5 ms·

I don't think anyone would claim corporations are democracies, but the view that the corporation is its CEO and/or its shareholders isn't so obvious, either. Th

by pron 6y ago

I don't think anyone would claim corporations are democracies, but the view that the corporation is its CEO and/or its shareholders isn't so obvious, either. There are clearly cultural differences here (e.g. see the situation in Germany [1]), but I don't think that the American view of what a corporation is and who it serves is necessarily the only reasonable one. I don't know any more details on this matter than those in the article, but I don't see why you assume that if employees -- well paid or otherwise -- make demands of management then it must be them who are toxic, or, indeed, that anyone is. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

mpweiher 6y ago
As a German who has tested the labor laws himself: behaviour such as that displayed would absolutely be grounds for getting fired without the notice period ("fristlose Kündigung") here. And it's actually pretty hard to legally fire people. The reason is "Verlust des Vertrauensverhältnisses", i.e. loss of trust. You start making demands coupled with threats, and public ones at that, you are no longer an employee.
- pron 6y ago
  But if employees are well-represented on the board then such actions might not be necessary in the first place. In this case, they might have determined that they have no other recourse to change the company's behaviour. Both firing them or dealing with them are expressions of management's political power, and making their demands public is an expression of the political power of those employees, and it's up to both sides to figure out what result is best for them, a result that will likely be determined by the relative political power of the sides. I see no moral prerogative that says that management's exertion of political power is good, but workers' is bad.
  - mpweiher 6y ago
    No, they are expression of the fact that employees are employed and paid by the company to work for the company. You can agitate against companies all you want, it's a free country. But you can't expect to be paid by them while you do it. Not sure what "morality" has to do with it. EDIT (Since parent added the bit about boards): No, having employee representatives on the board changes nothing about this. The board is legally (and ethically) obligated to work for the benefit of the company.
    - pron 6y ago
      > the fact that employees are employed and paid by the company to work for the company. The view that the company is separate from the employees and they don't get a say in its direction is a construct of many years of political action. It's not some natural law; it's a political result reached through activism. Anyone is free to try and get a different result, and each side will judge how much power they have in this case, and try to use it to best achieve the outcome they want. > The board is legally (and ethically) obligated to work for the benefit of the company. But the board also decides what working for the benefit of the company means. Some person or persons must have decided that letting that manager go is better for the company than keeping her. If others were involved in the decision, they might have decided differently.
      - mpweiher 6y ago
        > [..] is a construct It is the way companies are currently constructed, pretty much everywhere. Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you. > But the board also decides what working for the benefit of the company means. Not without limits. Boards are answerable to shareholders, and may be held liable if they act against the interests of shareholders. But even then it is the board that decides this, not random employee X. As an employee, you are in a chain of command (tends to also be in your contract, which you entered into voluntarily). And once again, you are free to not abide by that contract, but don't expect to be employed by that company. Basically, what you are talking about are vastly hypothetical constructs that have little to do with how companies actually work.
        pron 6y ago
        > Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. But then you have a recourse that might not be available where this is not the case. Even in your telling of it, we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want, and I see no reason to hold employees to a higher standard than we hold the company. > Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you. Sure, but that is a question of power and tactics. The company could sack you, and it could also suffer negative PR as a result. Both sides use whichever power they have to their advantage. You could argue that what the employees are doing is not smart and that they might be overplaying their hand, but not that what they're doing is wrong. > Not without limits. Boards are answerable to shareholders, and may be held liable if they act against the interests of shareholders. Yes, but even the interests of shareholders are a result of political action. > But even then it is the board that decides this, not random employee X. But whether or not employees are on the board is itself a result of political action. In the US, they're not (as a result of political activism), but anyone is free to take any political action to change that. > As an employee, you are in a chain of command (tends to also be in your contract, which you entered into voluntarily). But as long as you're not breaking the law, you're allowed to take whatever action you please, including one that risks termination. The company might well be within its rights to sack you, but that has a cost so they might not do it. Corporations do such things all the time, sometimes choosing to risk litigation, and I see no reason why workers couldn't or shouldn't. Each side uses whatever power they have to their advantage.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  Where did she make demand coupled with threats? In her own words, she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication. This would very much fly in Germany. Her other email to the public list telling people to stop doing what they are doing might not, but then in Germany you'd have the Betriebsrat and the union stepping in and giving validation to such a firing (or not). Googles problem is that Timnit - who was hired to investigate the ethics of AI - refused to just retract a paper that might contain inconvenient statements about the ethics of AI and then refused to just roll over when fired. And they refuse to adress that, and can't just be open and transparent about it by e.g. sharing Timnits emails to prove she was making threats and being unreasonable, so some people are made and have opinions. In Germany, this would start and end with the Betriebsrat either blocking the firing or approving it. This would provide due process, transparency and legitimacy in one go.
  - mpweiher 6y ago
    Q: >Where did she make demand coupled with threats? A: >she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment [editor: threat] if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication [editor: demand]. "I you don't do as I want, I will leave." "Fine, you can leave". I can't imagine any company that would, or could, react in any other way in this situation. The Betriebsrat would have absolutely nothing to do here, as the company is just complying with her request. And yeah, once you "discuss an end date for your employment", a "Freistellung" is a completely normal event. Now in Germany that would result in payment continuing until the official end date. In the US things are different, but I don't have any information that this didn't happen (she just moaned about access to company systems, and that is normal in a "Freistellung").
    - igorkraw 6y ago
      That isn't a threat, that is announcing her terms. You can think they are in their own right to taker her up on it, but its not a threat. Also, as far as I know for a "einseitige Freistellung" (one sided decision to no longer want her to work there) Google would have to show that she destroyed the relationship of trust with Google, by e.g. criminal acts or maybe using her position as a manager to undermine the companies overall direction, e.g. by her going to the public mailing list afterwards. Announcing that she wants to leave if this can't be resolved would NOT qualify as this.

by pron 6y ago

mpweiher 6y ago

As a German who has tested the labor laws himself: behaviour such as that displayed would absolutely be grounds for getting fired without the notice period ("fristlose Kündigung") here. And it's actually pretty hard to legally fire people. The reason is "Verlust des Vertrauensverhältnisses", i.e. loss of trust. You start making demands coupled with threats, and public ones at that, you are no longer an employee.

pron 6y ago
But if employees are well-represented on the board then such actions might not be necessary in the first place. In this case, they might have determined that they have no other recourse to change the company's behaviour. Both firing them or dealing with them are expressions of management's political power, and making their demands public is an expression of the political power of those employees, and it's up to both sides to figure out what result is best for them, a result that will likely be determined by the relative political power of the sides. I see no moral prerogative that says that management's exertion of political power is good, but workers' is bad.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  No, they are expression of the fact that employees are employed and paid by the company to work for the company. You can agitate against companies all you want, it's a free country. But you can't expect to be paid by them while you do it. Not sure what "morality" has to do with it. EDIT (Since parent added the bit about boards): No, having employee representatives on the board changes nothing about this. The board is legally (and ethically) obligated to work for the benefit of the company.
  - pron 6y ago
    > the fact that employees are employed and paid by the company to work for the company. The view that the company is separate from the employees and they don't get a say in its direction is a construct of many years of political action. It's not some natural law; it's a political result reached through activism. Anyone is free to try and get a different result, and each side will judge how much power they have in this case, and try to use it to best achieve the outcome they want. > The board is legally (and ethically) obligated to work for the benefit of the company. But the board also decides what working for the benefit of the company means. Some person or persons must have decided that letting that manager go is better for the company than keeping her. If others were involved in the decision, they might have decided differently.
    - mpweiher 6y ago
      > [..] is a construct It is the way companies are currently constructed, pretty much everywhere. Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you. > But the board also decides what working for the benefit of the company means. Not without limits. Boards are answerable to shareholders, and may be held liable if they act against the interests of shareholders. But even then it is the board that decides this, not random employee X. As an employee, you are in a chain of command (tends to also be in your contract, which you entered into voluntarily). And once again, you are free to not abide by that contract, but don't expect to be employed by that company. Basically, what you are talking about are vastly hypothetical constructs that have little to do with how companies actually work.
      - pron 6y ago
        > Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. But then you have a recourse that might not be available where this is not the case. Even in your telling of it, we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want, and I see no reason to hold employees to a higher standard than we hold the company. > Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you. Sure, but that is a question of power and tactics. The company could sack you, and it could also suffer negative PR as a result. Both sides use whichever power they have to their advantage. You could argue that what the employees are doing is not smart and that they might be overplaying their hand, but not that what they're doing is wrong. > Not without limits. Boards are answerable to shareholders, and may be held liable if they act against the interests of shareholders. Yes, but even the interests of shareholders are a result of political action. > But even then it is the board that decides this, not random employee X. But whether or not employees are on the board is itself a result of political action. In the US, they're not (as a result of political activism), but anyone is free to take any political action to change that. > As an employee, you are in a chain of command (tends to also be in your contract, which you entered into voluntarily). But as long as you're not breaking the law, you're allowed to take whatever action you please, including one that risks termination. The company might well be within its rights to sack you, but that has a cost so they might not do it. Corporations do such things all the time, sometimes choosing to risk litigation, and I see no reason why workers couldn't or shouldn't. Each side uses whatever power they have to their advantage.
igorkraw 6y ago
Where did she make demand coupled with threats? In her own words, she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication. This would very much fly in Germany. Her other email to the public list telling people to stop doing what they are doing might not, but then in Germany you'd have the Betriebsrat and the union stepping in and giving validation to such a firing (or not). Googles problem is that Timnit - who was hired to investigate the ethics of AI - refused to just retract a paper that might contain inconvenient statements about the ethics of AI and then refused to just roll over when fired. And they refuse to adress that, and can't just be open and transparent about it by e.g. sharing Timnits emails to prove she was making threats and being unreasonable, so some people are made and have opinions. In Germany, this would start and end with the Betriebsrat either blocking the firing or approving it. This would provide due process, transparency and legitimacy in one go.
- mpweiher 6y ago
  Q: >Where did she make demand coupled with threats? A: >she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment [editor: threat] if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication [editor: demand]. "I you don't do as I want, I will leave." "Fine, you can leave". I can't imagine any company that would, or could, react in any other way in this situation. The Betriebsrat would have absolutely nothing to do here, as the company is just complying with her request. And yeah, once you "discuss an end date for your employment", a "Freistellung" is a completely normal event. Now in Germany that would result in payment continuing until the official end date. In the US things are different, but I don't have any information that this didn't happen (she just moaned about access to company systems, and that is normal in a "Freistellung").
  - igorkraw 6y ago
    That isn't a threat, that is announcing her terms. You can think they are in their own right to taker her up on it, but its not a threat. Also, as far as I know for a "einseitige Freistellung" (one sided decision to no longer want her to work there) Google would have to show that she destroyed the relationship of trust with Google, by e.g. criminal acts or maybe using her position as a manager to undermine the companies overall direction, e.g. by her going to the public mailing list afterwards. Announcing that she wants to leave if this can't be resolved would NOT qualify as this.