PC Gaming

8805 readers

348 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

287

That lawsuit against Steam’s 30% cut of game sales is now a class action, meaning many other developers could benefit (www.rockpapershotgun.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

301 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

the overwhelming majority of businesses are not ran by the workers themselves.

And do you have any sources to back up your assertion that that's because they "don't work"? Because the way I see it it could just as well be our current legal systems and societal incentive structures that prevent them from being more of a thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Amongst the top 100 most valuable companies, not a single one is ran as a worker collective. If we extend it to the top 1000 most valuable companies, we have mondragon, the IFFCO and CHS. Which is still only 3 of 1000. I don't know how much more of a source you need.

current legal systems

The current legal system doesn't do anything to prevent worker-ran companies.

societal incentive structures

Dunno what you mean by that tbh.

In the end, too many cooks spoil the broth. Worker collectives suffer exactly from that problem. On top of that, many people don't WANT to be a part of their company. They want to work 4 - 8 hours, get their safe salary and move on. If the company goes bankrupt, they move on and don't want to be personally liable. On top of that, having a company with a lot of employees that all have an equal say in matters makes such companies extremely inflexible.

I legit never met anyone IRL with a job that was claiming that worker collectives are the greatest thing ever, it's only on lemmy or other lefty online communities where this statement is spread.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Amongst the top 100 most valuable companies, not a single one is ran as a worker collective. [...] I don't know how much more of a source you need.

I didn't ask for sources that they're not a thing, I asked for sources on the reasons for that.

The current legal system doesn't do anything to prevent worker-ran companies.

I'm a startup owner (in Germany) who has looked at the possibility of making my company worker-owned. It is serious effort and comes with a lot of hurdles, tax headaches, etc., because the legal system is not generally made with that kind of company structure in mind, much less the transition into it. It is very easy to start a company with the default capitalist structure of one or a few owners/investors, it requires magnitudes more to do it the worker-owned way (and do it right). But sure tell me again how the legal system is impartial in that matter.

In the end, too many cooks spoil the broth.

That's assuming that everyone wants to have a say in everything, and that there are no good internal structures for dividing and assigning responsibility. You can still have individual people who steer the ship, who make autonomous decisions in certain areas, etc. The difference being that they're selected by their peers, rather than through a management hierarchy, and they answer to their peers, rather than their managers and/or investors.