5 ms·

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave

So what you're saying is, employees shouldn't complain about (censorship, bosses tolerating sexual harassment, etc.), they should either put up with it or leave quietly (possibly to their own financial detriment)? I can't say I agree with you. What you're suggesting is basically the Wall Street model where bad and unethical institutional behavior gets a suboptimal amount of pushback.

herohamp 7y ago
They should but they then also face the consequences
- dralley 7y ago
  And many do. Are you suggesting otherwise? But I don't think they "should" do so if they're calling out legitimately poor behavior that has been unaddressed by any other avenue. That wording is quite strange to me. Would you say that Rosa Parks "should" have faced the consequences of stirring things up as she did? Accepting that it is possible is a necessary part of civil disobedience, but the imposition of those consequences by higher powers is not.
- jpdb 7y ago
  Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction. There's an EXTREME amount of power imbalance between employer and employee; if employees have to fear retaliation for voicing their concerns it has a chilling effect. I'm okay with consequences, but voicing your concerns in public isn't grounds for consequences.
  - chii 7y ago
    This is where a platform for voicing anonymously is required.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction. Employees are signing up for a world where they don't wear significant risk in exchange for subordinating their decision making to a company. Companies are fundamentally an organised group of people working to a common goal. I can understand very well if individual employees want to assert their individuality. However, at any moment, they have only and exactly 3 choices: 1) Cooperate enthusiastically. 2) Cooperate with complaint 3) Quit Nobody is going to get sacked for quietly and politely voicing a concern. However, once employees start organising to influence management on business decisions they really need to pony up the capital and become shareholders. Deciding what management does is the privilege of shareholders, not employees.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      > However, once employees start organising to influence management on business decisions they really need to pony up the capital and become shareholders. Deciding what management does is the privilege of shareholders, not employees. Isn't this precisely describing why unions were originally generated, so that employees can also leverage power equal to the shareholders, and therefore have a say in their own working conditions?
      - roenxi 7y ago
        There is a big difference between that and what is being discussed in this article though. Unions are dealing with pay and conditions - important, but ultimately just aggregating topics that employers and employees were going to negotiate around anyway. This article is talking about: * Amazon workers are demanding more action from the company on battling climate change * Microsoft, employees say they don’t want to build technology for warfare * Salesforce, a group has lobbied management to end its work with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency * Google, [employees] want a say in and control over the products they build Those are issues going way beyond what an employee can reasonably expect to influence. Being employed by a tech company is an achievement, but the end of the day tech workers aren't that special. They don't formally get to decide how the world works. They absolutely can't take to social media to complain about these issues and expect to hold a job with the company they are complaining about. This type of activity isn't acceptable; they can't draw a wage and overrule strategic directions from people with capital at stake. The options are work or walk.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
That's how employment works. As an employee you are paid to execute the company's strategy. If you disagree you can of course, and even should, voice your disagreement but that should be done in a professional in diplomatic way, in private. If you cannot do that or cannot accept the company's strategy then yes, your alternative is to leave quietly. The new "red guards" of the left may not like it, but that's what professionalism (not to mention a free society) is. Tough.
- eropple 7y ago
  This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners, and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its labor force is part of that society.
  - AlexB138 7y ago
    > It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. I'm assuming you're talking about the US. We are not subjects of our government, or of some other sovereign, whether that be society or anything else. Our society is founded on individual pursuit of happiness, not collectivism. Put another way, corporations exist for whatever reason their creators decide. So long as they operate within the law and are able to sustain themselves, societal good is a side effect and a concern of the State, not the corporation itself.
    - nmcfarl 7y ago
      The state licenses corporations. Corporations exist for whatever reason their creators and the state decide on.
      - nmcfarl 7y ago

herohamp 7y ago

They should but they then also face the consequences

dralley 7y ago
And many do. Are you suggesting otherwise? But I don't think they "should" do so if they're calling out legitimately poor behavior that has been unaddressed by any other avenue. That wording is quite strange to me. Would you say that Rosa Parks "should" have faced the consequences of stirring things up as she did? Accepting that it is possible is a necessary part of civil disobedience, but the imposition of those consequences by higher powers is not.
jpdb 7y ago
Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction. There's an EXTREME amount of power imbalance between employer and employee; if employees have to fear retaliation for voicing their concerns it has a chilling effect. I'm okay with consequences, but voicing your concerns in public isn't grounds for consequences.
- chii 7y ago
  This is where a platform for voicing anonymously is required.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > Employees who can't voice their dissatisfaction for the status quo without fear of repercussion can't truly voice their dissatisfaction. Employees are signing up for a world where they don't wear significant risk in exchange for subordinating their decision making to a company. Companies are fundamentally an organised group of people working to a common goal. I can understand very well if individual employees want to assert their individuality. However, at any moment, they have only and exactly 3 choices: 1) Cooperate enthusiastically. 2) Cooperate with complaint 3) Quit Nobody is going to get sacked for quietly and politely voicing a concern. However, once employees start organising to influence management on business decisions they really need to pony up the capital and become shareholders. Deciding what management does is the privilege of shareholders, not employees.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    > However, once employees start organising to influence management on business decisions they really need to pony up the capital and become shareholders. Deciding what management does is the privilege of shareholders, not employees. Isn't this precisely describing why unions were originally generated, so that employees can also leverage power equal to the shareholders, and therefore have a say in their own working conditions?
    - roenxi 7y ago
      There is a big difference between that and what is being discussed in this article though. Unions are dealing with pay and conditions - important, but ultimately just aggregating topics that employers and employees were going to negotiate around anyway. This article is talking about: * Amazon workers are demanding more action from the company on battling climate change * Microsoft, employees say they don’t want to build technology for warfare * Salesforce, a group has lobbied management to end its work with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency * Google, [employees] want a say in and control over the products they build Those are issues going way beyond what an employee can reasonably expect to influence. Being employed by a tech company is an achievement, but the end of the day tech workers aren't that special. They don't formally get to decide how the world works. They absolutely can't take to social media to complain about these issues and expect to hold a job with the company they are complaining about. This type of activity isn't acceptable; they can't draw a wage and overrule strategic directions from people with capital at stake. The options are work or walk.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

That's how employment works. As an employee you are paid to execute the company's strategy. If you disagree you can of course, and even should, voice your disagreement but that should be done in a professional in diplomatic way, in private. If you cannot do that or cannot accept the company's strategy then yes, your alternative is to leave quietly. The new "red guards" of the left may not like it, but that's what professionalism (not to mention a free society) is. Tough.

eropple 7y ago
This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners, and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its labor force is part of that society.
- AlexB138 7y ago
  > It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. I'm assuming you're talking about the US. We are not subjects of our government, or of some other sovereign, whether that be society or anything else. Our society is founded on individual pursuit of happiness, not collectivism. Put another way, corporations exist for whatever reason their creators decide. So long as they operate within the law and are able to sustain themselves, societal good is a side effect and a concern of the State, not the corporation itself.
  - nmcfarl 7y ago
    The state licenses corporations. Corporations exist for whatever reason their creators and the state decide on.
    - nmcfarl 7y ago