3 ms·

The neutral-most stance, if any, is for them to accept all willing clients. This is not neutrality; it is capitalism without ethics, which is a moral stance th

The neutral-most stance, if any, is for them to accept all willing clients. This is not neutrality; it is capitalism without ethics, which is a moral stance that you are taking. these employees are imposing their worldview on the company's decision-making Your alternative is that the company should be able to impose their decision-making on the employees, and e.g. ask them to work on things which violate their personal principles, with their only alternative being to leave the company. In a world with a universal basic income without health care being tied to employment, where individuals were free to choose how to allocate their labor in a non-coercive environment, you might be able to argue this, but instead you are arguing that corporations have the right to freely transact in the market but employees (many of whom cannot pick and choose their employment or tolerate underemployment) do not have that right. Capitalism without ethics. Corporations are simply groups of people. And those people are responsible for what the corporation does. They have not only a right, but an obligation to oppose actions by the corporation inimical to their worldview.

throwawaysea 7y ago
> This is not neutrality; it is capitalism without ethics, which is a moral stance that you are taking. I disagree. It is neutrality, because it is recognizing that different parties and individuals have different ideas of what is acceptable to them (morally or otherwise), and that they can decide that for themselves. If there aren't enough customers to sustain some product/service, then that business would fail. If it finds product-market fit, then that business will continue to operate. It is a distributed method of taking measure of what people value and don't value, which includes a distributed notion of morality. > Your alternative is that the company should be able to impose their decision-making on the employees, and e.g. ask them to work on things which violate their personal principles, with their only alternative being to leave the company. Yes that is my alternative, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Those employees can choose to do the work that is asked of them or leave. The company is not imposing anything on the employees - they are compensating the employees for their time/labor, and get to specify in what capacity those employees can contribute. If you were an employee in the IT side of some company, and you saw the R&D side acquiring some other company, would you think "well I disagree and this makes me want to leave, but it is unfair that I was not consulted or don't have a voice in this matter or that my only choice is to leave"? Of course not. Why would it be any different on other matters? Another example: If you hire a plumber to fix your toilet and that plumber took the opportunity to deliver a religious sermon at your home, would you find it acceptable? What if they lecture you on how you are parenting your kid or your relationship with your spouse? A lot of the recent employee activism is similar to these hypothetical situations, except at a larger scale. > you are arguing that corporations have the right to freely transact in the market but employees (many of whom cannot pick and choose their employment or tolerate underemployment) do not have that right Employees have the right to pick and choose their place of employment. They have that freedom, and tech workers drawing large salaries are especially employable today. If someone cannot tolerate unemployment, they can invest in making themselves more-valuable to would-be employers. And yes, that means that in the interim they need to choose between putting their head down/getting their work done and engaging in workplace activism. I don't think it is reasonable to feel entitled to everything all the time, which is how this comes off to me. > They have not only a right, but an obligation to oppose actions by the corporation inimical to their worldview. Employees have limited rights at work. They are being compensated to perform a limited role and the measure of their success/failure is up to the company compensating them. Corporations also have a right to oppose actions by employees that are inimical to their worldview or interests. They can do so by terminating that relationship.
- zorpner 7y ago
  Again, this is moral stance that you have, which I disagree with. As assumptions, yours include that the market captures incentives efficiently, that what people value and don't value is accurately represented by flow of money (and thus, of course, that those with more wealth available have more valuable values), and that people do not have the right to speak out against what they perceive as injustice if the market has decided that said injustice is efficient. Again, corporations are made of people, and those people make decisions. Nothing is "up to the company" because the company is a group of people. People make the decisions.

throwawaysea 7y ago

> This is not neutrality; it is capitalism without ethics, which is a moral stance that you are taking. I disagree. It is neutrality, because it is recognizing that different parties and individuals have different ideas of what is acceptable to them (morally or otherwise), and that they can decide that for themselves. If there aren't enough customers to sustain some product/service, then that business would fail. If it finds product-market fit, then that business will continue to operate. It is a distributed method of taking measure of what people value and don't value, which includes a distributed notion of morality. > Your alternative is that the company should be able to impose their decision-making on the employees, and e.g. ask them to work on things which violate their personal principles, with their only alternative being to leave the company. Yes that is my alternative, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Those employees can choose to do the work that is asked of them or leave. The company is not imposing anything on the employees - they are compensating the employees for their time/labor, and get to specify in what capacity those employees can contribute. If you were an employee in the IT side of some company, and you saw the R&D side acquiring some other company, would you think "well I disagree and this makes me want to leave, but it is unfair that I was not consulted or don't have a voice in this matter or that my only choice is to leave"? Of course not. Why would it be any different on other matters? Another example: If you hire a plumber to fix your toilet and that plumber took the opportunity to deliver a religious sermon at your home, would you find it acceptable? What if they lecture you on how you are parenting your kid or your relationship with your spouse? A lot of the recent employee activism is similar to these hypothetical situations, except at a larger scale. > you are arguing that corporations have the right to freely transact in the market but employees (many of whom cannot pick and choose their employment or tolerate underemployment) do not have that right Employees have the right to pick and choose their place of employment. They have that freedom, and tech workers drawing large salaries are especially employable today. If someone cannot tolerate unemployment, they can invest in making themselves more-valuable to would-be employers. And yes, that means that in the interim they need to choose between putting their head down/getting their work done and engaging in workplace activism. I don't think it is reasonable to feel entitled to everything all the time, which is how this comes off to me. > They have not only a right, but an obligation to oppose actions by the corporation inimical to their worldview. Employees have limited rights at work. They are being compensated to perform a limited role and the measure of their success/failure is up to the company compensating them. Corporations also have a right to oppose actions by employees that are inimical to their worldview or interests. They can do so by terminating that relationship.

zorpner 7y ago
Again, this is moral stance that you have, which I disagree with. As assumptions, yours include that the market captures incentives efficiently, that what people value and don't value is accurately represented by flow of money (and thus, of course, that those with more wealth available have more valuable values), and that people do not have the right to speak out against what they perceive as injustice if the market has decided that said injustice is efficient. Again, corporations are made of people, and those people make decisions. Nothing is "up to the company" because the company is a group of people. People make the decisions.