[moe091]

I think people who don't like it are just afraid of where this appears to be heading, and they are just resisting the idea of employers gaining anymore control of other aspects of peoples lives. Of course, the people who do this are technically choosing to give up this control to employers on their own volition, but it's possible to imagine a future where this becomes very normal and difficult to avoid

[arcticbull]

My objection is the additional leverage it grants over employees. If by reporting a safety issue in the workplace, harassment or even just landing on a bad boss I risk getting evicted from my house - I'm going to be far more motivated to suck it up and deal with it. Strike? Eviction. Complain? Eviction. Try to unionize? Turbo-eviction.

Now that's less likely when the employee owns the house as the article says, but that'll change too. And of course it ties your fates together. If the company goes under, your house becomes worthless too. If you want to move to a new employer chances are you'll have to relocate anyways.

I guess next step is company scrip? What's old is new again.

[throwway120385]

In the specific case above you have purchased and own the house. Nobody can evict you. So you're comparing company-owned rental housing to companies buying tracts of land and constructing housing for purchase by employees, which is totally different.

[Animats]

The trouble with owning a house in a company town is that it's hard to sell it. If the company won't buy it back, and they're the only local employer, and employment is declining, you're stuck. This is the story of many coal mining towns in West Virginia.

[smeej]

Yes, but this is true regardless of whether the company helps build the housing.

[thebooktocome]

More likely you have a mortgage, and now there’s all the incentive in the world for the bank backing that mortgage to have a sweetheart arrangement with the company that “sold” you that property.

[ChadNauseam]

Has this ever happened in American history? That someone who was paying their mortgage was evicted because the bank had a sweetheart deal with someone? That's not how I understand mortgages to work.

[dsr_]

That's not what happens. What happens is this:

- You buy your house from the company via a mortgage owned by the company bank.

- You start to build equity in your house.

- You talk on your lunchbreak with your coworker about whether a union would be a good idea.

- The company fires you for no particular reason.

- There are no other employers in commuting range, and your skill-set is not conducive to working from home. As a result:

- You fall behind on your mortgage. The company bank notes that you are delinquent and immediately starts foreclosure.

- The company real estate agency doesn't show your house to people. There are no other real estate agencies in this town.

- The company bank takes possession. You leave. The bank sells the house at auction. There is one bidder: the company-owned house leasing company. They bid less than the amount the bank is owed. The bank takes all of that money, as first creditor, and you get no money from the sale.

The company-owned house leasing company cleans it out and leases it or decides to sell it to another employee.

[warkdarrior]

In towns with one employer, this would happen even if the bank, the real estate agent, etc. are NOT in cahoots with the company.

[thebooktocome]

Fannie Mae just settled a foreclosure discrimination class action in which they where failing to maintain foreclosed properties in minority neighborhoods. This caused a chain reaction where nearby homes went underwater and were subsequently foreclosed upon.

Mortgage lenders have remarkable legal resources with which to make a homeowner’s life miserable. While they usually have a financial incentive not to, that doesn’t always pan out.

[johnchristopher]

> I guess next step is company scrip?

Yes, but.. wait for it.. with NFC and company-crypto \o/. What a twist !

[mydogcanpurr]

Yep, it's optional until it's not.