I've worked at a lot of jobs where people have on-site company-provided housing; it's common in defense, oil and gas, mining, etc. in remote areas.
Depending on how it's done, I have no problem with it. It's definitely better if you're a high-paid worker than someone who might end up borrowing from a company, doing the company store thing, etc. which caused so many problems with labor in the past.
In a lot of cases, the housing is contracted out to specialist "man camp" providers, who run the entire facility and charge a per-resident rent to the employers. This probably removes a lot of the perverse incentives.
It's a great way to save on housing, commute, etc. if you're single/don't have a family. A lot of older people would maintain a home elsewhere and then do 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off type shifts, which doesn't save as much money, but does make work a lot more efficient.
Corporate apartments, dorms, etc. wouldn't be unreasonable for someone doing a startup or tech company in a place where rentals are inefficient -- it's pretty easy to rent an apartment and have some roommates in silicon valley, but if you were doing a startup in a rural/suburban place where people usually bought vs. rented, maybe the company should work something out for them.
I lived in a company-provided mining quarters for a few years. I see no problems with dorms at all. A lot of readers tend to think about slavery because it makes them feel better about America but the reality is that structurally US could no longer execute this way. In particular, the old issues of class warfare that drives union rules as well as management techniques are outmoded and calls for some fresh thinking.
Depending on how it's done, I have no problem with it. It's definitely better if you're a high-paid worker than someone who might end up borrowing from a company, doing the company store thing, etc. which caused so many problems with labor in the past.
In a lot of cases, the housing is contracted out to specialist "man camp" providers, who run the entire facility and charge a per-resident rent to the employers. This probably removes a lot of the perverse incentives.
It's a great way to save on housing, commute, etc. if you're single/don't have a family. A lot of older people would maintain a home elsewhere and then do 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off type shifts, which doesn't save as much money, but does make work a lot more efficient.
Corporate apartments, dorms, etc. wouldn't be unreasonable for someone doing a startup or tech company in a place where rentals are inefficient -- it's pretty easy to rent an apartment and have some roommates in silicon valley, but if you were doing a startup in a rural/suburban place where people usually bought vs. rented, maybe the company should work something out for them.