Shareholders don't build anything. Employees do.

I didn’t build my car or house, but I own them.

Working on things owned by others is the basic idea of employment - and is a relationship that has existed forever.

And the people that built your car and house had a say in how that process went. A rather big say.

Some did. Assembly line workers didn’t. Framers didn’t.

At that point we're begging the question by going too deep into the analogy and finding the original situation again. The point has still been made that working on something without ownership can be enough to justify a say.

And the framers might have a say, it depends on the company.

True, let’s simplify. The people who have a say are higher up managers who have been granted that power by the owners.

Are we discarding the analogy then? Okay.

The owner has a bunch of space and equipment they can grant power over, but that's only half a company. They don't naturally start with power over the employees.

> Are we discarding the analogy then

It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.

Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management.

Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.

> They don't naturally start with power over the employees.

Indeed. What they have power over is what their employees do while the employee chooses to rent their time to them.

The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.

If you seek voting rights, you should negotiate that as part of your employment - or don’t agree to it. Many white collar employees receive this in the form of stock.

> It’s not an analogy. It’s another example of ownership in another context.

Right, and it shows that ownership isn't the one factor that matters.

> Employee’s authority over something owned by another party is delegated by that party and varies according to the trust from that management. Employees do not own goods or services they have produced and sold. And do not continue to have authority or rights to them.

It's not like delegation is optional.

But more importantly, the suggestion had nothing to do with ownership. The suggestion was voting power.

I am glad you seem to have stepped back from the "someone else built" language you originally used.

> The details of this are defined in the employment contract. Which tends not to include voting rights in regards to the owner’s property.

And sometimes it's good to negotiate parts of employment contracts as a whole society, by putting it into law. It's not "entitlement" in any derogatory sense. It's a very mild limit on which things can be negotiated.