ColonelSanders

I don't see it that way.

I only gave ideas. My first word was, "Idea". And even for the ideas I gave, the replies were vague and didn't cite examples of why the hypothetical was a no go.

If I were to guess, the thought experiment was so different - it brought unease.

Which in itself is valuable to me. People are willing to accept extreme unfairness - even if it is harmful to people (layoffs) - if they can ease their anxiety and socially conform.

> laying off workers to make the business competitive results in having your salary clawed back for three years.

If the company goes out of business due to inefficiency - then the market will supply another one that can treat workers and investors well.

And maybe it should be clawback against all assets and profits earned in the CEO's lifetime. That will give them motivation to pay off the spurned employees the fired, then start earning more for themselves.

Since this is all about free markets and scale, we need to have optimistic forecasts. There's a credit against the CEO to pay off the employees due to management failing, but the CEO can always try again in the future to pay off their newly accrued debt by making better decisions for investors and employees.

Imagine - if all management decisions were binded 50% to the welfare of the employee and 50% to profit? Bound by the law? Or face strict liability, financial penalties and possibly criminal charges for causing jeopardy to the workers? That's absolute genius.

It's all about how we define competition. What if competition is redefined to imply responsibility and obligation to caretake for workers, and every business on Earth is subject to it? What's wrong with that?

I'm not saying CEO's and management shouldn't have their traditional responsibilities.

What's wrong with a windfall to make sure employees are protected. If a layoff is needed, clearly the CEO's leadership had issues - so something needs to done proportionally as severance.

A large change in the lives of employees needs a large annuity fund for the laid off workers. The company can file a loan and pay it out over the next few years. Which will improve the credit score of the company.

Here's another idea, for the sake of a thought experiment: the CEO may need to be fired for not assuring rising salaries and benefits for the workforce. A two-tiered performance system. Employees share voting rights along with the board, and it's by statute so all businesses must comply with it.

Why not consider factoring in laborer's collective time and personal life circumstances as human beings into the equation?

Idea:

Whenever there are furloughs or layoff, any payouts or profits for the C-Suite and managers that are higher the average employee, is put into an annuity for the laid off employees.

So if a CEO makes 30,000,000, and the average worker is paid 125,000. A 29,875,000 fund will be made to deposit a monthly check into the bank of the fired employees. This includes any profits made from selling stocks.

To avoid loopholes and ensure enforcement, CEO's waive personal financial privacy, giving regulators full access into international finance accounts and to withdraw from those account debt due to workers. The lookback/forward time can be tweaked to go up to 36 months to ensure it's not worked around.

This will retain employees - while simultaneously keep businesses operating profitably.

Additionally, if there are any dividends by the company, any employees who worked a certain time (even if fired) are entitled to payout, since they're part of the collective. This shows appreciation for the employees which boosts performance - they know a successful quarter will have their success kept - not given only to investors.

I appreciate your concerns and I think you're doing the right thing!

May I ask which countries you're referring to?

In USA, I know immigrants who are awarded medallions via lottery and who take a loan and pay off their medallion - like an investment. It potentially helps them break into the middle class.

The medallion ended up becoming an entity that was stable that the freelance economy would peg to something. Not saying it was perfect, but it prevented the system from being flooded with drivers.

NYC medallions used to be $1m in 2013. They're less the $200k these days. There's consequences to people who were just starting out, who saved for medallions, who now have their investment paid for over decades lost.

Working and earning something isn't privilege to me, that's gumption. Whenever I see that word online very rarely does it take into account hard work. 20 or 30 years driving 70+ hours a week? And they're an immigrant just trying to live the American dream?

Let them have happiness in life. And we should be celebrating their work and effort. They are absolute heroes for sticking to something so persistently.

Let's talk about fairness for new drivers. Doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of others!

I hope all these raises, unemployment resources, remote work and collectivization measures stick around after. Flexibility is great.

What has all this coronavirus action made me feel?

The virus effects everybody equally (generally there are age things in there)

We're all about austerity of social benefits, "I get mine". How did the wonders of the free market help when we were in trouble?

We don't share nearly enough. We criticize each other too much. We miss opportunities to improve the social system democratically because we fall for the intoxicating allure of being sidetracked by narrow groups pushing to get more, just for them. Enough to break up the vote to give us multi-pronged, layered, comprehensive, and fair social security. The nod to only help one group to spite everyone else draws ire, to keep the cycle repeating as an emotional back and forth. Every time. We don't fix the statutes.

I hope anything that doles out benefits universally sticks around and becomes normal in life, after this.

I hope after this labor and health policies get more generous. Way more generous. And value people for being human beings, without preferential treatment based on who is most this or that. Raise the bar for all natural persons.

An anonymous spinup website. For some reason, some feel the urgency to put affairs into order on when its trending. Not before that, though?

Wouldn't hospitals, WHO, UN, whoever be able to come together with their capital and just buy out a medical company?

Wouldn't this have to also get past regulations? I'm not too sure if I want a kickstarter for medical equipment. I'd love to see medicines and medical equipment made open and maintainable though!

> Saying that they can become managers is like saying they can become the president of the U.S.

I don't think that analogy is proportional, since that'd make a manager at a furniture store on par with a head of state. But I get it, there isn't unlimited management roles. Because if there were, everyone would be on their own.

If you want to influence and shape business decisions - you want to be a manager.

How do you become one? By showing competence as an employee and joining a lower management position. Successes are how they climb the ladder. Yes, they definitely can innovate, and they can also play it safe.

People in upper management also hop between companies and have similar positions.

> Why? The stigma of culture war and political battles aside, why shouldn't employees take part in making business decisions in general?

Basically, no.

That's what's management is for.

They can become manager's if they want to impact that, though.

Are they qualified to understand what they're talking about? If they have a disagreement, is there a reason why they wouldn't raise it via proper channels rather than effect other things that are vital to the organization?

Are they big picture thinkers that have taken the time to digest the system, uninfluenced by social pressures? Some people don't care about their organization's goals, their coworkers, and decide to act out for their own vanity, at everyone else's expense.

And that is one reason why management exists. To answer your question, while they may be wrong, there's a purpose in shielding decision making away from those who lose sight of the org's goals.

The point of the union is when management makes decisions, which can be unfair and uncaring to the worker, that their rights, safety, and livelihood also are represented with fairness. The alternative I offered to you was, in an organization large enough, they could request to move to a different project.

For a union, it's concerning when some things are more tailored to the whims, edge cases, personal niches of the most vocal, rather than shielding the common denominator of the cooperative from management's business decisions.

I'd like to explain what I like, and what I'm concerned about:

> Employees at major American tech and game companies have grown increasingly active and outspoken about workplace issues,

Very union related, that's what unions are for.

> including sexual assault and harassment,

Already unlawful. They are addressable to the NLRB and civil legal system.

> ageism,

That's vague, but there are protections against this

> unequal pay,

Not sure what this means, pay between workers of the same level of seniority performing the same responsibilities? Overtime? A lot of things factor into equal pay. A junior employee isn't going to make as much as a 20 year employee.

> “crunch time” (i.e. long-term overtime and overworking),

Looks right. These are covered in union contracts

> poor treatment of contract workers,

If they have union membership? Wouldn't it be about defining a standard of what a salaried employee is?

> inadequate racial and gender diversity,

What does that mean? Inadequate to whom? What makes those characteristics worthy but other characteristics not?

I find it very hurtful and insensitive to people who struggle, suffer, overcome odds, from difficult upbringings, but not member of some class or facet. Why reduce the struggle, character, and worth of someone down to those things? Where does this come from?

What does this say to your colleagues who don't have these traits? Do they have life easy? Have you walked a mile in their shoes?

> and lack of transparency and inclusion in decision-making around controversial contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

That is not the kind of decision I think employees should be deciding. Though if a larger organization wanted to allow someone to move somewhere else in the org, that seems fair

It's not UBI, it's a rolling stimulus package :)

That money is going to spent. For startups, 100 bucks, 300 bucks, 800 bucks. Some of that is going to go to subscriptions. That's for the digital service economy.

And it's good for early startups - because if someone has spare change, they're going to be willing to take a chance on an up and coming app.