Corporations aren't people, but people and corporations *do* share some characteristics. Whether you're a human being or an immortal sinister colony organism that uses humans as gut flora (e.g. a corporation), most of us need to pay the rent and cover our other expenses.
--
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
pluralistic.net/2025/11/10/zer…
1/
reshared this
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
"Earning a living" is a fact of life for humans and for corporations, and in both cases, the failure to do so can have dire consequences. For most humans, the path to earning a living is in selling your labor: that is, by finding a job, probably with a corporation. In taking that job, you assume *some* risk - for example, that your boss might be a jerk who makes your life a living hell, or that the company will go bust and leave you scrambling to make rent.
2/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
The corporation takes a risk, too: you might be an ineffectual or even counterproductive employee who fails to work its capital to produce a surplus from which a profit can be extracted. You might also fail to show up for work, or come in late, and lower the productivity of the firm (say, because another worker will have to cover for you and fall behind on their own work). You could even quit your job.
3/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Both workers and corporations seek to "de-risk" their position. Workers can vote for politicians who will set minimum wages, punish unsafe working conditions and on-the-job harassment, and require health and disability insurance. They can also unionize and get some or all of these measures through collective bargaining (they might even get *more* protections, such as workplace tribunals to protect them from jobsite harassment).
4/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
These are all examples of measures that shift risk from workers to capital. If a boss hires or promotes an abusive manager or cuts corners on shop-floor safety, the company - not the workers - will ultimately have to pay the price for its managers' poor judgment.
Bosses *also* strive to de-risk their position, by shifting the risk onto *workers*.
5/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
For example, bosses love noncompete clauses in contracts, which let them harness the power of the government to punish workers their workers for changing jobs, and other bosses for hiring them. Given a tight noncompete, a boss can impose such high costs on workers who quit that they will elect to stay, even in the face of degraded working conditions, inadequate pay, and abusive management:
pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its…
6/
Pluralistic: 02 Feb 2022 – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netZhi Zhu 🕸️ reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
If you have $250,000 worth of student debt and your boss has coerced you into signing a noncompete, that means that quitting your job will see you excluded for three years (or longer) from the field you paid all that money to get a degree in, but you will still be expected to pay your loans over that period. Missing the loan payments means sky-high penalties, which is how you get situations where you borrow $79k, pay back $190k, and *still owe* $236k:
pluralistic.net/2020/12/04/kaw…
7/
Pluralistic: 04 Dec 2020 – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Bosses can also coerce workers into signing contracts with "training repayment agreement provisions" (TRAPs), which force workers to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of quitting their job. Put this in stark economic terms: if your boss can fine you $5,000 for quitting your job, he can impose $4,999 worth of risk on you without risking your departure:
pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its…
8/
Pluralistic: 04 Aug 2022 – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netZhi Zhu 🕸️ reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Bosses also enter into illegal, secret "no poach" agreements whereby they all agree not to hire one another's workers. One particularly pernicious version of this is the "bondage fee," where a staffing agency will demand that all its clients agree never to hire one of its contractors.
9/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
In NYC, the majority of "doorman buildings" use a staffing agency called Planned Companies, a subsidiary of Toronto-based Firstservice, whose standard contract contains a bondage fee provision. The upshot is that pretty much every doorman building is legally on the hook for huge cash fines if they hire pretty much anyone who has worked as a doorman anywhere in the city:
pluralistic.net/2023/04/21/bon…
10/
Pluralistic: How workers get trapped by “bondage fees”; Red Team Blues Chapter One, part five (21 Apr 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netZhi Zhu 🕸️ reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Again, this is a form of de-risking for capital. By creating barriers to workers quitting their jobs, bosses can reduce the risk that their workers will quit, even if the pay and working conditions are inadequate.
One of the most profound, effective and pervasive sites of de-risking is the gig economy, in which workers are not guaranteed *any* wages.
11/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
By paying workers on a piecework basis - where you are only paid if a customer appears and consumes some of your labor - bosses can shift the risks associated with bad marketing, bad planning, and bad pricing onto their workers.
Think of an Uber driver: when an Uber driver clocks into the app, they make the whole system more valuable. Each additional Uber driver on the road shortens the average wait time for a taxi.
12/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
What's more, Uber's algorithmic wage discrimination allows the company to pay lower wages when there are more workers available:
pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/alg…
Lots of companies have hit on the strategy of increasing staffing levels in order to increase customer satisfaction.
13/
Pluralistic: Gig apps trap reverse centaurs in wage-stealing Skinner boxes (12 Apr 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
If you're a hardcore frequent flier, your chosen airline will give you a special number you can call to speak to a human in a matter of seconds, without ever being shunted to a chatbot. This is a gigantic perk - especially if you're flying at a time when air traffic controllers are quitting in droves because they haven't been paid in a month, and thousands of flights are being canceled, leaving travelers scrambling to get rebooked:
thedailybeast.com/air-traffic-…
14/
Air Traffic Controllers Start Resigning as Shutdown Bites
Adam Downer (The Daily Beast)Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
The airline that creates the secret, heavily staffed call center for its biggest customers is making a bet that those customers will spend enough money with the airline to cover the wage of those call-center employees. If the company bets wrong, it pays the penalty, taking a net loss on the call center.
15/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
But what if the airline could switch to a "gig economy" call center like Arise, a pyramid scheme that ropes in primarily Black women who have to pay for the privilege of answering phones, *and* pay for the privilege of quitting, but who can be fired at any time?
pluralistic.net/2020/10/02/chi…
16/
Pluralistic: 02 Oct 2020 – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netZhi Zhu 🕸️ reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Well, in that case the airline could tap an effectively limitless pool of call-center workers who could keep its best customers happy, but *without* taking the risk that the wages for those workers will exceed the new business brought in by those frequent fliers.
17/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Instead, that risk is borne by the workers, who have to pay for their own training, and whose pay can be doled out on a piecework basis, only paying them when someone calls in, but not paying them to simply be available *in case* someone calls in.
This isn't merely an employer de-risking its position: rather, the company is *shifting its risk* onto its workers.
18/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
By deploying the legal fiction of worker misclassification in which an employee is classed as an "independent contractor," the boss can shift *all* the risk of misallocating labor onto workers.
In other words, risk-shifting isn't eliminating risk, it's just moving it around. Remember: both the corporation and the humans who work for it have to earn a living. They both need money for rent and other bills, and they both face dire consequences if they fail to pay those bills.
19/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
When your boss misclassifies you as a contractor and only pays you when there's a customer for your labor, the boss is shifting the risk that they won't be able to pay the rent (because they hired too many workers or marketed their product badly) to you. If your boss screws up, *they* can still pay the rent - because you won't be able to pay yours.
That's what bosses mean by a "flexible workforce": a workforce that is coerced into assuming risk that properly belongs to bosses.
20
Zhi Zhu 🕸️ reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
After all, if you get into your car and clock onto the Uber app and fail to get a fare, whose fault is that?
Uber *bosses* have all kinds of levers they can pull to increase ridership: they can reduce fares, they can advertise, they can even ping Uber riders directly through the app. What can an Uber *driver* do to increase the likelihood that they will get a fare? Absolutely, positively *nothing*.
21/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
But who assumes the risk if a driver cruises the streets for hours, burning gas, not earning elsewhere, and not making a dime? The driver.
Uber alone determines the conditions for drivers, including how many drivers they will allow to be on the streets at the same time. Uber alone has the aggregated statistics with which to estimate likely ridership. Uber alone has the ability to entice more riders to hail cars.
22/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Yet it is Uber *drivers* who bear responsibility if Uber fucks any of this up, and Uber *does* fuck it up, so badly that the true average driver wage (the wage for hours in the car, not just when there's a passenger in there with you) is *$2.50/hour*:
pluralistic.net/2024/02/29/geo…
This is what it means to shift risk. Uber doesn't have to be disciplined about its fares or its staffing levels or its marketing, because its workers can be made to pay the penalties for its mistakes.
23/
Pluralistic: Lies, damned lies, and Uber (29 Feb 2024) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netZhi Zhu 🕸️ reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
It's like this throughout the gig economy: the rise and rise of a massive "flexible workforce" is actually the rise and rise of a system in which labor assumes capital's risk.
Capital's story about a "flexible workforce" is that the risk is somehow magicked away when you can reclassify a worker as a contractor, but that's not true.
24/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
A business that can only secure its sustained operations by shifting risk to its workers is a corporation that only exists because the workers who produce its profits assume the risks for its managers' blunders.
25/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
I'm on a tour with my new book, the international bestseller *Enshittification*!
Catch me next in #Lisbon, #Cardiff, #Oxford and #London!
Full schedule with dates and links at:
pluralistic.net/tour
26/
Pluralistic: Announcing the Enshittification tour (30 Sep 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Image:
Cryteria (modified)
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil…
CC BY 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b…
eof/
File:HAL9000.svg - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.orgSemitones
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •testing unroll mastodon.social/@mastoreaderio
and seeing how it compares to simply awitching apps to a browser and typing in pluralistic.net
(Edit: I guess I didn't invoke it right...)
Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow – No trackers, no ads. Black type, white background. Privacy policy: we don't collect or retain any data at all ever period.
pluralistic.netCat West
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
huntingdon
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Sensitive content
Dr Susi Arnott
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@pluralistic
"...what bosses mean by a "flexible workforce": a workforce that can coerced into assuming risk that properly belongs to its employers"
A motto for professional freelancers used to be 'remember to get paid for being available': complete opposite of 'gig economy' exploitation. Jeez, check my privilege
Cory Doctorow reshared this.