4 ms·

I think the primary reason for this is because people (generally speaking) in democratic societies share control of their government (for the people by the peop

by jjcon 6y ago

I think the primary reason for this is because people (generally speaking) in democratic societies share control of their government (for the people by the people etc). This is not true of company->employee relationships. It is assumed that if you join a company you share their values and if you no longer share their values the barrier to leave and join another is quite low. People have different values and that is fine. Unless your employer is engaging in illegal behaviors, speaking out against their value set is just showing intolerance for other people and their values. Move on, join up and use your time to help lift values you hold, don’t just spend all your time tearing down others. Respect the fact that others can have values different than your own.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
This. A country is governed by its leaders for its people. The leaders have a responsibility to the people to act on their behalf in their benefit. Companies are managed by an executive team on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the shareholders. Not the employees. Shareholders can, and do, criticise management and demand they do things differently/better, because management is ultimately responsible to them. Likewise the people can, and do, criticse governments because the government is responsible to them. Management are not responsible to employees. Though it makes sense to not annoy them too much. But if it's a question of shareholder or employee satisfaction, then legally there's no choice.
js8 6y ago
> It is assumed that if you join a company you share their values More precisely, it is assumed that you share the values of the owners. > Move on, join up and use your time to help lift values you hold, don’t just spend all your time tearing down others. Respect the fact that others can have values different than your own. I see a big problem with this argument, would you say that to e.g. Belarussian freedom of speech activists? That hey, they should just respect their government has different values, and they can move elsewhere. You're talking about "others", but you really mean "people in charge". I think it's morally wrong to exclude large majority of people, who are not in charge, from the discussion what should be the values of the collective they are part of.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > I see a big problem with this argument, would you say that to e.g. Belarussian freedom of speech activists? I gave multiple points in my post as to why governments are different than companies (it was in fact the main point of my post). Please read it again.
istjohn 6y ago
Seems to me you have an overly simplistic view of what a corporation is. A corporation is not merely its stockholders. A corporation is accountable to multiple stakeholders, and it's stockholders are just one of many such stakeholders. A corporation's employees and customers are also stakeholders, as well as the society and nation in which it is embedded. It is perfectly legitimate for any of the various stakeholders to attempt to influence the behavior of the corporation. If you are for tolerance and the coexistance of different values in society, you will understand that values come into conflict constantly. And you will respect the prerogative of employees and customers to push back when their values conflict with corporation management (who represent stockholders). When you insist that employees must unilaterally disarm by walking away at the first sign of conflict with their employers, you are essentially expressing a class preference. You are asserting that the working class must submit to the stockholding upper class. A corporation requires capital to compete in our economy. And when the top 10% own 80% of the wealth, workers cannot simply walk away. Stockholders can't walk away either. They need workers, just as workers need capital. So they will need to find a way to coexist, but that doesn't mean there won't be conflict. There will always be conflict. The virtue of our democracy is that the conflict is manifested as demand letters and PR statements instead of clubs and bullets.

by jjcon 6y ago

marcus_holmes 6y ago

This. A country is governed by its leaders for its people. The leaders have a responsibility to the people to act on their behalf in their benefit. Companies are managed by an executive team on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the shareholders. Not the employees. Shareholders can, and do, criticise management and demand they do things differently/better, because management is ultimately responsible to them. Likewise the people can, and do, criticse governments because the government is responsible to them. Management are not responsible to employees. Though it makes sense to not annoy them too much. But if it's a question of shareholder or employee satisfaction, then legally there's no choice.

js8 6y ago

> It is assumed that if you join a company you share their values More precisely, it is assumed that you share the values of the owners. > Move on, join up and use your time to help lift values you hold, don’t just spend all your time tearing down others. Respect the fact that others can have values different than your own. I see a big problem with this argument, would you say that to e.g. Belarussian freedom of speech activists? That hey, they should just respect their government has different values, and they can move elsewhere. You're talking about "others", but you really mean "people in charge". I think it's morally wrong to exclude large majority of people, who are not in charge, from the discussion what should be the values of the collective they are part of.

jjcon 6y ago
> I see a big problem with this argument, would you say that to e.g. Belarussian freedom of speech activists? I gave multiple points in my post as to why governments are different than companies (it was in fact the main point of my post). Please read it again.

istjohn 6y ago

Seems to me you have an overly simplistic view of what a corporation is. A corporation is not merely its stockholders. A corporation is accountable to multiple stakeholders, and it's stockholders are just one of many such stakeholders. A corporation's employees and customers are also stakeholders, as well as the society and nation in which it is embedded. It is perfectly legitimate for any of the various stakeholders to attempt to influence the behavior of the corporation. If you are for tolerance and the coexistance of different values in society, you will understand that values come into conflict constantly. And you will respect the prerogative of employees and customers to push back when their values conflict with corporation management (who represent stockholders). When you insist that employees must unilaterally disarm by walking away at the first sign of conflict with their employers, you are essentially expressing a class preference. You are asserting that the working class must submit to the stockholding upper class. A corporation requires capital to compete in our economy. And when the top 10% own 80% of the wealth, workers cannot simply walk away. Stockholders can't walk away either. They need workers, just as workers need capital. So they will need to find a way to coexist, but that doesn't mean there won't be conflict. There will always be conflict. The virtue of our democracy is that the conflict is manifested as demand letters and PR statements instead of clubs and bullets.