7 ms·

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 dis

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
      Continuing I live in the US, and sit on the the board of a governmental organization, a nonprofit corporation and an LLC. It is incredibly obvious from this perspective that the regulations the state chooses to apply greatly constrain what it is possible for your organization to do. And this goes beyond the day to day all the way up to the mission of the org. The state definitely has a large influence on weather organizations exists, their form and the reasons for which and methods they operate.
  - eropple 7y ago
    "Corporations exist for whatever reason their creators decide" - the state is the creator of a corporation! They don't just spring out of nowhere. Corporate entities, LLCs, etc. exist literally because the government in whose territory they operate grant them a charter that allows them to enter contracts and make agreements independent of the personal liability of the owners. That government can revoke that charter (and it has happened in American history--it's not a theoretical thing, it is real and an extant power (one that goes unused, but extant nonetheless). We, as the actual owners of that government that grants this special exception, can--and should--expect better than the barest bare minimum out of such fictional persons if they want to keep their fictional personhood. This is a transaction: "we grant you the right to operate a fictional person and you don't act like shitheads in our society." We don't do this, largely because of the weird little melty fears that led to you going off about collectivism when it doesn't apply here except insofar that labor participation can encourage, though does not guarantee, better behavior. But we can, and we should, keep this tool at the ready because corporate entities will be good citizens only so long as you keep the proverbial fist of an angry god ready to strike; sociopaths (and your standard corporation is a sociopath by definition) only, only, respect consequences and so those consequences must be severe and always at the ready. A careful reader might note that I said nothing about such companies operating as unlimited-liability partnerships. Because yes, fair is fair, and people (who, unlike fictive entities, have rights and freedoms even if the results of those rights and freedoms suck) have the right to do as they please so long as they aren't harming other people. But they wouldn't take that option and we all know why.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  Employment is one-sided: You get paid to work for someone, not to do as you please. If you do not like what you are paid to do, no-one forces you... Socialism does not work. It ends in chaos and failure.
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    Plenty of far more socialist policies than the status quo work perfectly well. The whole anti socialism ideology is bullshit pedaled by the powerful to enforce the status quo.
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      Socialism has been tried and failed. It's no 'bullshit' to state a historical fact.
  - eropple 7y ago
    It is not "socialist" to expect a specially-treated organization to not act shitty if it wants to keep that special legal treatment. It just...isn't. Not that you're right about your sweeping statement either, but it doesn't even begin to apply here except insofar as labor participation in direction can--not will, but can--discourage that shitty behavior.
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      You commented that employees should have a say on the direction of the company... That's a socialist concept.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        For clarity, are Ireland and Germany socialist countries? Both require employee representation on boards, as do many other not-socialist countries. Germany also has works councils.
        7y ago
- geodel 7y ago
  Labor can and should form a cooperative. There are many in US. This hypothetical cooperative can put all the policies in place which they want but do not get from Google. > 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. This sounds like BS to me. I see all the companies doing serious harm to humanity, environment, ecology are running just fine. Do you have examples of charter getting revoked?
  - eropple 7y ago
    Corporate death penalties exist in the United States. This article includes a Google Books link to New York doing so in 1890: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution It sounds like bullshit because some elements of the civic discourse have expended a lot of effort to make the idea inconceivable.
faissaloo 7y ago
If your company is going to super power the surveillance state and plunge the world into tyranny like we've never seen before why would you make things easy for them?

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
    Continuing I live in the US, and sit on the the board of a governmental organization, a nonprofit corporation and an LLC. It is incredibly obvious from this perspective that the regulations the state chooses to apply greatly constrain what it is possible for your organization to do. And this goes beyond the day to day all the way up to the mission of the org. The state definitely has a large influence on weather organizations exists, their form and the reasons for which and methods they operate.
- eropple 7y ago
  "Corporations exist for whatever reason their creators decide" - the state is the creator of a corporation! They don't just spring out of nowhere. Corporate entities, LLCs, etc. exist literally because the government in whose territory they operate grant them a charter that allows them to enter contracts and make agreements independent of the personal liability of the owners. That government can revoke that charter (and it has happened in American history--it's not a theoretical thing, it is real and an extant power (one that goes unused, but extant nonetheless). We, as the actual owners of that government that grants this special exception, can--and should--expect better than the barest bare minimum out of such fictional persons if they want to keep their fictional personhood. This is a transaction: "we grant you the right to operate a fictional person and you don't act like shitheads in our society." We don't do this, largely because of the weird little melty fears that led to you going off about collectivism when it doesn't apply here except insofar that labor participation can encourage, though does not guarantee, better behavior. But we can, and we should, keep this tool at the ready because corporate entities will be good citizens only so long as you keep the proverbial fist of an angry god ready to strike; sociopaths (and your standard corporation is a sociopath by definition) only, only, respect consequences and so those consequences must be severe and always at the ready. A careful reader might note that I said nothing about such companies operating as unlimited-liability partnerships. Because yes, fair is fair, and people (who, unlike fictive entities, have rights and freedoms even if the results of those rights and freedoms suck) have the right to do as they please so long as they aren't harming other people. But they wouldn't take that option and we all know why.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
Employment is one-sided: You get paid to work for someone, not to do as you please. If you do not like what you are paid to do, no-one forces you... Socialism does not work. It ends in chaos and failure.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  Plenty of far more socialist policies than the status quo work perfectly well. The whole anti socialism ideology is bullshit pedaled by the powerful to enforce the status quo.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    Socialism has been tried and failed. It's no 'bullshit' to state a historical fact.
- eropple 7y ago
  It is not "socialist" to expect a specially-treated organization to not act shitty if it wants to keep that special legal treatment. It just...isn't. Not that you're right about your sweeping statement either, but it doesn't even begin to apply here except insofar as labor participation in direction can--not will, but can--discourage that shitty behavior.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    You commented that employees should have a say on the direction of the company... That's a socialist concept.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      For clarity, are Ireland and Germany socialist countries? Both require employee representation on boards, as do many other not-socialist countries. Germany also has works councils.
      - 7y ago
geodel 7y ago
Labor can and should form a cooperative. There are many in US. This hypothetical cooperative can put all the policies in place which they want but do not get from Google. > 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. This sounds like BS to me. I see all the companies doing serious harm to humanity, environment, ecology are running just fine. Do you have examples of charter getting revoked?
- eropple 7y ago
  Corporate death penalties exist in the United States. This article includes a Google Books link to New York doing so in 1890: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution It sounds like bullshit because some elements of the civic discourse have expended a lot of effort to make the idea inconceivable.

faissaloo 7y ago

If your company is going to super power the surveillance state and plunge the world into tyranny like we've never seen before why would you make things easy for them?