4 ms·
I’m not sure this is a problem. Of course a company is going to retaliate against employees that are protesting instead of working. What did the protestors hone
by mruts 8y ago
I’m not sure this is a problem. Of course a company is going to retaliate against employees that are protesting instead of working. What did the protestors honestly expect? That they would get promoted?
If I ran a company, and my employees were protesting decisions that I thought were in the best interest of shareholders, I would first listen to them. If after listening I still believed the course of action was correct I would have no other choice but to punish/fire them. It’s not the protestors’ job or responsibility to go around the company again and again instead of proper channels.
At some point, your morality and the morality of corporations and capitalism will always conflict. Is Google going into China a decision I like. No, it’s not. Would I maybe be upset if I was a developer on a censored search engine? Of course.
But is it the right thing to do for the shareholders? Yes! Of course. China is a huge market and represents massive potential for Google. They have a moral responsibility to maximize profits for their investors and that should always be the primary mandate for companies (unless they are a B corp, like Etsy).
This will naturally conflict with personal morality, as it should, but cognitive dissonance is always a given. The only question is whether you recognize and accept or deny it’s constant presence in everything.
- britch 8y agoYou say that corporations have a "moral responsibility to maximize profits for their investors." Why? Why does profit have to be only motivator? I understand it's a norm. I understand it's expected. Can you give me a reason beyond that? It's not like Google is doing poorly and has to go to China to survive. Why contribute to the Chinese government's oppression of dissidents and minorities if you don't have to?
- luckylion 8y ago> Why? Why does profit have to be only motivator? It doesn't have to be, it's what the investors want. The investors decide what gets to be optimized for, because they won't invest otherwise. It's not always profit, it might also be growth. And yes, there are cases where it's something else all together, but for the most part it's measurable and something that involves making your investors richer. > Why contribute to the Chinese government's oppression of dissidents and minorities if you don't have to? If you build the tech and the platform, you are in control, and you can stop at any point, you can nudge and you can pull. If you're not doing it, somebody else will and you won't have any influence to make it better/less bad. That has a long tradition, even in non-profit companies like banking coops. People want to play the lottery, so you offer them a lottery. But by buying tickets to your lottery, they are putting 50% of the ticket price into their savings accounts. 50% aren't 100%, but they sure are better than 0%. If perfect, good and neutral aren't available options, less bad looks good to me - even if it means that you will have to get your hands dirty and get your karma into trouble.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoThe company also has a legal responsibility not to retaliate against workers for engaging in concerted action. The obligation to maximize profit is subordinate to the obligation to follow labor laws.
- mruts 8y agoOnly when following those laws in more profitable than breaking them.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoAbsolutely not. There is no precedent for a corporation being legally required to maximize profits to the extent of breaking the law.