Could you be a little more specific? Because that sounds extremely hypothetical.
Let’s say you’re working on a crab ship or something where your life is literally at risk. You should absolutely have a say because:
your income depends on your catch (could be zero, could be huge)
you can’t leave
you are wholly dependent on the ship for food and lodging
will be at sea for weeks and maybe months at a time
work ends at the end of the season
So yeah, in that case, something like a coop would make a lot of sense, with the captain (i.e. owner of the ship) having a larger say because they have more at risk. If the crab company goes under, they won’t get paid and they’ll be really hard pressed to find another job between crab seasons.
But something like a cruise ship isn’t a great fit because employees can be offered a fixed salary/wage, the risk is a lot lower, and trip times are a lot shorter. The expense of starting a cruise line is immense, so the owners have a lot more risk than the average employee. If the cruise line goes under, they can just join a competitor or even another business entirely, and they’ll likely still get their paycheck.
Whether you should have a say depends a lot on what you’re risking, the more you risk, the more say you should have.
Could you be a little more specific? Because that sounds extremely hypothetical.
Sorry, I had an idea in the back of my head that made what I wrote seem more grounded. The idea in mind was of a pretty standard non-union American corporate employee. An employee in a nation that doesn’t consistently provide services like healthcare, so many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare.
In any event, isn’t this whole line of discussion awkwardly suggesting at some point a fiscal risk may be more relevant than risk to one’s life/well-being? Shouldn’t monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
Shouldn’t monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
That depends on your definition of “well-being,” as well as the severity of the financial risk. There’s a wide range between “literally risking your life” and “a little discomfort/inconvenience,” just as there is between someone mortgaging their house (risking financial ruin) and some VC tech bro risking other rich people’s money.
Any policy we come up with needs to be sensitive to those extremes. But in general, an individual’s ability to make decisions should be roughly proportional to the risk they’re taking.
many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare
Yeah, that’s ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with employees having a vote. Ideally, benefits like health care should be completely separate from employment. Switching jobs shouldn’t change your coverage… Likewise, you shouldn’t be screwed on retirement savings just because your employer picked a bad plan.
Could you be a little more specific? Because that sounds extremely hypothetical.
Let’s say you’re working on a crab ship or something where your life is literally at risk. You should absolutely have a say because:
So yeah, in that case, something like a coop would make a lot of sense, with the captain (i.e. owner of the ship) having a larger say because they have more at risk. If the crab company goes under, they won’t get paid and they’ll be really hard pressed to find another job between crab seasons.
But something like a cruise ship isn’t a great fit because employees can be offered a fixed salary/wage, the risk is a lot lower, and trip times are a lot shorter. The expense of starting a cruise line is immense, so the owners have a lot more risk than the average employee. If the cruise line goes under, they can just join a competitor or even another business entirely, and they’ll likely still get their paycheck.
Whether you should have a say depends a lot on what you’re risking, the more you risk, the more say you should have.
Sorry, I had an idea in the back of my head that made what I wrote seem more grounded. The idea in mind was of a pretty standard non-union American corporate employee. An employee in a nation that doesn’t consistently provide services like healthcare, so many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare.
In any event, isn’t this whole line of discussion awkwardly suggesting at some point a fiscal risk may be more relevant than risk to one’s life/well-being? Shouldn’t monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
That depends on your definition of “well-being,” as well as the severity of the financial risk. There’s a wide range between “literally risking your life” and “a little discomfort/inconvenience,” just as there is between someone mortgaging their house (risking financial ruin) and some VC tech bro risking other rich people’s money.
Any policy we come up with needs to be sensitive to those extremes. But in general, an individual’s ability to make decisions should be roughly proportional to the risk they’re taking.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with employees having a vote. Ideally, benefits like health care should be completely separate from employment. Switching jobs shouldn’t change your coverage… Likewise, you shouldn’t be screwed on retirement savings just because your employer picked a bad plan.