3 ms·

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 amo

by 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.
    - kazagistar 7y ago
      You make a bunch of statements about what can and cannot be done, and back up none of them. What can be done is what you have power to do, and collectively, workers have power greater than capital. What should be done is what is moral, since the people with capital are institutionally unable to. It's really that simple.
    - detaro 7y ago
      They clearly can at least temporarily, you can currently observe them doing so. Their employers now can decide if they want to call their "bluff" or not, and deal with the consequences of either choice.

by jpdb 7y ago

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.
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    You make a bunch of statements about what can and cannot be done, and back up none of them. What can be done is what you have power to do, and collectively, workers have power greater than capital. What should be done is what is moral, since the people with capital are institutionally unable to. It's really that simple.
  - detaro 7y ago
    They clearly can at least temporarily, you can currently observe them doing so. Their employers now can decide if they want to call their "bluff" or not, and deal with the consequences of either choice.