So workers are going to get more duties and responsibilities but without an increase in pay. Cool.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
102 points (100.0% liked)
labour
7702 readers
12 users here now
One big comm for one big union! Post union / labour related news, memes, questions, guides, etc.
Here Are Some Resources to help with organizing and direct action
:red-fist:
- The IWW's list of Resources
- AFL-CIO guide on union organizing
- libcom.org
- Labour Notes
- The Union-Busting Playbook
And More to Come!
If you want to speak to a union organizer, reach out here.
:iww: :big-bill: :sabo:
Rules:
-
Follow The Hexbear Code of Conduct.
-
No anti-union content, especially from the right. Critiques and discussions of different organizing strategies is fine.
-
Don’t dox yourself or others.
-
Labour Party content goes in [email protected], [email protected], or a :dumpster-fire:.
When we fight we win!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah but no firewall between management who actually make the decisions that materially impact their lives.
Much easier to know whose house to go to now if things get bad
But surely they’ll be paid more for all the extra labor. I’m positive that the generous pharmaceutical CEO will share all the gains with his workers whom he loves very dearly. He’ll give them all hugs and kisses too ❤️ 💋
Wait till the workers figure out that they can just get rid of the owners
I'm sure this will turn out great for the capitalists if it ends up becoming a trend
p.s. please socialize the means of production too just for the memes, a redditor told me it's profitable for big businesses
wtf is dynamic shared ownership do the workers own the company or not?
This isn't ownership of capital. Creating value for someone else is unchanged.
This is all corporate speak, the words don't actually mean what he's saying. "Dynamic" is corporate speak for "undefined shit", and "shared" means "it's your problem," and "ownership" means "your responsibility." So, "dynamic shared ownership" is "undefined shit is your problem and responsibility."
i'm seriously confused by the framing here. Bayer is a publicly traded company. removing some levels of the hierarchy isn't worker-management. unless the workers can, for example, vote to remove Anderson, this is just power consolidation by the top execs and the board of directors.
It's the typical 'Privatization and concentration of profits, socialization of costs and responsibilities.'
Yeah but corpo speak doesn't need to concern itself with actual meanings of words. So long as they confuse you enough to let them slide their hand in your pocket they are happy to be scolded on using language incorrectly.
I hope this means we get like entire divisions that the company forgets it has and so people can do nothing and get paid their salary because nobody higher up remembers they exist and the bookkeeper who would notice the pay going somewhere was also let go.
I hope it makes them a ton of money, so other companies adopt the idea too, before they find out what else workers do when they're self-organizing.
Reminds of what T-Mobile started doing; are they going to improve the service, make it cheaper for customers, pay their workers better, etc? No.
Will they be adding stupid shit like T-Mobile Tuesdays, and have a "cool" and "hip" ceo to basically talk down to anyone that asks for the aforementioned things while simultaneously insisting that the company is "going in a direction"? Absolutely.
hint
You don’t need the CEO 🥰
Shame that the CEO in question inherently has the army of the state on his side
rest in piss useless assholes lol
Death to America
This sounds like PR speak for "we're laying off a bunch of middle managers cuz we wanna re-proletarianize our workforce"
If the post war boom is what created the middle manager as we know them today, it kinda makes sense that they’d be up on the chopping block in capitalism’s decline.
On the flip side this can better entrench and defend capital in the long term. You create organized labor aristocrats that will fight and die against burgeoning socialist movements as they sprout up. This was a tactic used against the Sandinistas, and why you get sound bites of Reagan sounding pro labor.
based, can't find money to finance disciplining force on the labor 
that will teach a german chemical company to acquire an american chemical company. the US is the dumpster market where the countries with even the most mild environmental protections can still sell their banned chemistries, claim they are safe, and direct them to be sprayed all over the faces of infants.
buying monsanto and its liabilities was an all time boner move.
I've seen more than one non-American company buy a US company from the inside. My firm opinion is that you should only ever do this if you're willing to gut the entire upper leadership of the US subsidiary at the first hint of bullshit. Nothing combines ignorance and arrogance like the American managerial class.
Based?
Yo what the fuck? That sounds like a great idea? What's the deal??!
The workers self-organize into effective working teams but do they control political lobbying? Define profit sharing agreements? Can they reduce their working hours? Can they argue against "fiduciary duty" bullshit of stock owners > all.
"I have the new memo from corporate and it just says... 'do anarchism'? What does that even mean?"