• rigatti@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I get the sentiment and I’m all for workers sharing in profits, but what do they really risk by working at a company? Sure, the company can fail and they might be stuck in a bad situation, but shareholders and owners probably have it worse in that scenario, right?

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:

      • Health
      • Time
      • Opportunity (could be working someplace else that’s better)

      These have a lot of dimension to them, including how one quantifies what “pay” actually is/for, what legal restrictions there are around taking the job (e.g. non-compete, non-arbitration), work/life balance, and so on.

      Risk comes into play where the employee takes a bet that the job won’t destroy their health, work only as much as is absolutely necessary, and have taken a position at the optimal balance of responsibility, personal growth, retirement prospects, and income. It’s a risk since there are substantial barriers to changing to a new job, so you can wind up “stuck” in a bad position, but can’t know until after you start.

      • rigatti@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        They don’t lose their life if a company goes under though? I don’t mean to diminish the contribution of workers. I think they need a much higher share of what companies take in, and they need more voices at their companies.

        • Alaik@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I bet there’s far more cases of homeless and suicide due to a lost job than due to a shareholder losing value in one company’s stock.