this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
509 points (98.7% liked)

Work Reform

16991 readers
1872 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DiaDeLosMuertos@aussie.zone 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Oh shit right thanks. Yeah that's simply wrong. The absolute minority controlling isn't what voting is about, as we all know.

Get that "let them eat cake" era back and sort that whole damn mess out. What a corrupt entire system.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, what they should have said is that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.

Corporations exist solely to conduct commerce. Any "speech" by a corporation is an act of commerce, and commerce is well within the regulatory authority of Congress.

But that would be reasonable.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.

Which has, itself, not worked out so good. Shareholders and managers hiding behind the corporate veil have done irreparable harm.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim's family takes your house in compensation.

What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership, absent any remnant of the "corporate veil". Liability flows from your partner through the partnership and back to you. It is the corporate veil that isolates the company from the personal actions of its employees, and the employees from the business operations of the company.

There's a little more nuance.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 37 minutes ago* (last edited 35 minutes ago)

The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim’s family takes your house in compensation.

That doesn't logically follow at all.

What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership

You do not have claim on someone's house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation.