Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Plebs-_-Placebo t1_jcbjd04 wrote

Reply to comment by AceWanker3 in A tech boss appointed by Italy's prime minister resigned after quoting a speech from fascist dictator Mussolini in an internal email by 777fer

I once worked with a boss who said about the job, this is a dictatorship not a democracy, and he wasn't really joking.

9

AceWanker3 t1_jcbmat7 wrote

Yeah, and you can leave. Obviously a company isn't a democracy, if you think it should be you are delusional

2

colonel_beeeees t1_jcc5kw5 wrote

Leaving an uncontrollable situation isn't exerting control over a situation

The vast majority of American workers have no real democratic say in their working schedule, environment, or compensation. They spend the majority of their waking life under authoritarian rules

The already mentioned exceptions would be union or co-op workplaces, where workers actually have control/negotiating power

−2

CoolPractice t1_jccotrg wrote

Having agency is the definition of exerting control. No one is holding you hostage at work. If you hate the rules and the situation, leave. Start your own business like millions of Americans do. Find a better job, like millions of Americans do. Study for certs/diplomas if you have to, like millions of Americans do.

It’s incredibly naive to think unions or co-ops don’t have presidents and boards at the top making the important moves. Deciding which votes are made, for what. The IATSE strike threat was a perfect example of this: the workers were in a great dealmaking position when the union leaders drafted a deal that failed to address core issues. It’s always top down, in every situation. The only real solution is to be the decision maker.

Or to simply accept that life doesn’t allow you have 100% of the power 100% of the time.

−1

AceWanker3 t1_jccgemz wrote

It's not authoritarian if it's part of a voluntary exchange. It's like playing monopoly and then complaining that you can't pick where you land, if you hate the rules don't play.

−2

colonel_beeeees t1_jccvq95 wrote

When the alternative to what someone's offering is homeless and starvation, the exchange is no longer voluntary. Hence the term wage slavery

What do you do if no employer in your town is paying a wage that covers the bills? Use your power to leave... to where?

2

AceWanker3 t1_jccxij7 wrote

another town, start a business. If you are angry that you do in fact need to provide the stuff in life you want (food/shelter) then you're problem is with the state of nature

0

colonel_beeeees t1_jcd49n2 wrote

How do you move you and your family to the high paying town with high rents if you haven't been able to find a job that lets you save?

You're also ignoring the again large amount it requires to start a business, when you haven't been able to save. All it takes is a subpar credit score to keep someone from getting a loan

The actual long-term solution is to work to unionize your workplace, or move to co-op/public ownership. Why run from a problem when you can fix it?

1

sosomething t1_jcdyqms wrote

Well here's the awesome thing about geography- there's lots of it.

You don't have to live in a place with a high cost of living.

In most of those places; coastal cities, Chicago, NY; the increase in your wages isn't commensurate with the increased cost of living compared to an emerging city or town. Someone making $80k in Cincinnati lives a lot better than the same person making $120k in Chicago. And that's only if your skills are the type that aren't marketable in towns without a tech sector. Although with emergent decentralized workforces and remote work, even that is becoming less of a factor.

I could do my job from anywhere with a halfway decent ISP, which means I could do it for any company that wanted to hire me and then live more or less wherever I wanted. Why, then, would I choose to pay $2000/mo for a shitty apartment in a major city when I could live like a king somewhere else?

0