The wind creaks the house
As the cold front settles in
My old bones ache too
Back home with my lover
Arms tangled and breath is shared
Returned from groceries
@lucifargundam ugh. If I didn't have to watch the fake spectacle and we just got right to the random numbers it would actually be better
@Rkfatheree haven't seen it, will have to add it to my list
@JamesHMcLaren oooh. Good catch! It's not the ragged tragedy of death, but something more bittersweet. But still with an unrecoverable loss, so the judges say "yes"
@rataflechera oh absolutely. The members selected to the board will not have an easy time. But! It's not about whether there will be conflict, but about being better to have no representation or conflicted representation? (Using conflict of interest in a colloquial and non-legal sense)
@rataflechera it wouldn't create any conflicts of interest, no. There is nothing wrong with employees owning equity. In fact, at the executive level, long term goals are often rewarded with equity.
But to "why" ... At its core, organization (unions) is a way of leveraging small amounts of power. It's also backed by a one-time ultimatum: meet our demands or we walk. The Board, among other things, hires the CEO. So it's a large amount of power and it's backed by power that isn't an ultimatum. It's "which CEO should we hire?" or "meet our demands or *you* walk"
Dunno if I've said this in mastodon yet, so here goes:
EVERY union should have an explicit goal for % of board seats to control and the funding for this should be separate from all other pooled funds.
This may mean stock purchases on the open market, it may mean negotiating with institutional investors to punch above your weight. For unions at privately held companies, you should be first in line any time there is a whiff of equity being raised OR credit being sought.
Did you see The Expanse on Amazon Prime or did you read the books by James S A Corey? I can't help but think about Holden as I watch Twitter implode, and just how absolutely right the character was.
The refrain in the series is: two (or more) powers are in conflict, it's about to get existential and winner-take-all. Then ol' Jimmy Holden wanders in and forces them to stop fighting. He doesn't ask them to play nice, he forces them into a stable equilibrium.
His main drive as a character is that anyone who thinks they have all the answers is both wrong and a tyrant in the making (or already made). And I just hear that over and over with Musk. How he has the answers, then we see that his answers are simplistic and bound to fail when confronted with a complex reality.
Like Holden, I believe the only way is to empower stakeholders at various levels. It's the only way to ensure your plan will fit a complex reality. Unfortunately, it means everyone's great idea is revealed as garbage and it's emotionally and egoistically very difficult
@Drosmel it's only a 170 yard stare in cat yards
@hyperplanes or at least, that's my understanding of why
@hyperplanes piercing the corporate veil was like driving under an overpass
Abandoned lot
Ring fence chained potential
The children play there
Gentle first flurry
Windblown flakes' caressing touch
Soft, so you want more
@senj great format. I'm definitely going to start asking Christian friends what apostle number they are and if they're using the Catholic or the Orthodox count