You’re living in a townhouse as part of an apartment complex. The apartment complex has benefits such as a pool and hot tub, indoor gym, full size basketball court, a library, and a garden. You have 2 other roommate/coworkers, and you have 6 neighbor/coworkers. A Labor neutrality agreement is guaranteed, and both tenant unions and labor unions will be voluntarily recognized.

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    17 days ago

    We tried this before, they were called company towns and they got banned because they’re a horrifically abusive practice.

    Imagine living around the same people you work with. Imagine a company that won’t even let you take a piss break having control over your housing situation. Imagine getting fired and having to move out of your apartment the same day.

    • ChunderBustickles@piefed.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 days ago

      wouldn’t this have a different (slightly?) outcome if there were actual workers protection legislation? I’m pointing out how the whole ‘fire at will’ BS is flat-out inhumane…

      I could see this working in NZ where it’s challenging to sack people unless they’re outright fraudulent or hostile, for example

      • architect@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        16 days ago

        No because everything will slowly be chipped away from you. There’s not a single country on earth that will be immune to that. $15 an hour 5 years later, 10 years later… having to fight for that raise. Having to deal with moving goalposts to keep your housing. Yall have lost your fucking minds thinking you’re immune to this.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        Sure, but why have it in the first place? Better if jobs just pay people enough to afford housing. That gives workers more options.

  • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    17 days ago

    You have 2 other roommate/coworkers, and you have 6 neighbor/coworkers.

    Immediate end of question for me.

    I need a good separation of work and private times/places. Coworkers are not automatically friends.

    • Weirdfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      17 days ago

      Being able to live alone is one of the most important things to me. If I want someone in my space, it’s my choice.

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        I just need a small room to myself with the only agreement being to keep things quiet. My last roommate situation was fine. We had a big common area, but he only used it on dates, mostly we just stayed in our rooms.

        Language is a bit of problem. “Roommates” can mean literally sharing a room, or it can mean sharing an apartment with separate bedrooms.

  • GreatWhiteBuffalo41@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    This is what we call a company town. Soon you won’t get real money, just monopoly money you can only use at the company store. No thanks.

    I know that’s not exactly what you’re scenario is saying but, feels too slippery of a slope for me personally.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      I was gonna say, this sounds like a company town. I’ve seen some videos on company towns and they’re fairly glamorous tbh, I forget the drawbacks, I’m sure it has its drawbacks.

      • GreatWhiteBuffalo41@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        16 days ago

        In old school mining company towns the drawback was that they didn’t pay you in real money. They paid you in essentially monopoly money. The currency they gave you was only usable at places owned by the company. The issue becomes, you don’t like your job and want to leave? You have no money. You can’t leave.

    • architect@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 days ago

      It is one step back into this. It’s something we fight and died over in the past as workers only for these people to bring it back up again as a perk.

      We learned this in school so I’m assuming the younger gens aren’t learning any history at all unless it’s a lie “Trump fought wwii single handedly!”

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          D’oh! I think I stopped reading and responded early. I hate it when people do that, my bad.

          There are cases where whatever business just has a residence in an otherwise private area. Or at least have been. OP didn’t specify either way about the surroundings, though.

          • GreatWhiteBuffalo41@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            They did state some more info in a comment that I saw after I made my post. Regardless, I would be wary but, it wouldn’t be a no if there were good checks and balances

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      I have more details in other threads, but it’s distinct from a company town in that the job is paid by the government, the housing is provided independently of the job, and the housing is controlled by the people who live there

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        If that were the case then why would your roommates and neighbors be fellow employees? Also how would the government afford said housing if they’re also subsidizing the company you work for to allow them to be competitive for employees while only paying $15/hr?

      • GreatWhiteBuffalo41@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        Your scenario sounds like it at least has checks and balances which is the only way this could work without employees getting screwed.

      • architect@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        How do you save money to leave if you want to? That’s where the difference will be and at $15 an hour… you’re never leaving.

  • architect@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    Indentured servitude? Company owned housing? What am I, dumb as fuck? Well, I might be dumb but not as fuck.

    But i am convinced the younger gens will be fooled by something like this and sign themselves away into slavery again.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    You basically just described the army. Except the pay is probably lower. And labor union lol.

  • radiofreebc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    I used to work on cruise ships. I worked over 80 hours a week, and was making $1075/mth.

    That’s about $13.50/hr.

    But, i had room and board paid for (but had a roommate), and actually saved money during that time.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      No lol it’s an idea I’ve had that I want to propose to my state to handle the housing crisis. Basically make really nice apartments with a lot of amenities nearby, and then hire librarians, maintenance crews, and social workers. The folks that rent have payments set to pay off the cost of construction plus an emergency repair fund with no profit margin

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              I’m not going to go to government, I’m going to go to tenant unions and housing advocates and get their support, then use my union connections to get time with the AG

              • Maeve@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 days ago

                Anything to alleviate problems. Good lick getting anything like it. If they allow anything like it, it most likely won’t look the way you imagine, by a longshot.

              • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 days ago

                I’m saying that you think the government cares about homeless people enough to, you know, HOUSE them.

                Providing housing is a pretty basic concept, and not in anyway new. We have several types of housing programs, ALL of them desperately underfunded.

                You are expecting a housing program that is much more convoluted and complicated and expensive but probably no more effective to be implemented. Why?

          • architect@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            So this sounds like low income housing. Which they can’t afford. Because we already can’t afford to pay for this kind of stuff in nicer areas.

            Do you allow dogs? Cats? Children? What if someone is allergic that is rooming with someone else? What if someone destroys the house because they don’t see value in something they aren’t paying for? Apartments have people coming in to take advantage you can’t even out toilet paper out because it would get stolen. My last middle class apartment smelled like piss in the hallways. One person was housing wild animals. There’s a reason why the state has its housing set up like it is.

            Does it sound wonderful in theory yeah. Can I think of 1 million reasons on how to take advantage of that? also yeah.

      • disregardable@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 days ago

        It’s going about the problem the opposite way. People should be paid sufficient wages to afford housing. In general, the jobs that provide housing are in apartment complexes or hospitality, so they already own livable units as part of their business. If you’re constructing units for no reason other than providing a place to live, you should give your employees sufficient pay to have the freedom to manage their own living conditions.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          Nah, this is distinct from a halfway house, it’s a government funded nonmarket housing. Social workers are so people have access to basic therapy, not to retrain people. The people that live there need to pay rent, but the apartment complex is managed by a board of residents that are elected

  • farmgineer@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    16 days ago

    You have 2 other roommate

    Absolutely not.

    Japan does have some employers who pay for housing. It ends up a nightmare when they are fired or otherwise leave.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      The housing is provided independently of the job, the person just has to pay their share of rent if they quit

      • farmgineer@nord.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        16 days ago

        In that case, this just sounds needlessly complicated. Much like US health insurance, why is the business involved here at all at this point? Just make it socialized, taxpayer-funded housing to ensure all have basic housing. People can opt out and live somewhere else, but they still owe the tax to keep the program going.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Just make it socialized

          That is the idea, but the point is that once the construction cost is paid for, then the apartment gets managed by the people who live there

  • jaykrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    16 days ago

    Nope, roommate is a big nope. Give me a 1 bedroom to myself and yes I’d accept that deal. $15/hr with a 1b1b covered completely is a fair deal.

  • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    16 days ago

    No way, absolutely not. Even if I subtract my mortgage payments from my salary, $15/hr still less than a third of my remaining income. Plus, I have a wife and kid. We aren’t all fitting in a townhouse with two roommates.

    Also, I don’t think I can go back to apartment living. I don’t like neighbors or people.

  • scytale@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    17 days ago

    When I first read the title, I assumed the housing wasn’t shared. And even then, I would’ve said no unless utilities and maintenance were covered as well, because $15/hour is still low to actually live comfortably. But with roommates? Even more so no, unfortunately.