5 ms·

Why do we use this word "boss"? The connotations associated with it are about obedience and slavery. Similarly "work for" should be changed to "work with". Wo

Why do we use this word "boss"? The connotations associated with it are about obedience and slavery. Similarly "work for" should be changed to "work with". Words matter. Why do we actively choose to use poor ones?

mikeash 9y ago
Our culture worships business. Naturally the language reflects this. See the use of "poaching" to describe companies hiring employees of other companies for a prominent example in the tech community.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  Or just human resource: we are just property of our employers. I'll say this again for any employer who thinks they care about their employees: please make all salary and benefits information for everyone public. Until you do so, you may not criticize Travis (of Uber) or anyone else when it comes to treating employees well. Put your money where your mouth is!
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    Who's to say that our employees want their salary information made public? Why would I need to work at a company where all salary is transparent in order to have an opinion on whether Walmart/Amazon treat their employees fairly, whether there should be no, a lower, or a higher minimum wage, or whether Uber's culture is one that should be celebrated and modeled or reviled?
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      The point is you and I don't have a say either way. Jim, congrats on being a VP but you and I are just pawns. We have no leverage. If you don't believe me, try bringing this up in a board meeting and see how far it flies. Employers benefit tremendously from the I formation assymetry which to me is a much bigger crime than some idiots who can't keep their junk in their pants. I'm just an idiot on the Internet and you've actually made it. I'd like to apologize if this sounds condescending because it is absolutely not (in part because I'm so far below you that it is physically impossible but regardless of my fortune it is not meant to be). Mind you, i have no original thoughts and this is something i stole from buffer. I think buffer is a great example on how to do things. I wish all the sjw's in silicon valley would direct their attention to something that actually benefits the world for a change. https://open.buffer.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-including-our-transparent-formula-and-all-individual-salaries/ https://open.buffer.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-... I encourage you to keep an open mind about this. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours,
owebmaster 9y ago
It is because companies behave like communist states and are allowed to have dictators, most of the times with power over life and death issues of their citizens/employees.
- kmicklas 9y ago
  Ironically, this is exactly what communism exists to fight.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
    Advertising is not always entirely truthful.
  - zanny 9y ago
    Fight dictatorial control with dictatorial control. Or maybe try moving away from corporations and towards cooperatives. Problem is, making coops popular requires ambition and dedication from the workers, because there will no capitalist looking to make a profit to jumpstart the business.
    - pikzen 9y ago
      >Fight dictatorial control with dictatorial control. ...You do know that communism advocates for a society where control is something done in collaboration with others? Because China, or the USSR calls itself communist does not mean it is. A simple reading of Marx & Engels' work would clarify that.
  - louithethrid 9y ago
    Everything eventually degrades into a dictatorship. Thus we invented advanced concepts to avoid this- like - everyone holds there breath- taxes to milk corroding power accumulating back into the system as a whole - and parliament democracy, which basically consists out of a bonemill for wanna-be dictators, grinding one another to dust in a weapon less fight for power.
sametmax 9y ago
I work for. I don't care. There are more important fights. Nit picking on words only happens with people that don't have enough problems.
mrob 9y ago
The boss has the power to give orders. The worker obeys or the worker gets fired. There are limits to what orders the boss can give, but it almost certainly includes things the worker would rather not do. Pretending it's a collaboration of equals only increases exploitation of workers, because it helps bosses pressure them into doing things they have no legal obligation to do by framing it as a favor for a friend.
- sithadmin 9y ago
  Further, there are many cases where the 'collaboration of equals' model is fundamentally incompatible with the organization being able to function. One example: regulatory compliance and internal audit departments (and by extension, employees working within those groups) generally trump nearly every other department in terms of dictating processes and procedures, because ensuring that the company isn't sanctioned/fined into oblivion by regulators is an imperative for continued operation of the company. This is a necessary power structure because employees specializing in product delivery or other internal operations don't have the domain knowledge to effectively self-regulate to compliance standards, nor understand the legal and fiscal implications of non-compliance.
  - zxv 9y ago
    Your examples, compliance and audit, can be powerful in helping distill risk management issues and communicate them; however, also consider that, in high risk environments that doesn't make it incompatible with other forms of collaboration on risk. Consider safety on oil rigs. There, collaboration on safety is a focal point of all-hands meetings every 12 hours. Both top-down and bottom-up management can be effective, and a combination can be even more so.
sithadmin 9y ago
Like it or not, obedience, to a supervisor and/or ultimately corporate policy, is absolutely necessary to maintain stable and consistent operations at scale. Further, there are plenty of situations, especially involving so-called "blue collar" labor, where the collaborative approach of "working with" others in a relatively flat org structure just isn't tenable, especially where definition of the product design and QA processes require high levels of technical expertise and specialization.
goodcanadian 9y ago
The word "boss" holds no such connotations for me. It means roughly "employer" or "supervisor."
- sithadmin 9y ago
  To be fair, it's a loanword from Dutch's baas, which is 'master'. It's just been part of the English lexicon for so long that the original connotation has largely been lost for most English speakers.
  - goodcanadian 9y ago
    Fair enough, but "master" also has no negative connotations for me. It roughly means "in charge of." The postmaster is in charge of running the post office. The ship's master is in charge of the day to day running of the ship (though he takes his orders from the commander). And so on.
    - WaxProlix 9y ago
      ...and a slavemaster is in charge of slaves and a dog's master is in charge of the dog.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
prodmerc 9y ago
Well, how does your community owned and operated business work? Oh right, it doesn't. It would work if everyone was equally educated and motivated, but for most human purposes, a hierarchical command structure always works better. The most important part is the ones with power giving more attention and care to the ones without - so everyone can be happy with their lives.

mikeash 9y ago

Our culture worships business. Naturally the language reflects this. See the use of "poaching" to describe companies hiring employees of other companies for a prominent example in the tech community.

thanksgiving 9y ago
Or just human resource: we are just property of our employers. I'll say this again for any employer who thinks they care about their employees: please make all salary and benefits information for everyone public. Until you do so, you may not criticize Travis (of Uber) or anyone else when it comes to treating employees well. Put your money where your mouth is!
- sokoloff 9y ago
  Who's to say that our employees want their salary information made public? Why would I need to work at a company where all salary is transparent in order to have an opinion on whether Walmart/Amazon treat their employees fairly, whether there should be no, a lower, or a higher minimum wage, or whether Uber's culture is one that should be celebrated and modeled or reviled?
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    The point is you and I don't have a say either way. Jim, congrats on being a VP but you and I are just pawns. We have no leverage. If you don't believe me, try bringing this up in a board meeting and see how far it flies. Employers benefit tremendously from the I formation assymetry which to me is a much bigger crime than some idiots who can't keep their junk in their pants. I'm just an idiot on the Internet and you've actually made it. I'd like to apologize if this sounds condescending because it is absolutely not (in part because I'm so far below you that it is physically impossible but regardless of my fortune it is not meant to be). Mind you, i have no original thoughts and this is something i stole from buffer. I think buffer is a great example on how to do things. I wish all the sjw's in silicon valley would direct their attention to something that actually benefits the world for a change. https://open.buffer.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-including-our-transparent-formula-and-all-individual-salaries/ https://open.buffer.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-... I encourage you to keep an open mind about this. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours,

owebmaster 9y ago

It is because companies behave like communist states and are allowed to have dictators, most of the times with power over life and death issues of their citizens/employees.

kmicklas 9y ago
Ironically, this is exactly what communism exists to fight.
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  Advertising is not always entirely truthful.
- zanny 9y ago
  Fight dictatorial control with dictatorial control. Or maybe try moving away from corporations and towards cooperatives. Problem is, making coops popular requires ambition and dedication from the workers, because there will no capitalist looking to make a profit to jumpstart the business.
  - pikzen 9y ago
    >Fight dictatorial control with dictatorial control. ...You do know that communism advocates for a society where control is something done in collaboration with others? Because China, or the USSR calls itself communist does not mean it is. A simple reading of Marx & Engels' work would clarify that.
- louithethrid 9y ago
  Everything eventually degrades into a dictatorship. Thus we invented advanced concepts to avoid this- like - everyone holds there breath- taxes to milk corroding power accumulating back into the system as a whole - and parliament democracy, which basically consists out of a bonemill for wanna-be dictators, grinding one another to dust in a weapon less fight for power.

sametmax 9y ago

I work for. I don't care. There are more important fights. Nit picking on words only happens with people that don't have enough problems.

mrob 9y ago

The boss has the power to give orders. The worker obeys or the worker gets fired. There are limits to what orders the boss can give, but it almost certainly includes things the worker would rather not do. Pretending it's a collaboration of equals only increases exploitation of workers, because it helps bosses pressure them into doing things they have no legal obligation to do by framing it as a favor for a friend.

sithadmin 9y ago
Further, there are many cases where the 'collaboration of equals' model is fundamentally incompatible with the organization being able to function. One example: regulatory compliance and internal audit departments (and by extension, employees working within those groups) generally trump nearly every other department in terms of dictating processes and procedures, because ensuring that the company isn't sanctioned/fined into oblivion by regulators is an imperative for continued operation of the company. This is a necessary power structure because employees specializing in product delivery or other internal operations don't have the domain knowledge to effectively self-regulate to compliance standards, nor understand the legal and fiscal implications of non-compliance.
- zxv 9y ago
  Your examples, compliance and audit, can be powerful in helping distill risk management issues and communicate them; however, also consider that, in high risk environments that doesn't make it incompatible with other forms of collaboration on risk. Consider safety on oil rigs. There, collaboration on safety is a focal point of all-hands meetings every 12 hours. Both top-down and bottom-up management can be effective, and a combination can be even more so.

sithadmin 9y ago

Like it or not, obedience, to a supervisor and/or ultimately corporate policy, is absolutely necessary to maintain stable and consistent operations at scale. Further, there are plenty of situations, especially involving so-called "blue collar" labor, where the collaborative approach of "working with" others in a relatively flat org structure just isn't tenable, especially where definition of the product design and QA processes require high levels of technical expertise and specialization.

goodcanadian 9y ago

The word "boss" holds no such connotations for me. It means roughly "employer" or "supervisor."

sithadmin 9y ago
To be fair, it's a loanword from Dutch's baas, which is 'master'. It's just been part of the English lexicon for so long that the original connotation has largely been lost for most English speakers.
- goodcanadian 9y ago
  Fair enough, but "master" also has no negative connotations for me. It roughly means "in charge of." The postmaster is in charge of running the post office. The ship's master is in charge of the day to day running of the ship (though he takes his orders from the commander). And so on.
  - WaxProlix 9y ago
    ...and a slavemaster is in charge of slaves and a dog's master is in charge of the dog.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

prodmerc 9y ago

Well, how does your community owned and operated business work? Oh right, it doesn't. It would work if everyone was equally educated and motivated, but for most human purposes, a hierarchical command structure always works better. The most important part is the ones with power giving more attention and care to the ones without - so everyone can be happy with their lives.