3 ms·

Do companies have an obligation to be democratic? Are democratic companies common? Protected classes aside, if I start a company I can choose to hire or exclud

Do companies have an obligation to be democratic? Are democratic companies common? Protected classes aside, if I start a company I can choose to hire or exclude whomever I choose. I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans, or only people who can't stand the taste of bananas. If this turns out to be a bad business decision (which it probably is), the market will punish me and I'll eventually lose to smarter competitors. Right?

TedShiller 6y ago
They do not have an obligation. However, employees will feel it is unfair if their side is not heard as much as the other side.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  Agreed, being democratic seems to be generally a good practice for employers. Especially those that need to compete for talent.
gnicholas 6y ago
> I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans This might be illegal in California, which considers political activity to be a protected class.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  I didn't realize that, you are likely correct! I could start such a company in my state, but I'd have to be very careful with jurisdictions. In practice most companies I'm familiar with have official policies banning political discrimination across the board, which makes sense considering the importance of California in tech.
rdiddly 6y ago
You can't discriminate against certain protected classes, but yes, it boggles my mind a little bit that someone could think "a corporation" is anything other than one of the most authoritarian, top-down governance structures ever devised.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  If it's voluntarily formed, it's not authoritarian. When a political faction deems that those who refuse to pay half their income for a highly benevolent social program, will face punitive legal consequences, that is authoritarian. I only bring this up because I suspect you are in support of these kinds of programs.
  - webkike 6y ago
    It is voluntarily formed at the top, but in practice labor is a required aspect of life in a capitalist society. If there are only 10 companies and only one will hire you, with no capital you have zero choice but to work for that company.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      Labor is required by nature, not by capitalism. I quote Frédéric Bastiat: Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy. One thing, however, remains - it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the State - that is, the Law itself.
tomp 6y ago
I actually find it quite curious that you’re not allowed to discriminate based on religion, but allowed to discriminate based on political views, throughout the West. One is a freely chosen personal belief, and the other is a freely chosen personal belief.
- bigyikes 6y ago
  Actually, they’re different. People typically acquire one through indoctrination, and the other... Oh wait, you’re right.

TedShiller 6y ago

They do not have an obligation. However, employees will feel it is unfair if their side is not heard as much as the other side.

titanomachy 6y ago
Agreed, being democratic seems to be generally a good practice for employers. Especially those that need to compete for talent.

gnicholas 6y ago

> I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans This might be illegal in California, which considers political activity to be a protected class.

titanomachy 6y ago
I didn't realize that, you are likely correct! I could start such a company in my state, but I'd have to be very careful with jurisdictions. In practice most companies I'm familiar with have official policies banning political discrimination across the board, which makes sense considering the importance of California in tech.

rdiddly 6y ago

You can't discriminate against certain protected classes, but yes, it boggles my mind a little bit that someone could think "a corporation" is anything other than one of the most authoritarian, top-down governance structures ever devised.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
If it's voluntarily formed, it's not authoritarian. When a political faction deems that those who refuse to pay half their income for a highly benevolent social program, will face punitive legal consequences, that is authoritarian. I only bring this up because I suspect you are in support of these kinds of programs.
- webkike 6y ago
  It is voluntarily formed at the top, but in practice labor is a required aspect of life in a capitalist society. If there are only 10 companies and only one will hire you, with no capital you have zero choice but to work for that company.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Labor is required by nature, not by capitalism. I quote Frédéric Bastiat: Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy. One thing, however, remains - it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the State - that is, the Law itself.

tomp 6y ago

I actually find it quite curious that you’re not allowed to discriminate based on religion, but allowed to discriminate based on political views, throughout the West. One is a freely chosen personal belief, and the other is a freely chosen personal belief.

bigyikes 6y ago
Actually, they’re different. People typically acquire one through indoctrination, and the other... Oh wait, you’re right.