7 ms·

I certainly agree that the mission of a company can (and preferably) be more than just for profit. However, "to be political" is still a pretty wide range of po

I certainly agree that the mission of a company can (and preferably) be more than just for profit. However, "to be political" is still a pretty wide range of possible missions. Who calls the shots about what you're going to be political about, and which side you take? And when a group of employees disagree with the shots being called, what kinds of reactions are appropriate or not? I'll take a shot: - I think compelled activism is inappropriate. You know, the "silence is violence" stuff. - I think expecting to have power to set a company's political agenda and expressing anger when you don't get your way is inappropriate. That power belongs to the board. Employment and stock-options are not "fractions of board seats".

chii 6y ago
> Employment and stock-options are not "fractions of board seats". i agree that employment is not "fractions of board seats. But stock options (when converted to stock) holds voting power, and thus _do_ represent "factions of board seats". Very little amount, but an amount nonetheless.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Stock options are mostly for common stock, which don't give you voting power anyways.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Generally common stock has voting power.
randmeerkat 6y ago
I’ll take a shot at responding: I would argue that the board wouldn’t exist without the people that make up the company. I would also argue that with monied interests and lobbyists in Washington, one of the last places that people can really effect societal change is at the work place. Companies have become the power center in American politics, so of course activism is going to rise up there. As far as compelled activism goes, I feel that silence _is_ violence. “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” (JFK, Burke, Mill...)
- notSupplied 6y ago
  I am operating on an underlying principle that others may not share, but this could help elucidate why I disagree with many fellow liberals on this front: I'm trying to solve for how decision making power is allocated without making assumptions about which side is right or wrong. In other words, the argument that "The company must do XYZ because this political cause is simply on the RIGHT side of history!" is not acceptable to me, even though I often personally agree that the cause really _is_ right.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  It's the framing of everything in good vs evil, monochromatic terms that actually increases divisiveness and prevents deescalation of conflict. Forcing people to take one's side or else "be on the wrong side" in a multifaceted environment is not appropriate for a workplace, where people expect to be able to set aside differences to work together on work itself.
  - randmeerkat 6y ago
    Millions of Americans are unemployed, hundreds of thousands are dying from a pandemic, tens of thousands are in lines at food banks, there are children in cages, women being given forced hysterectomies, and there are literally neo-Nazis that the President refuses to disavow. If you’re not going to take a stand now, when will you?
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      If you’re not going to take a stand now, when will you? When I'm not at work. When and where I stand is my business, but "when" is definitely not when I am at work and nobody is bullying anyone.
      - randmeerkat 6y ago
        So what about Twitter flagging Trump’s tweets? Do you think that happened without a politicised workplace discussion? With the amount of power that tech wields over society these discussions _have_ to happen.
mola 6y ago
Companies that have a mission "to change the world" attract employees on the basis of activisism in the world. Heck this company is trying to overhaul the entire monetary system. If succeeded this will effect the lives of billions of people. Recruiting people with this premise, and then telling them actually, you don't have any say in what the company actually does, and the ways it changes the world, that actually it was all a joke, and so just shut up and do what the board says because they own all the power and rights is pretty disappointing. I never believed the whole "change the world" SV nonsense, and always knew it was nothing more than cynical marketing. But at least in places like Google the employees who were brought on that premise, fight to achieve it, and make it real. Coinbase is still hypocritical, and I wouldn't expect much more. But this whole, "you are only a serf and the whole of power morally belongs to the board" reveals an unsettling feudal mentality.
- mckirk 6y ago
  It would be entirely possible to 'change the world' just by transforming the monetary system though, would it not? Yes, that is in itself a goal with political undercurrents and ultimately would clearly involve political decisions, but they are not at that stage yet and therefore I think it's quite reasonable to want to stay apolitical, where possible.
- puszczyk 6y ago
  Serfs are (were) bound to their feudal overlord. Their children were bound as well. They couldn’t quit. They’ve had no political power. In many places they were even denied access to courts — they were forced to arbitrage through their lord. There was nothing they could do to improve their or their children’s lives. I don’t think it compares, even as a hyperbole, to Coinbase employees.
- yokaze 6y ago
  > I never believed the whole "change the world" SV nonsense, and always knew it was nothing more than cynical marketing. It certainly is. But I like to believe, there is an underlying reasonable philosophy behind it. Every company tries to make a difference, that is its value proposition. If your value proposition has a negative social impact, it is not a sustainable business model. Legislation will eventually render your business untenable. (Even if it takes centuries or decades like tobacco, or fossil fuel). So, considering your social impact makes business sense. To quote Paul Drucker: "Responsibility for social impacts is a management responsibility — not because it is a social responsibility, but because it is a business responsibility. The ideal is to make elimination of such an impact into a business opportunity. But wherever that cannot be done, the design of the appropriate regulation with the optimal trade-off balance—and public discussion of the problem and promotion of the best regulatory solution — is management’s job."

chii 6y ago

> Employment and stock-options are not "fractions of board seats". i agree that employment is not "fractions of board seats. But stock options (when converted to stock) holds voting power, and thus _do_ represent "factions of board seats". Very little amount, but an amount nonetheless.

fakedang 6y ago
Stock options are mostly for common stock, which don't give you voting power anyways.
- zepto 6y ago
  Generally common stock has voting power.

randmeerkat 6y ago

I’ll take a shot at responding: I would argue that the board wouldn’t exist without the people that make up the company. I would also argue that with monied interests and lobbyists in Washington, one of the last places that people can really effect societal change is at the work place. Companies have become the power center in American politics, so of course activism is going to rise up there. As far as compelled activism goes, I feel that silence _is_ violence. “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” (JFK, Burke, Mill...)

notSupplied 6y ago
I am operating on an underlying principle that others may not share, but this could help elucidate why I disagree with many fellow liberals on this front: I'm trying to solve for how decision making power is allocated without making assumptions about which side is right or wrong. In other words, the argument that "The company must do XYZ because this political cause is simply on the RIGHT side of history!" is not acceptable to me, even though I often personally agree that the cause really _is_ right.
nitrogen 6y ago
It's the framing of everything in good vs evil, monochromatic terms that actually increases divisiveness and prevents deescalation of conflict. Forcing people to take one's side or else "be on the wrong side" in a multifaceted environment is not appropriate for a workplace, where people expect to be able to set aside differences to work together on work itself.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  Millions of Americans are unemployed, hundreds of thousands are dying from a pandemic, tens of thousands are in lines at food banks, there are children in cages, women being given forced hysterectomies, and there are literally neo-Nazis that the President refuses to disavow. If you’re not going to take a stand now, when will you?
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    If you’re not going to take a stand now, when will you? When I'm not at work. When and where I stand is my business, but "when" is definitely not when I am at work and nobody is bullying anyone.
    - randmeerkat 6y ago
      So what about Twitter flagging Trump’s tweets? Do you think that happened without a politicised workplace discussion? With the amount of power that tech wields over society these discussions _have_ to happen.

mola 6y ago

Companies that have a mission "to change the world" attract employees on the basis of activisism in the world. Heck this company is trying to overhaul the entire monetary system. If succeeded this will effect the lives of billions of people. Recruiting people with this premise, and then telling them actually, you don't have any say in what the company actually does, and the ways it changes the world, that actually it was all a joke, and so just shut up and do what the board says because they own all the power and rights is pretty disappointing. I never believed the whole "change the world" SV nonsense, and always knew it was nothing more than cynical marketing. But at least in places like Google the employees who were brought on that premise, fight to achieve it, and make it real. Coinbase is still hypocritical, and I wouldn't expect much more. But this whole, "you are only a serf and the whole of power morally belongs to the board" reveals an unsettling feudal mentality.

mckirk 6y ago
It would be entirely possible to 'change the world' just by transforming the monetary system though, would it not? Yes, that is in itself a goal with political undercurrents and ultimately would clearly involve political decisions, but they are not at that stage yet and therefore I think it's quite reasonable to want to stay apolitical, where possible.
puszczyk 6y ago
Serfs are (were) bound to their feudal overlord. Their children were bound as well. They couldn’t quit. They’ve had no political power. In many places they were even denied access to courts — they were forced to arbitrage through their lord. There was nothing they could do to improve their or their children’s lives. I don’t think it compares, even as a hyperbole, to Coinbase employees.
yokaze 6y ago
> I never believed the whole "change the world" SV nonsense, and always knew it was nothing more than cynical marketing. It certainly is. But I like to believe, there is an underlying reasonable philosophy behind it. Every company tries to make a difference, that is its value proposition. If your value proposition has a negative social impact, it is not a sustainable business model. Legislation will eventually render your business untenable. (Even if it takes centuries or decades like tobacco, or fossil fuel). So, considering your social impact makes business sense. To quote Paul Drucker: "Responsibility for social impacts is a management responsibility — not because it is a social responsibility, but because it is a business responsibility. The ideal is to make elimination of such an impact into a business opportunity. But wherever that cannot be done, the design of the appropriate regulation with the optimal trade-off balance—and public discussion of the problem and promotion of the best regulatory solution — is management’s job."