5 ms·

It's interesting to read about the different systems and her perspective on it. As described, however, her bias is stereotypical: The interests she represents,

It's interesting to read about the different systems and her perspective on it. As described, however, her bias is stereotypical: The interests she represents, management, are the only valid interests and the only benefit of employee representation is that they understand management's interests. The reason for employee representation is that they have their own interests, independent of hers, and the reason for democratic representation in general is that humans have a hard time giving real weight to others' priorities. They'll help them when they can, but certainly not if it involves real costs and trade-offs to their own, obviously far more important interests. With representation, the employees don't need her good will; they have the power to act for themselves.

citation_please 8y ago
> "...the reason for democratic representation in general is that humans have a hard time giving real weight to others' priorities. They'll help them when they can, but certainly not if it involves real costs and trade-offs to their own, obviously far more important interests..." I apologise if this draws away from the primary point of your comment, but I thought this was quite poignant. It's a sentiment that manages to convey my intuition about the motivation behind hard-line anti-socialist groups, and also has the added bonus of explaining why "feel-good" one-off donation/volunteering stories in the media are so popular. People like to pat themselves on the back for helping others, as long as they aren't inconvenienced. People like to praise social constructs that help others, as long as they don't encourage constructs that inconvenience themselves.