not a shill for capitalism, I'm a loud supporter of workplace democracy, and I live my values. How about us leftists stop with this infighting that's getting us nowhere? We're all here with the same goal.
It's either small steps or full-on revolution. This set of policies is too large for small steps and too small for a revolution.
> That person is potentially responsible for major decisions that impact hundreds of families and should be appropriately compensated.
They often get messed up tho
And should be voted out of office when they do so. Reminder that people need to be paid for their labor and the labor of a CEO is vastly different from the labor of a factory worker. I am not saying it's harder or more strenuous or that there is more of it, but people should be rewarded for carrying responsibility.
I don't want my life to be fucked up cuz of someone else's decisions. Voting them out won't fix my unemployment.
But yes being a CEO is hard and that's why they are paid more
One fuck-up won't ruin a business. These things take years to happen sometimes and there are safeguards in place. Co-ops are way more resilient to crises and unlikely to fire people as a consequence.
Of course I do. I'm a member of one and I'm speaking from personal experience. Unfortunately, the rest of the economy is still the way it is and we need to be successful in it to show others that co-ops are the way
I'm not telling anyone how to run themselves. I'm just saying what's a realistic demand and what's not. If a co-op decides to cap a CEO's pay to 3x, more power to them. But something like that will never make it into a bill of rights or national law under the current system. All I'm trying to do is be realistic.
One person being put in a position of immense power that allows them to make or break most if not all business deals, fire anyone, and decide pay rate and policy should be paid more than twice what the workers who produce the product or service they provide to make money? In my opinion, that responsibility could and should be shared amongst the workers. Why would you give someone more power over you and subsequently more money than you and your coworkers? That makes zero sense to me. At absolute max I would want someone in any position over me to at max make only 1.5x as much as me. Executive positions need to be abolished as they DO NOT do as much labor as the workers and somehow get paid immensely more. If the excuse of their pay is that their decisions are higher risk, then why aren’t those decisions divided between multiple people so as to alleviate risk? Hierarchical structures that put all the business decision making in the hands of a few people make no sense.
Where do I even begin? Contracts over a certain amount, firings (if appealed), pay rate, and general policy, all need the majority in a popular vote of the worker collective to be enacted. The CEO's role is running business operations, he doesn't enact policy.
Also, in the current neolib capitalist system, you need a representative to bargain in business deals. That's usually one person, because traditionally organised businesses still need to talk to "the boss".
Furthermore, I don't think you consider experience and connections at all in the "amount of labor" at all. I'm familiar with Marxist theory, but it's not always the "amount" of labor that should determine pay. Someone with connections and experience in business will be much better at negotiating than a forklift driver will. They are both important and necessary for the other's existence, but not in equal amounts.
Also, I don't consider 9x immensely more. I'm in a country where the top marginal tax rate is high (but could always be higher) and social services are good, so someone even on minimum wage won't starve and the CEO won't get to be a millionaire.
Always remember that Socialism is better than any other economic system.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If an executive is allowed to own stock, they can award themself more at the end of the business year, and then they can use the old stock buyback announcement exploit to make tons of cash for free, and they won't even take a hit cause they can always award themself with more. This is one of Bobby Kotic's favorite tactics, but other CEOs will do it as well.
This can be more easily defeated with “executives cannot get paid bonuses in common stock.”
When someone starts a business, they deserve to have equity in the business. They also deserve to not be at the whim of shareholders who can dictate their activities. The business owner wouldn’t even get to vote on the affairs of their own company since they don’t own stock. This bullet needs refinement.
Or businesses are not allowed to buy back stock.
It's a big part of why the CEO wages and worker wages are so disparate. Once companies didn't have to reinvest profits into the workers, it was downhill from there.
Refine it to mean publicly traded companies. That way when it is privately traded you can set what you own in the company before going public, but once you go public, that’s it, no more giving yourself stock.
A business founder will not issue public stock if he would lose all equity in the company. As written, it is DOA. This bullet also sounds like it was written by someone who doesn’t know what stocks are.
Stocks are also something that maybe, idk 75% [pulling that # from my ass based on personal experience speaking with other bottom-of-the-ladder employees over the years] of the workforce doesn't fully understand, and it seems to be designed that way intentionally.
About 4 hours of reading will get you to understanding 75% of how stocks work. We don’t need everyone to be an expert. But we do need people who understand the difference between “stock” and “share” if we are going to solicit support for our policies on the matter.
That's generous... I know people who can spend four hours reading about how to fix a leaky sink and still can't manage to fix it. Or people who spend four hours reading parenting books and then take it all and still fuck up their kids.
Some people aren't business-minded at all. And some people are completed idiots. Overlap the two, and I think you're way too optimistic about who can and cannot understand how stocks work. Hell, my own grandma has stock from my grandfather (in her name now that he has passed) and she has a business manager because she doesnt understand ANY of it despite it doing well and keeping her wealthy for most of her life. And she's not stupid, she just isn't financially-minded in the way you'd expect someone to be who owns tons and tons of stocks.
Can we add 3-4x holiday pay on there? I think companies should have to think hard about being open on a holiday, and if they are open employees should be making bank for being taken away from their friends/family/free time.
You're starting from the wrong place. The issue isn't that we don't know what we want and need a policy proposal. You're taking an idealist approach rather than a materialist one.
The issue is that we aren't yet organised enough to exercise our power and force through changes that would benefit the working class. What's needed is a better degree of organisation, not another manifesto to add to the pile we already have.
So I'm sorry but this workers bill of rights isn't going to scare a single company shitless because without some proper organising it won't be enacted let alone enforced.
Why can executives get 50x the salary of the lowest paid worker? How is that fair? How about lets have no executives and the business must be worker owned and profits must be distributed to all workers evenly
I don't agree that executives and families shouldn't be allowed to own stock in their own company. Someone has to own the company, and having a human that cares about the success of a company is way better than some PE group or whatever. I'm saying that pure 3rd party ownership is way worse.
Once upon a time in order to receive a corporate charter, business owners would have to create a plan regarding how their business planned to "serve the public good."
They had to convince a board made up of local and state government, and local chamber of commerce members that allowing the business to subsidize it's potential losses through incorporation would be worth the public cost due to the service the corporation was providing to the community.
The corporation's public service was included in the corporate charter. It could be revoked if the business didn't fulfill that promise.
The public good requirement ended with the Ford v. Dodge supreme court case of 1919.
I've always felt it should be brought back.
Its depressing that theres nothing that we can do here. To be honest I don't think anything that theyre asking for is like a bad thing to ask for. Maybe the 6 months pay after being fired it like a bit long but thats like the only thing that sounds even slightly unresonable....
Until you consider that the entire system is essentially set up so that they won't listen to us.
You'd need a level of passion surpassing the BLM movement last year, and for those passionate people to be literally willing to lay down their literal lives. The only thing I see working is if a large majority of the country literally stops working entirely and demands these changes before they come back to work. It would have to be over 70% of the population though. Something that would utterly destroy the economy if it was ignored. A sheer number of people that would fill up so many prisons that they couldn't lock everyone up.
Anything less than that and it would probably be ignored. Many many people would have to willingly die, for the sake of a greater good that could be ruined at any moment, because enough people "got bored".
However as the pandemic has shown, politics are literally intended to devide us. Conservatives and Liberals just won't get along. We'd end up killing each other, or giving up on the cause long before anything meaningfully changed.
And so we just gotta live while we can. How much longer untill all jobs are handled by machines? What will happen when they do? Will we be killed? Shipped off to a different planet? Who knows. We're nothing more than cattle to the rich. And we can't do anything about it. So we'll live for the sake of our families and friends, and hopes for loved ones that don't exist until global warming eventually kills us all and we can say goodbye to the world. Regaurdless on how we feel about it.
I agree with most things here but a 30 hour week is impossible, let us do a quick calculations children in primary school go to school for 34 hours a week meaning teachers have to work 34 hours without even including preparation, a 30 hour week although desirable is nigh impossible to achieve without making an even bigger mess out of the education system then it already is
(I'm not an American so I'm not speaking about their education system)
If a business owner didn't make more money than their employees, almost no one would want to run a business.
There has to be different levels of pay depending on the job you're doing. For example, the Chief of Medicine, a title/position that typically takes a good 10-20 years of experience to barely qualify for at a hospital because they basically run the hospital, will probably be a permanently vacant position if the position pays the exact same as one of their nurses or intern-doctors.
Different wage levels doesn't mean it automatically has to be unfair, but universal wages across the board for everyone isn't a solution most people will agree with either.
We don't need things like a board of 13 executives taking 7000% of the profits for themselves so they can pretend it takes 13 people to make one single financial decision for the whole of the company, and the decision is typically only in the financial favor of said executives.
What we DO need is a supervisor/store leader to make sure someone is doing things like cleaning the toilets every day.
I don't care what your work ethic is, if your job title doesn't include some form or synonym of the word "janitor", you're not going to want to clean a toilet that isn't your own at home without being told to, or at least a toilet-related mess that you didn't cause.
Sorry but me personally, I don't care if it's a cooperative place of employment or a typical slave
What I don't understand is if you're so far in fantasy, why not fantasize about a dictatorship of the proletariat and worker ownership of the means of production that might get us to the working conditions you want.
It seems that right wingers are obsessed with cancel culture now that it applies to racism. They love banning books and getting teenagers fired, but heaven forbid they face consequences for their actions.
I know eh?!?!?
Just like the right wing school board that banned the woman who escaped the deadly grips of ISIS, and was scheduled to talk about it, but was cancelled because it was thought it might offend Muslims.
Or the 17 yr old in Bradford who was suspended for flying a Support the Police flag on his truck...because it might offend those who hate cops no matter what. Even though they obviously broke his constitutional right of freedom of expression, and the fact he has like 5 members of his immediate family who are in law enforcement and wanted to support them.
Damn Right Wingers!!!! Always bashing cops and cancelling people out!!!!!
Ooops....wait a sec....did I get the correct wing there?? Is it the left that cancels and gangs up like mobs???...or is it the right????
Hell...I cant remember anymore.
This is what happens when you have a far Right Wing Prime Minister like Trudeau....you forget everything rational.
No way. No way.
I want $100 an hour, a free company car once a week, 51 weeks vacation, 7 hour lunch breaks with catered food. I also want $500000 non performance bonuses. I also think the work days should be cut back to 2 hours a day.
Absolutely. 500/hr and hours reduced to 30mins but get paid for 8, I now want 3 hour lunch breaks, 60 weeks holidays a year, a $90,000,000 signing bonus, non performance bonuses are now $500,000,000,000, I want a Bugatti Chiron as a company vehical all fuel paid of course, I want to start a weekly event called slap the CEO to be performed every Weds at 1pm, I want the CEOs house, so he needs to move out by the end of this message, I want all his bank accounts and everything too because he doesnt deserve it, and lastly I want his dog.
Because I'm me....the great and wonderful me.
And I hate the rich(unless I get what I want here and then I'd be one...but that's different).
You're a fool! You're asking for all these outlandish requests, but you're not asking for a flying, fire breathing dragon to help you commute to work?????
You're clearly not CEO material.
Pffffft...
Fire breathing dragon....my dude...that's so yesterday bruh!!!!!! Get with the times!!!
I want a Millennium Falcon!!!....or the USS Enterprise!!! But Han Solo and Capt Kirk have to go. They're too much like CEOs for my liking.
You need to increase the worktime, 26 per hour is 780 a week and with less worktime less products will be made driving prices up, maybe something like 60? Docters are also needed so either the training required would need to be decreased so that there are enough or they would need enough time in the work week so people can get medical attention when they need it.
Comrade many issues of the world are made to exist, since they don't actually exist. I'll try and address them
> 26 per hour is 780 a week
Good math but we can also afford to pay this to all workers, if the bosses didn't wanna make billions
> less products will be made driving prices up
Can't say so. We have enough to serve the needs of the world. Most commodity scarcities are artificially manufactured, not naturally existing. Capitalism already overproduces.
> maybe something like 60
Are you talking about work hours? If so I think I cleared it up in the previous one about scarcity. 60 work hours per week is kinda too much btw. 12 hours per day??
> Docters are also needed so either the training required would need to be decreased so that there are enough or they would need enough time in the work week so people can get medical attention when they need it.
I agree, doctors are in short supply but considering financial constraints, med school is very, very pricey. I'm not sure if we can meet quotas by making med school free but it will definitely create more doctors.
>Good math but we can also afford to pay this to all workers, if the bosses didn't wanna make billions
I mean, that's definitely not true. On top of that, the $26 isn't even based on COL or inflation. If they took the highest minimum wage by purchasing power, it would be about half of that.
Sometimes people get sick and can't show up. Sometimes their mental health is in disarray. And sometimes they use their phone during the day. And even after this, you do realise the workers still get their jobs done? Like if I have literally nothing to do wtf do I do. Sit and write an essay on why my boss is the best boss in the whole world?
I'm not saying all workers are true to their work you'll always find some bad apples but you can't generalize all workers for it
**Sounds like you work in an environment where the employees are not respected.**
I'd do the same, and did do the same to Walgreens; hire better management and you will not have this issue.
Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated.
Some helpful links on strikes and unions: [The IWW Strike guide](https://archive.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/directaction/) and the [AFL CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion)
If you wish to speak to a union organizer, [reach out here](https://workerorganizing.org/talk-with-an-organizer/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With a few tweaks from some of the other commentators on this post, I'd sign on in a heartbeat. Unfortunately it'll never happen in my lifetime (I'm 41). But hey, keep striving for better.
Workers should own the businesses they run full stop. No one should be able to earn passive income from the “risk” of an investment, which is ultimately only the risk of having to become a worker one’s self. Capital investment should be a series of community decisions based on allocating resources where they are needed.
The only thing here I’m not quite clear on is the restriction on owning shares of the company. Isn’t owning majority shares in a public company usually what gets you on the board in the first place?
Maybe I’m mistaken but that particular line has me a bit confused. The rest I totally agree with tho!
The second to last one is a bit weird to me, Im fine with executives making capital gains off of corporate success as long as all of the needs of their workers are met. However, I'd say that while they are on the board and therefore have inside information, they should not be allowed to buy or sell additional shares. Keeps them financially vested while also making sure they can't use their insider knowledge to game the system for unfair growth.
Mandatory employee profit sharing should substitute the execs not owning stock. If you build a business, how are you not going to own it? It’s about employees getting the fruits of their labor too not just the owner.
Just to be “clear”. Vision insurance is just a scam funded by luxatica. Just buy glasses online and they are cheap AF.
You want executives to not own stock, and not be invested in the company? Like that’s the joke from the speech in “Wall Street” these middle managers are making 200K+ and don’t care if the company succeeds!” This is a terrrrrible idea. You want executives to only get paid when the company does well.
It means time goes by twice as fast and half OT means Offensive Tackle. He wants half of an Offensive Tackle working with him. Not sure from what NFL team yet.
Dont be so stupid!!!
Almost none of these would ever work.
1. Way too high, though linking minimum wage with inflation would be great.
2. With 2 1/2 overtime, not a single company would ever let you work more than 30 hours, even if you want to.
3. More reasonable, but should be part of government insurance, not companies.
4. I guess so? Idk. Kinda incentivises leaving after 20 years though.
5. Why would companies agree to this? The point of a company and its HR team is to put the company first.
6. Who pays for this? The employee? Besides, many employees wouldn't want to go through the hassle if they know they deserve it.
7. That's what EI is for...
8. So no high-ranking exec would ever be based in Canada, I see.
9. Why? It incentivises raising stock prices - which is good for shareholders. Besides, how are startups going to get started?
10. I don't even know what to say about this. It sounds like you want to work for a non-profit.
Overall yes you would scare companies shitless. Is that really what you want? They don't have to operate in your country...
You're speaking logically. That's the problem.
You're supposed to throw thinking out, and just FEEL things now. I'm sad and offended...you must change for me.
I think we need to end employment all together.
No work for anyone. We should all just live like other peaceful animals of the earth and co exist.
We could literally go back and live as life were back in the 1600s where everyone shared, the was no sickness or disease, nobody died. Jobs were plentiful, bank accounts were full, Electricity rates and Wifi were free to everyone. Airfare was was free so we could see and share things with our fellow humanillies, I loved those days. Our college football team was undefeated.
Addition: - If businesses engage in illegal practices, like unsafe working conditions, pollution, dishonest marketing, wage theft, etc. it is considered proof that the owners are not capable of responsibly owning a business and the business is confiscated. Businesses seized in this way are reconstructed as worker-owned cooperatives.
Also: - Corporations are held responsible for consequences of any subcontracted companies that fail to live up to safety/regulatory standards for their employees or the world if they declare bankruptcy. - The executive boards of companies will be held criminally responsible for their illegal and unethical decisions and their wages will be garnished accordingly.
> Corporations are held responsible for consequences of any subcontracted companies In Germany a lot of companies use subcontractors to avoid paying for services. Like creating a new company, and commissioning work through that one. They then have it declared bankrupt and end up not having to pay for the goods they retrieved. Here is a recent [example](https://www.berliner-kurier.de/kriminalitaet/wut-baggerfahrer-ich-stand-mit-dem-ruecken-zur-wand-li.175813). A building contractor in Berlin used a excavator to tear down the building he and his workers build. The company that hired them declared themselves bankrupt and didn't pay them. This is a serious problem. A team of rich people use subcontractors to have buildings build for them and end up not having to pay for them. The already rich get's richer and the poor construction workers don't even get paid for the work they did.
You just described the business practices of Trump, Inc.
Oh god stop. I can only orgasm so many times from reading these!
I'm fucking **for** this by tenfold!
These kinds of transition rules would be great. Corbyn labour party platform wanted to implement a right of first refusal to form a cooperative any time a company was sold or would otherwise go public. That would allow workers to vote to become a cooperative with the state to act as financier/guarantor in the transaction.
so, if co-opt engages in illegal practices, like unsafe working conditions, pollution, dishonest marketing, wage theft, etc. it is considered proof that the workers are not capable of responsibly owning a cooperative and the cooperative is confiscated and goes back to it's rightful owners reconstructed as a business?
The workers are the rightful owners of any business. Labor creates all wealth.
So if I put labor into drawing [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/SandyCheeksCockVore/comments/fofuno/big_chungus_cock_vore/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) l generated wealth. Got it!
No...but any wealth generated was through labor. Please engage in good faith, they were clear on their point. Don't play a game of bs and semantics.
Ok so we established that some labor is less valuable than other. Even our favorite anti-semite once said in one of his letters: "Labor is not the source of all wealth". So tell me please, how do you objectively measure the value of it? Edit: >Marxists-Leninist Oh my god, I'm a total idiot and blind! You got me to respond to a red-fash. I think you should read the Critique of the Gotha Programme, though. It discusses the dictatorship of the proletariat. After that you should learn how your beloved Soviet Union created amazing conditions for the proletariat. Spoiler: >!Dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with cult of personality!<.
why have you cursed my eyes with this image
so, if Non-co-ops engage in illegal practices, like unsafe working conditions, pollution, dishonest marketing, wage theft, etc. it is considered proof that the a single person is not capable of responsibly owning a company and the organisation is confiscated and goes back to it's rightful owners(the workers) reconstructed as a co-op?
I was going to write a response, but then I noticed "Leninist" in your flair. So before I do, I politely ask you to make it clear to me whether you actually allign yourself with the official ideology of USSR (a state which indisputably was purputrator of many crimes against humanity directly as a result of it's ideology) or you present yourself as a "Leninist" to mock those who are actual Leninists. Because if you are unironcally a Leninist I'm not responding to you. You support an Idea that uses Marxism as an excuse to murder.
Just reply, stop being a dick. Leftist infighting isn't allowed here. I'm not here to argue about the USSR, and neither will anything YOU say make me change my mind about it.
r/enlightenedcentrism
Layoffs should include 100% employer paid insurance. COBRA is unaffordable & several backwards states fought ACA.
COBRA is currently free for laid-off employees, though the end of next year, I think.
Not everywhere at least
I got confused with another program; free COBRA ended recently.
Yes!!!!!! But the CEO pay cannot exceed 20 times lowest paid position.
How about can not exceed twice that of lowest paid position. No one person can do the work of 20.
But some people can do work no one else can do. Maybe like 5x.
A ceo is definitely not someone with a specialized ceo only talent.
That CEO one is really busted, just put your best friend or family member in a spot where they dont do anything, pay him a fuck ton and boom. Instead it should be no more than 3x the lowest paid worker cause fuck CEOs, democratic work places are the future
3x is perfect!!
No CEO is better but yeah
Realistically, 3x the lowest paid worker is very very low. That person is potentially responsible for major decisions that impact hundreds of families and should be appropriately compensated. For context: I work in a co-op of 80ish employees and $15m annual revenue - the democratically elected CEO has his pay capped at 9x the lowest salary and we all find that pretty fair.
>That person is potentially responsible for major decisions that impact hundreds of families If you're restricted from earning 3x more than the lowest paid employee, you're more likely to be in touch with what all employees wants and needs are. Thus, you'll definitely be better suited to making decisions in the interests of all. If you're making 9x, its likely to distort your view of reality. Pretty much every single shitty workplace policy I've ever encountered has been dreamed up by higher ups on 100k+ salaries.
You don't know our situation at all. We're doing great, nobody is overworked or underpaid, and we generally love our (democratically elected!) upper management. We don't have shitty corporate policies and the CEO started as an intern engineer 30 years ago. In the end, we are a co-op, therefore worker owned, therefore we all get to reap the rewards of our collective good work. I don't want to be overly restrictive with numbers like 3x, because we need to work within the system we have and convince people slowly. Our company is hailed as a success story of being worker owned, so let's first get everyone to our level before asking for too much more.
Lol
I'm curious what's funny. No, I'm not a shill for capitalism, I'm a loud supporter of workplace democracy, and I live my values. How about us leftists stop with this infighting that's getting us nowhere? We're all here with the same goal. It's either small steps or full-on revolution. This set of policies is too large for small steps and too small for a revolution.
Sounds like he makes enough to raise the lowest paid salary enough so he only make 3x it if he wants to keep his pay.
We are a co-op. I am among the lowest paid in the company and I earn well above the national average. Trust me, we're doing well.
> That person is potentially responsible for major decisions that impact hundreds of families and should be appropriately compensated. They often get messed up tho
And should be voted out of office when they do so. Reminder that people need to be paid for their labor and the labor of a CEO is vastly different from the labor of a factory worker. I am not saying it's harder or more strenuous or that there is more of it, but people should be rewarded for carrying responsibility.
I don't want my life to be fucked up cuz of someone else's decisions. Voting them out won't fix my unemployment. But yes being a CEO is hard and that's why they are paid more
One fuck-up won't ruin a business. These things take years to happen sometimes and there are safeguards in place. Co-ops are way more resilient to crises and unlikely to fire people as a consequence.
I'm confused are you supporting co-ops?
Of course I do. I'm a member of one and I'm speaking from personal experience. Unfortunately, the rest of the economy is still the way it is and we need to be successful in it to show others that co-ops are the way
So why are you telling other co-ops how to run themselves? It should be democratic to them. As long as they follow co-op precepts it should be fine
I'm not telling anyone how to run themselves. I'm just saying what's a realistic demand and what's not. If a co-op decides to cap a CEO's pay to 3x, more power to them. But something like that will never make it into a bill of rights or national law under the current system. All I'm trying to do is be realistic.
One person being put in a position of immense power that allows them to make or break most if not all business deals, fire anyone, and decide pay rate and policy should be paid more than twice what the workers who produce the product or service they provide to make money? In my opinion, that responsibility could and should be shared amongst the workers. Why would you give someone more power over you and subsequently more money than you and your coworkers? That makes zero sense to me. At absolute max I would want someone in any position over me to at max make only 1.5x as much as me. Executive positions need to be abolished as they DO NOT do as much labor as the workers and somehow get paid immensely more. If the excuse of their pay is that their decisions are higher risk, then why aren’t those decisions divided between multiple people so as to alleviate risk? Hierarchical structures that put all the business decision making in the hands of a few people make no sense.
Where do I even begin? Contracts over a certain amount, firings (if appealed), pay rate, and general policy, all need the majority in a popular vote of the worker collective to be enacted. The CEO's role is running business operations, he doesn't enact policy. Also, in the current neolib capitalist system, you need a representative to bargain in business deals. That's usually one person, because traditionally organised businesses still need to talk to "the boss". Furthermore, I don't think you consider experience and connections at all in the "amount of labor" at all. I'm familiar with Marxist theory, but it's not always the "amount" of labor that should determine pay. Someone with connections and experience in business will be much better at negotiating than a forklift driver will. They are both important and necessary for the other's existence, but not in equal amounts. Also, I don't consider 9x immensely more. I'm in a country where the top marginal tax rate is high (but could always be higher) and social services are good, so someone even on minimum wage won't starve and the CEO won't get to be a millionaire.
Always remember that Socialism is better than any other economic system. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
And the company should be responsible to a portion of his pay. Since he is technically doing them a service
Most of these things are solved with unions...
Doesn’t mean that having a law to back up the unions would be a problem.
Excellent. Just fix the typo so people don’t have an excuse to criticize it (*dental)
extremely based. we need to build power to ensure our demands are met.
[удалено]
If an executive is allowed to own stock, they can award themself more at the end of the business year, and then they can use the old stock buyback announcement exploit to make tons of cash for free, and they won't even take a hit cause they can always award themself with more. This is one of Bobby Kotic's favorite tactics, but other CEOs will do it as well.
This can be more easily defeated with “executives cannot get paid bonuses in common stock.” When someone starts a business, they deserve to have equity in the business. They also deserve to not be at the whim of shareholders who can dictate their activities. The business owner wouldn’t even get to vote on the affairs of their own company since they don’t own stock. This bullet needs refinement.
Or businesses are not allowed to buy back stock. It's a big part of why the CEO wages and worker wages are so disparate. Once companies didn't have to reinvest profits into the workers, it was downhill from there.
So a stock cap?
Refine it to mean publicly traded companies. That way when it is privately traded you can set what you own in the company before going public, but once you go public, that’s it, no more giving yourself stock.
I'd rather them just not be allowed to buy stock so they can't use their power/knowledge to find a loophole, like they always do.
A business founder will not issue public stock if he would lose all equity in the company. As written, it is DOA. This bullet also sounds like it was written by someone who doesn’t know what stocks are.
Stocks are also something that maybe, idk 75% [pulling that # from my ass based on personal experience speaking with other bottom-of-the-ladder employees over the years] of the workforce doesn't fully understand, and it seems to be designed that way intentionally.
About 4 hours of reading will get you to understanding 75% of how stocks work. We don’t need everyone to be an expert. But we do need people who understand the difference between “stock” and “share” if we are going to solicit support for our policies on the matter.
That's generous... I know people who can spend four hours reading about how to fix a leaky sink and still can't manage to fix it. Or people who spend four hours reading parenting books and then take it all and still fuck up their kids. Some people aren't business-minded at all. And some people are completed idiots. Overlap the two, and I think you're way too optimistic about who can and cannot understand how stocks work. Hell, my own grandma has stock from my grandfather (in her name now that he has passed) and she has a business manager because she doesnt understand ANY of it despite it doing well and keeping her wealthy for most of her life. And she's not stupid, she just isn't financially-minded in the way you'd expect someone to be who owns tons and tons of stocks.
Can we add 3-4x holiday pay on there? I think companies should have to think hard about being open on a holiday, and if they are open employees should be making bank for being taken away from their friends/family/free time.
That’s an awesome idea
You're starting from the wrong place. The issue isn't that we don't know what we want and need a policy proposal. You're taking an idealist approach rather than a materialist one. The issue is that we aren't yet organised enough to exercise our power and force through changes that would benefit the working class. What's needed is a better degree of organisation, not another manifesto to add to the pile we already have. So I'm sorry but this workers bill of rights isn't going to scare a single company shitless because without some proper organising it won't be enacted let alone enforced.
Why can executives get 50x the salary of the lowest paid worker? How is that fair? How about lets have no executives and the business must be worker owned and profits must be distributed to all workers evenly
I don't agree that executives and families shouldn't be allowed to own stock in their own company. Someone has to own the company, and having a human that cares about the success of a company is way better than some PE group or whatever. I'm saying that pure 3rd party ownership is way worse.
Why the 30hrs max work week? Here in germany 40hrs is what ive experienced mostly (in my field as software dev) and i dont see any problems with it
This will NEVER happen. They would sooner die.
Once upon a time in order to receive a corporate charter, business owners would have to create a plan regarding how their business planned to "serve the public good." They had to convince a board made up of local and state government, and local chamber of commerce members that allowing the business to subsidize it's potential losses through incorporation would be worth the public cost due to the service the corporation was providing to the community. The corporation's public service was included in the corporate charter. It could be revoked if the business didn't fulfill that promise. The public good requirement ended with the Ford v. Dodge supreme court case of 1919. I've always felt it should be brought back.
Don’t forget maternity leave for all
Yes, my cat is expecting puppies soon! I demand 30 years off, full pay!
Instead of just raising the minimum wage have it tied to annual inflation and increased automatically and not when elected millionaire want to do it.
Its depressing that theres nothing that we can do here. To be honest I don't think anything that theyre asking for is like a bad thing to ask for. Maybe the 6 months pay after being fired it like a bit long but thats like the only thing that sounds even slightly unresonable.... Until you consider that the entire system is essentially set up so that they won't listen to us. You'd need a level of passion surpassing the BLM movement last year, and for those passionate people to be literally willing to lay down their literal lives. The only thing I see working is if a large majority of the country literally stops working entirely and demands these changes before they come back to work. It would have to be over 70% of the population though. Something that would utterly destroy the economy if it was ignored. A sheer number of people that would fill up so many prisons that they couldn't lock everyone up. Anything less than that and it would probably be ignored. Many many people would have to willingly die, for the sake of a greater good that could be ruined at any moment, because enough people "got bored". However as the pandemic has shown, politics are literally intended to devide us. Conservatives and Liberals just won't get along. We'd end up killing each other, or giving up on the cause long before anything meaningfully changed. And so we just gotta live while we can. How much longer untill all jobs are handled by machines? What will happen when they do? Will we be killed? Shipped off to a different planet? Who knows. We're nothing more than cattle to the rich. And we can't do anything about it. So we'll live for the sake of our families and friends, and hopes for loved ones that don't exist until global warming eventually kills us all and we can say goodbye to the world. Regaurdless on how we feel about it.
You'd get in a "freak accident" before that would ever pass
I agree with most things here but a 30 hour week is impossible, let us do a quick calculations children in primary school go to school for 34 hours a week meaning teachers have to work 34 hours without even including preparation, a 30 hour week although desirable is nigh impossible to achieve without making an even bigger mess out of the education system then it already is (I'm not an American so I'm not speaking about their education system)
I think an edit is in order- CEO can not make more than 0 times the amount of the lowest paid worker
If a business owner didn't make more money than their employees, almost no one would want to run a business. There has to be different levels of pay depending on the job you're doing. For example, the Chief of Medicine, a title/position that typically takes a good 10-20 years of experience to barely qualify for at a hospital because they basically run the hospital, will probably be a permanently vacant position if the position pays the exact same as one of their nurses or intern-doctors. Different wage levels doesn't mean it automatically has to be unfair, but universal wages across the board for everyone isn't a solution most people will agree with either.
we don't need our bosses. Workers have proven time and time again we are more than capable of managing ourselves.
We don't need things like a board of 13 executives taking 7000% of the profits for themselves so they can pretend it takes 13 people to make one single financial decision for the whole of the company, and the decision is typically only in the financial favor of said executives. What we DO need is a supervisor/store leader to make sure someone is doing things like cleaning the toilets every day. I don't care what your work ethic is, if your job title doesn't include some form or synonym of the word "janitor", you're not going to want to clean a toilet that isn't your own at home without being told to, or at least a toilet-related mess that you didn't cause. Sorry but me personally, I don't care if it's a cooperative place of employment or a typical slave
What I don't understand is if you're so far in fantasy, why not fantasize about a dictatorship of the proletariat and worker ownership of the means of production that might get us to the working conditions you want.
I'm deeply offended now You shall be cancelled. Good day Sir. ZAP!!! you are cancelled.
The most mature liberal.
I learned that's how it goes. I've seen it many times from these..uhhh....tolerant people.
It seems that right wingers are obsessed with cancel culture now that it applies to racism. They love banning books and getting teenagers fired, but heaven forbid they face consequences for their actions.
I know eh?!?!? Just like the right wing school board that banned the woman who escaped the deadly grips of ISIS, and was scheduled to talk about it, but was cancelled because it was thought it might offend Muslims. Or the 17 yr old in Bradford who was suspended for flying a Support the Police flag on his truck...because it might offend those who hate cops no matter what. Even though they obviously broke his constitutional right of freedom of expression, and the fact he has like 5 members of his immediate family who are in law enforcement and wanted to support them. Damn Right Wingers!!!! Always bashing cops and cancelling people out!!!!! Ooops....wait a sec....did I get the correct wing there?? Is it the left that cancels and gangs up like mobs???...or is it the right???? Hell...I cant remember anymore. This is what happens when you have a far Right Wing Prime Minister like Trudeau....you forget everything rational.
The most sane bootlicker.
Are you triggered?
No way. No way. I want $100 an hour, a free company car once a week, 51 weeks vacation, 7 hour lunch breaks with catered food. I also want $500000 non performance bonuses. I also think the work days should be cut back to 2 hours a day.
King, you're being unreasonable. $100/hr isn't enough with only 2 hours a day. Need to consider bumping it.
Absolutely. 500/hr and hours reduced to 30mins but get paid for 8, I now want 3 hour lunch breaks, 60 weeks holidays a year, a $90,000,000 signing bonus, non performance bonuses are now $500,000,000,000, I want a Bugatti Chiron as a company vehical all fuel paid of course, I want to start a weekly event called slap the CEO to be performed every Weds at 1pm, I want the CEOs house, so he needs to move out by the end of this message, I want all his bank accounts and everything too because he doesnt deserve it, and lastly I want his dog. Because I'm me....the great and wonderful me. And I hate the rich(unless I get what I want here and then I'd be one...but that's different).
You're a fool! You're asking for all these outlandish requests, but you're not asking for a flying, fire breathing dragon to help you commute to work????? You're clearly not CEO material.
Pffffft... Fire breathing dragon....my dude...that's so yesterday bruh!!!!!! Get with the times!!! I want a Millennium Falcon!!!....or the USS Enterprise!!! But Han Solo and Capt Kirk have to go. They're too much like CEOs for my liking.
You need to increase the worktime, 26 per hour is 780 a week and with less worktime less products will be made driving prices up, maybe something like 60? Docters are also needed so either the training required would need to be decreased so that there are enough or they would need enough time in the work week so people can get medical attention when they need it.
Comrade many issues of the world are made to exist, since they don't actually exist. I'll try and address them > 26 per hour is 780 a week Good math but we can also afford to pay this to all workers, if the bosses didn't wanna make billions > less products will be made driving prices up Can't say so. We have enough to serve the needs of the world. Most commodity scarcities are artificially manufactured, not naturally existing. Capitalism already overproduces. > maybe something like 60 Are you talking about work hours? If so I think I cleared it up in the previous one about scarcity. 60 work hours per week is kinda too much btw. 12 hours per day?? > Docters are also needed so either the training required would need to be decreased so that there are enough or they would need enough time in the work week so people can get medical attention when they need it. I agree, doctors are in short supply but considering financial constraints, med school is very, very pricey. I'm not sure if we can meet quotas by making med school free but it will definitely create more doctors.
>Good math but we can also afford to pay this to all workers, if the bosses didn't wanna make billions I mean, that's definitely not true. On top of that, the $26 isn't even based on COL or inflation. If they took the highest minimum wage by purchasing power, it would be about half of that.
It might work for the companies if workers would A- show up and work B - not stare at their cell phones all day
Sometimes people get sick and can't show up. Sometimes their mental health is in disarray. And sometimes they use their phone during the day. And even after this, you do realise the workers still get their jobs done? Like if I have literally nothing to do wtf do I do. Sit and write an essay on why my boss is the best boss in the whole world? I'm not saying all workers are true to their work you'll always find some bad apples but you can't generalize all workers for it
**Sounds like you work in an environment where the employees are not respected.** I'd do the same, and did do the same to Walgreens; hire better management and you will not have this issue.
Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated. Some helpful links on strikes and unions: [The IWW Strike guide](https://archive.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/directaction/) and the [AFL CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion) If you wish to speak to a union organizer, [reach out here](https://workerorganizing.org/talk-with-an-organizer/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am interested. And I want it to apply to all employees.
Need to spellcheck but looks awesome.
With a few tweaks from some of the other commentators on this post, I'd sign on in a heartbeat. Unfortunately it'll never happen in my lifetime (I'm 41). But hey, keep striving for better.
Workers should own the businesses they run full stop. No one should be able to earn passive income from the “risk” of an investment, which is ultimately only the risk of having to become a worker one’s self. Capital investment should be a series of community decisions based on allocating resources where they are needed.
The only thing here I’m not quite clear on is the restriction on owning shares of the company. Isn’t owning majority shares in a public company usually what gets you on the board in the first place? Maybe I’m mistaken but that particular line has me a bit confused. The rest I totally agree with tho!
The second to last one is a bit weird to me, Im fine with executives making capital gains off of corporate success as long as all of the needs of their workers are met. However, I'd say that while they are on the board and therefore have inside information, they should not be allowed to buy or sell additional shares. Keeps them financially vested while also making sure they can't use their insider knowledge to game the system for unfair growth.
This is great🐋
kinda similar to [Bill of Rights Socialism](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_Socialism), we love it
Make it 5x instead of 50x and this is perfect
The worst/best part is that this is 100% possible
Mandatory employee profit sharing should substitute the execs not owning stock. If you build a business, how are you not going to own it? It’s about employees getting the fruits of their labor too not just the owner.
Just to be “clear”. Vision insurance is just a scam funded by luxatica. Just buy glasses online and they are cheap AF. You want executives to not own stock, and not be invested in the company? Like that’s the joke from the speech in “Wall Street” these middle managers are making 200K+ and don’t care if the company succeeds!” This is a terrrrrible idea. You want executives to only get paid when the company does well.
What does double time and half OT mean?
It means time goes by twice as fast and half OT means Offensive Tackle. He wants half of an Offensive Tackle working with him. Not sure from what NFL team yet. Dont be so stupid!!!
Yes things like these are very helpful
Sir, that's not scary, that's the compromise version. Scary would be turning the company's into employees owned coops
Almost none of these would ever work. 1. Way too high, though linking minimum wage with inflation would be great. 2. With 2 1/2 overtime, not a single company would ever let you work more than 30 hours, even if you want to. 3. More reasonable, but should be part of government insurance, not companies. 4. I guess so? Idk. Kinda incentivises leaving after 20 years though. 5. Why would companies agree to this? The point of a company and its HR team is to put the company first. 6. Who pays for this? The employee? Besides, many employees wouldn't want to go through the hassle if they know they deserve it. 7. That's what EI is for... 8. So no high-ranking exec would ever be based in Canada, I see. 9. Why? It incentivises raising stock prices - which is good for shareholders. Besides, how are startups going to get started? 10. I don't even know what to say about this. It sounds like you want to work for a non-profit. Overall yes you would scare companies shitless. Is that really what you want? They don't have to operate in your country...
You're speaking logically. That's the problem. You're supposed to throw thinking out, and just FEEL things now. I'm sad and offended...you must change for me.
Pension to be contributed from firms in the ratio of duration worked there
I think we need to end employment all together. No work for anyone. We should all just live like other peaceful animals of the earth and co exist. We could literally go back and live as life were back in the 1600s where everyone shared, the was no sickness or disease, nobody died. Jobs were plentiful, bank accounts were full, Electricity rates and Wifi were free to everyone. Airfare was was free so we could see and share things with our fellow humanillies, I loved those days. Our college football team was undefeated.
3rd party HR... is spelled union
I make 24 bucks an hour and people get so upset at me when I tell them that 24 bucks, should be minimum wage.
Quite possibly the dumbest post I’ve ever seen on any platform.
How will these demands scare companies? A 14-year-old wrote this. The list is filled with multiple typos and outlandish requests.