4 ms·

That’s a ridiculous idea. It’s a job, not a judicial system. I suspect our real disagreement is around your “disproportionate corporate power” remark. I believe

by jm4 7y ago

That’s a ridiculous idea. It’s a job, not a judicial system. I suspect our real disagreement is around your “disproportionate corporate power” remark. I believe that’s how it’s supposed to be. The people running the company have more power than the workers. If the workers don’t like it, they can go to another company they more prefer or start their own. And don’t tell me it’s not possible. Google is only 20 years old. Facebook is younger than that. Both started in college. The power lies with the corporation because that’s where the risk and responsibility is. You don’t risk much driving to your job at a big company and collecting your check every two weeks. You risk everything and take on responsibility for a lot of people when you’re the one who starts the company or who has to lead it or a large portion of it.

neves 7y ago
Just go to other company. Surely it's a perfect market economy and there's any kind of agreement that prevents you to be hired: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo... There's just one way to prevent the "disproportionate corporate power", its called unions. Wait! Maybe you'll be fired if you try to create one.
- croissants 7y ago
  Is there any indication that this is still true? People seem to hop between these companies all the time. Even the fired organizers now have companies recruiting them on Twitter.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>It’s a job, not a judicial system. That doesn't change that they can easily misrepresent the facts in a way that any person subjected to similar treatment would view it as lying. And given the power differential, they will likely be unable to use the court system to protect themselves against such attacks. This is a weakness in our current system the strong use to exploit the weak. Isn't that something we should look down upon and punish?
- jm4 7y ago
  And that's when you take it up with the real judicial system, not some quasi-judicial "jury of my peers" in the company.
  - DSingularity 7y ago
    A jury of peers is a cornerstone of justice. When the accused is an employee where better to find peers than within the same work environment?
jmcqk6 7y ago
You're describing a possible world, but you're not describing the real world. Responsibility, especially in the corporate world, is not straight forward. Truly holding someone responsible for anything is a rare event. The modern corporation is very good at presenting the illusion of responsibility without the accountability of it. Workers aren't stupid. They see the bullshit and want protection. And the bullshit is so pervasive it's everywhere, so it's not like changing jobs is really going to change anything. So you can lie to yourself and say 'no this is how it is,' but you're not going to convince anyone by just asserting that your ideas are how reality work, especially when trying to convince people who are already aware of your ideas and rejected them because they do not match reality.
0x262d 7y ago
this is a really bad fallback response to a company doing something that is, essentially, evil.
hrktb 7y ago
> It’s a job, not a judicial system People effectively reviewed the cases, hopefully discussed in details and came to a conclusion. There was a decision process, it's not outlandish to have a review process coupled with an appeal process as needed. That's what happens for performance evaluations in a lot of companies.
CydeWeys 7y ago
> The people running the company have more power than the workers. If the workers don’t like it, they can go to another company they more prefer or start their own. You're forgetting one obvious option that's been repeatedly and successfully used: unionize.
- jm4 7y ago
  I'm not a big fan of unions. Certainly not in this case. I think where they are more effective is where the workers are largely interchangeable and do not possess abilities that are unique from other workers - or at least an environment where uniqueness is not valued by the company. Think highly regulated industries or an environment where you need a highly reliable and consistent baseline more than you need high performers or creativity. Unions can protect those workers that are largely interchangeable from the company throwing them out like garbage in favor of someone cheaper or who will put up with more crap for a paycheck. Unions are good at establishing consistency at the expense of innovation. I think unions are the wrong answer in tech. Knowledge workers are not equal, their innovation and uniqueness is valuable and they should not be lumped together into one class where there is little to no incentive to stand out. Frankly, I'm surprised these types of people would be interested in a union in the first place because they are the likeliest beneficiaries of there not being a union and the most equipped to successfully go out on their own.
  - davidcbc 7y ago
    The NFL players association is a highly successful union for people with unique abilities. Same with the Screen Actors Guild. Highly specialized labor benefits from unionization as well.
    - jm4 7y ago
      The NFL is also the only successful employer of professional football players which makes that situation unique. There are several gigantic tech companies and millions of other jobs available that aren’t at Google. Do you have another example?
hinkley 7y ago
> You don’t risk much driving to your job at a big company and collecting your check every two weeks. In the grand scheme of things you don't risk much, true. But you do risk the majority of the things that are most important to you. Like your place to live, your spouse, your kids, your stuff, your pets... And if the industry goes under, your community. For some people that would be 'risking everything'. There's no requirement in the Business Rule Book that says you actually have to give a shit about the welfare of the employees you laid off. Yes, there are people who care a lot, but it's not a requirement, and plenty of companies get along just fine without it. What is important is that your remaining employees believe that you care about them. And even a sociopath can manage the illusion of that without too much effort. But the people we got rid of? They're not as cool as you are, my friends. Now get back to work or you're next.

by jm4 7y ago

neves 7y ago

Just go to other company. Surely it's a perfect market economy and there's any kind of agreement that prevents you to be hired: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo... There's just one way to prevent the "disproportionate corporate power", its called unions. Wait! Maybe you'll be fired if you try to create one.

croissants 7y ago
Is there any indication that this is still true? People seem to hop between these companies all the time. Even the fired organizers now have companies recruiting them on Twitter.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>It’s a job, not a judicial system. That doesn't change that they can easily misrepresent the facts in a way that any person subjected to similar treatment would view it as lying. And given the power differential, they will likely be unable to use the court system to protect themselves against such attacks. This is a weakness in our current system the strong use to exploit the weak. Isn't that something we should look down upon and punish?

jm4 7y ago
And that's when you take it up with the real judicial system, not some quasi-judicial "jury of my peers" in the company.
- DSingularity 7y ago
  A jury of peers is a cornerstone of justice. When the accused is an employee where better to find peers than within the same work environment?

jmcqk6 7y ago

You're describing a possible world, but you're not describing the real world. Responsibility, especially in the corporate world, is not straight forward. Truly holding someone responsible for anything is a rare event. The modern corporation is very good at presenting the illusion of responsibility without the accountability of it. Workers aren't stupid. They see the bullshit and want protection. And the bullshit is so pervasive it's everywhere, so it's not like changing jobs is really going to change anything. So you can lie to yourself and say 'no this is how it is,' but you're not going to convince anyone by just asserting that your ideas are how reality work, especially when trying to convince people who are already aware of your ideas and rejected them because they do not match reality.

0x262d 7y ago

this is a really bad fallback response to a company doing something that is, essentially, evil.

hrktb 7y ago

> It’s a job, not a judicial system People effectively reviewed the cases, hopefully discussed in details and came to a conclusion. There was a decision process, it's not outlandish to have a review process coupled with an appeal process as needed. That's what happens for performance evaluations in a lot of companies.

CydeWeys 7y ago

> The people running the company have more power than the workers. If the workers don’t like it, they can go to another company they more prefer or start their own. You're forgetting one obvious option that's been repeatedly and successfully used: unionize.

jm4 7y ago
I'm not a big fan of unions. Certainly not in this case. I think where they are more effective is where the workers are largely interchangeable and do not possess abilities that are unique from other workers - or at least an environment where uniqueness is not valued by the company. Think highly regulated industries or an environment where you need a highly reliable and consistent baseline more than you need high performers or creativity. Unions can protect those workers that are largely interchangeable from the company throwing them out like garbage in favor of someone cheaper or who will put up with more crap for a paycheck. Unions are good at establishing consistency at the expense of innovation. I think unions are the wrong answer in tech. Knowledge workers are not equal, their innovation and uniqueness is valuable and they should not be lumped together into one class where there is little to no incentive to stand out. Frankly, I'm surprised these types of people would be interested in a union in the first place because they are the likeliest beneficiaries of there not being a union and the most equipped to successfully go out on their own.
- davidcbc 7y ago
  The NFL players association is a highly successful union for people with unique abilities. Same with the Screen Actors Guild. Highly specialized labor benefits from unionization as well.
  - jm4 7y ago
    The NFL is also the only successful employer of professional football players which makes that situation unique. There are several gigantic tech companies and millions of other jobs available that aren’t at Google. Do you have another example?

hinkley 7y ago

> You don’t risk much driving to your job at a big company and collecting your check every two weeks. In the grand scheme of things you don't risk much, true. But you do risk the majority of the things that are most important to you. Like your place to live, your spouse, your kids, your stuff, your pets... And if the industry goes under, your community. For some people that would be 'risking everything'. There's no requirement in the Business Rule Book that says you actually have to give a shit about the welfare of the employees you laid off. Yes, there are people who care a lot, but it's not a requirement, and plenty of companies get along just fine without it. What is important is that your remaining employees believe that you care about them. And even a sociopath can manage the illusion of that without too much effort. But the people we got rid of? They're not as cool as you are, my friends. Now get back to work or you're next.