new | show | ask | jobs Github

TrackerFF 3 hours ago

Obviously the solution here is for workers to also become shareholders.

▲

cool_dude85 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The US has historically been quite opposed to the workers becoming shareholders.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

FloorEgg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except for all the companies that issue shares and options as part of employee compensation.

▲

winfredJa 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

this is mostly in tech. starbucks barista is not going to get any stocks

	▲	BJones12 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Starbucks sells its stock to its baristas at a 5% discount every 90 days through payroll deductions. https://www.starbucksbenefits.com/en-us/home/stock-savings/s...
	▲	charcircuit 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The barista can buy $SBUX every payday. The inverse of sell on vest.

▲

CuriouslyC 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More accurate to say that the US has been opposed to workers controlling the firms they work for. But the capitalists dangling just enough of a morsel to get the workers to dance 80 hours a week, but without the ability to actually control anything, and without majorly diluting? Chef's kiss.

▲

izacus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

None of those gives voting shares to employees.

	▲	BJones12 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Every share is a voting share. There are a small number of weird cases (e.g. Meta super-voting shares limited to Zuck), but your statement is broadly false.
	▲	scottyah 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Even if true, why would that matter? This is about distribution of wealth, not additional responsibilities.