3 ms·

If you have an ethical or Maral issue with your work chances are you're doing the wrong work. You can of course try other Ave us but why do you think the busine

If you have an ethical or Maral issue with your work chances are you're doing the wrong work. You can of course try other Ave us but why do you think the business should compromise with a replaceable employee about his personal ethics? That's not the way this works. He's free to find work that agrees with him or make his own work. But this "I want to work for you and decide what I work on" is a non starter for most people

Dylan16807 7y ago
Do you say the same things to a union when they try to address things? "No, you shouldn't have any say over the wages, or the firing policy, or whether we supply dictators"? Because unions negotiate on major issues with companies all the time. If you think unions shouldn't negotiate, you're awful. If you're okay with unions doing negotiation, why shouldn't a lone employee be able to negotiate a little bit? Why is a group of employees protesting not treated like an impromptu union? "You're small compared to the company, so you should have exactly zero influence, instead of influence proportional to your contributions" is something a petty tyrant says.
- LegitShady 7y ago
  unions are about working conditions, not deciding what you get to work on. You're under the direction of your employer and their organizational structure. Unions have exactly zero with choosing to do the work you want to do while getting paid for someone else.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    What jobs a company takes are part of working conditions. It's a valid thing to unions, or others, to negotiate over. It's also pretty silly to say "Well if companies A, B, and C are hiring individually, the workers can all choose to work for A and B but not C. But if they all contract out to company X, then company X workers need to shut up and either work for all three or none. They can't even ask for things to change, they can only quit."
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      >What jobs a company takes are part of working conditions. Again, you want to pick your own job, work for yourself or find the right employer. Picking what you work on is not a reasonable expectation of any employee. If nobody is doing C, start your own firm and get rich doing something no one is doing. Or perhaps you'll find out why no one is doing C. But forcing your employer to make bad business decisions under the guise of "working conditions" is a bridge too far.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        The employer is never forced to make bad business decisions. They get to decide what is better for the company: taking that contract, or having all the protesting employees continue to work for them. Doing it your way can actually cause much worse business decisions. If employees don't give any verbal feedback, only quitting, then the employer might take a hot-button contract and suddenly have multiple important workers quit all at once, losing far more money to replace them than the contract was worth.

Dylan16807 7y ago

Do you say the same things to a union when they try to address things? "No, you shouldn't have any say over the wages, or the firing policy, or whether we supply dictators"? Because unions negotiate on major issues with companies all the time. If you think unions shouldn't negotiate, you're awful. If you're okay with unions doing negotiation, why shouldn't a lone employee be able to negotiate a little bit? Why is a group of employees protesting not treated like an impromptu union? "You're small compared to the company, so you should have exactly zero influence, instead of influence proportional to your contributions" is something a petty tyrant says.

LegitShady 7y ago
unions are about working conditions, not deciding what you get to work on. You're under the direction of your employer and their organizational structure. Unions have exactly zero with choosing to do the work you want to do while getting paid for someone else.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  What jobs a company takes are part of working conditions. It's a valid thing to unions, or others, to negotiate over. It's also pretty silly to say "Well if companies A, B, and C are hiring individually, the workers can all choose to work for A and B but not C. But if they all contract out to company X, then company X workers need to shut up and either work for all three or none. They can't even ask for things to change, they can only quit."
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    >What jobs a company takes are part of working conditions. Again, you want to pick your own job, work for yourself or find the right employer. Picking what you work on is not a reasonable expectation of any employee. If nobody is doing C, start your own firm and get rich doing something no one is doing. Or perhaps you'll find out why no one is doing C. But forcing your employer to make bad business decisions under the guise of "working conditions" is a bridge too far.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      The employer is never forced to make bad business decisions. They get to decide what is better for the company: taking that contract, or having all the protesting employees continue to work for them. Doing it your way can actually cause much worse business decisions. If employees don't give any verbal feedback, only quitting, then the employer might take a hot-button contract and suddenly have multiple important workers quit all at once, losing far more money to replace them than the contract was worth.