5 ms·

I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like democracies. Company X offers to pay me to do job Y. My t

I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like democracies. Company X offers to pay me to do job Y. My two options, as I see it, are taking the job and doing Y, or refusing to do Y and therefore not taking the job. I don't understand the logic of "I'll take the job but then refuse to do Y", except if I assume ill-intent from the person taking the job.

deogeo 7y ago
What about the logic of collective bargaining? Why should workers have to remain divided and alone, against highly organized capital?
claudeganon 7y ago
The broader condition of wage-labor is (in the absence of unions) of course though that you agree to some form of top-down power relation or starve and die. Unions contest this broader premise as opposed to your specific one.
- friedman23 7y ago
  > or starve and die Or start your own business and find your own way to provide for youself outside of the existing system? The broader condition of society is that you need to produce something of value for them if you desire others to provide things of value to you.
- ggambetta 7y ago
  > or starve and die I reject your strawman argument. FAANG engineers will hardly starve and die if they choose to work somewhere else.
mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
It is better for both individuals and society at large if we are able to not only generate material wealth, but also do so within systems of our own design which allow us to generate said wealth through voluntary cooperation. You are of course correct that any person is technically free to reject any particular job, but someone with an interest in both continuing to be able to provide for themselves and their family as well as in bringing about structural shifts that would allow for much truer freedom might refuse to perform a particular function for reasons other than ill intent.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago
  >It is better for both individuals and society at large if we are able to not only generate material wealth, but also do so within systems of our own design which allow us to generate said wealth through voluntary cooperation. There's absolutely nothing stopping people, especially a collective of people who might want to form a union, from pooling their own funds and starting an enterprise based on the values of their own collective design. >You are of course correct that any person is technically free to reject any particular job, but someone with an interest in both continuing to be able to provide for themselves and their family as well as in bringing about structural shifts that would allow for much truer freedom might refuse to perform a particular function for reasons other than ill intent. And someone, or a group of people, who've created an enterprise of their own values, are generating value from it and are providing labor opportunities and value to others are free to fire people who outright disagree with said values, or attempt to form an entity of power to dismantle or disorientate those values. It is incredibly dishonest, and certainly of ill intent, to join or remain within a company or group whose values you strongly disagree with for the purpose of financially benefiting from that group's activities and trying to undermine said values from within.
  - LadyCailin 7y ago
    > It is incredibly dishonest, and certainly of ill intent, to join or remain within a company or group whose values you strongly disagree with for the purpose of financially benefiting from that group's activities and trying to undermine said values from within. Perhaps, but this is why unions should exist even when things are going well, to prevent them from getting bad in the first place.
glogla 7y ago
> I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like democracies. My experience is that the more someone rambles about "being the only rational one", the more oblivious they actually are. People want companies to function like democracies, because they feel it's better for the world, or better for them, or both. The capital don't have to listen to them of course, and the people can then organize and try to enact change in a different way - like voting for particular regulations or something similar. Since you seem to value "rationality" and power, maybe you should think about how big collectives of people have power, and whether it wouldn't make sense to make some concessions, because otherwise things might get out of control and people like you might end up in a gulag or something.
icegreentea2 7y ago
I don't think most people want to organize to avoid doing job Y that they specifically agreed to do. The opposite side of your logic, is that if you assume good faith on the side of the job taker, then the want to do the job that they signed up for, and is willing to do what it takes to make sure they are able to do that job in a safe, efficient, and non-soul crushing manner. In addition, conditions can change from the initial agreement of employment. Lots of stuff about workplace environments are not fully captured in job contracts, and are so subject to change. You don't need to assume bad-faith from a person to understand why the might want to have a say in how things change. After all, they agreed to a job under a certain set of implied environments. Companies do not have to function like democracies. However, companies that try to harness the moral and ethical motivation of their workers should always be aware of how to keep company actions and goals sufficiently aligned with those of their workers to be able to tap into that extra motivation.

deogeo 7y ago

What about the logic of collective bargaining? Why should workers have to remain divided and alone, against highly organized capital?

claudeganon 7y ago

The broader condition of wage-labor is (in the absence of unions) of course though that you agree to some form of top-down power relation or starve and die. Unions contest this broader premise as opposed to your specific one.

friedman23 7y ago
> or starve and die Or start your own business and find your own way to provide for youself outside of the existing system? The broader condition of society is that you need to produce something of value for them if you desire others to provide things of value to you.
ggambetta 7y ago
> or starve and die I reject your strawman argument. FAANG engineers will hardly starve and die if they choose to work somewhere else.

mandelbrotwurst 7y ago

It is better for both individuals and society at large if we are able to not only generate material wealth, but also do so within systems of our own design which allow us to generate said wealth through voluntary cooperation. You are of course correct that any person is technically free to reject any particular job, but someone with an interest in both continuing to be able to provide for themselves and their family as well as in bringing about structural shifts that would allow for much truer freedom might refuse to perform a particular function for reasons other than ill intent.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
>It is better for both individuals and society at large if we are able to not only generate material wealth, but also do so within systems of our own design which allow us to generate said wealth through voluntary cooperation. There's absolutely nothing stopping people, especially a collective of people who might want to form a union, from pooling their own funds and starting an enterprise based on the values of their own collective design. >You are of course correct that any person is technically free to reject any particular job, but someone with an interest in both continuing to be able to provide for themselves and their family as well as in bringing about structural shifts that would allow for much truer freedom might refuse to perform a particular function for reasons other than ill intent. And someone, or a group of people, who've created an enterprise of their own values, are generating value from it and are providing labor opportunities and value to others are free to fire people who outright disagree with said values, or attempt to form an entity of power to dismantle or disorientate those values. It is incredibly dishonest, and certainly of ill intent, to join or remain within a company or group whose values you strongly disagree with for the purpose of financially benefiting from that group's activities and trying to undermine said values from within.
- LadyCailin 7y ago
  > It is incredibly dishonest, and certainly of ill intent, to join or remain within a company or group whose values you strongly disagree with for the purpose of financially benefiting from that group's activities and trying to undermine said values from within. Perhaps, but this is why unions should exist even when things are going well, to prevent them from getting bad in the first place.

glogla 7y ago

> I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like democracies. My experience is that the more someone rambles about "being the only rational one", the more oblivious they actually are. People want companies to function like democracies, because they feel it's better for the world, or better for them, or both. The capital don't have to listen to them of course, and the people can then organize and try to enact change in a different way - like voting for particular regulations or something similar. Since you seem to value "rationality" and power, maybe you should think about how big collectives of people have power, and whether it wouldn't make sense to make some concessions, because otherwise things might get out of control and people like you might end up in a gulag or something.

icegreentea2 7y ago

I don't think most people want to organize to avoid doing job Y that they specifically agreed to do. The opposite side of your logic, is that if you assume good faith on the side of the job taker, then the want to do the job that they signed up for, and is willing to do what it takes to make sure they are able to do that job in a safe, efficient, and non-soul crushing manner. In addition, conditions can change from the initial agreement of employment. Lots of stuff about workplace environments are not fully captured in job contracts, and are so subject to change. You don't need to assume bad-faith from a person to understand why the might want to have a say in how things change. After all, they agreed to a job under a certain set of implied environments. Companies do not have to function like democracies. However, companies that try to harness the moral and ethical motivation of their workers should always be aware of how to keep company actions and goals sufficiently aligned with those of their workers to be able to tap into that extra motivation.