3 ms·

> but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for int

by pron 6y ago

> but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interviews and leave the company! Why? It might be true that in the US the system is such that corporations are the property of their shareholders to do with as they please within the law, but that is a construct of a specific political process (e.g. [1]), and a different political process, like the one these employees are now engaging in could result in a different, possibly better outcome. If the law is your only guidance, then the law allows workers to protest management decisions, even publicly, just as much as it allows them to quit. If management is allowed to do anything it wants as long as it's legal, so can employees. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...

coward8675309 6y ago
This makes no sense to me. If you don't believe in the raison d'être of a company, you should not join the company. There is no need to delve deeply into competing theories of the corporation. I'm willing to bet that even over in Europe, Ruger, Sig, Glock, Walther, and Beretta don't have a ton of gadflies on staff who are paid to write papers calling for the outlaw of handguns.
- pron 6y ago
  It's possible that the company's values or behaviour have changed, but, more importantly, the decision to work at a company is mutual: both sides want it (the company expects the value an employee will bring exceeds the cost of their employment; hiring someone is not a charity), and they enter into this relationship when neither side knows everything about the other, certainly not how they would behave in the future. Just as the company can and does exert pressure on employees to do something they might not want, so can the employees try and exert pressure on the company to change a decision.
  - coward8675309 6y ago
    I don't disagree with you. I was at an adtech startup, and I had bright lines — no payday loans or for-profit education. Luckily we never needed to blur or cross those lines, but as our business evolved, the way I delivered my — and my colleagues delivered their— preferences was not through laying down ultimatums but by having conversations. Some people seem intent on creating drama and casting things not as their preferences but as Epic Struggles Between Good and Evil, where people who don't share their preferences are Evil. These people may not be offended by this characterization! Life is complicated. I re-watched Schindler's List the other day, and assuming for a moment it's historically accurate, one could argue that by laboring in the factory, the workers were aiding the war effort and trading their own temporary safety for the lives of the people who would be victims of a Nazi war machine fed out of the factory's enamel pots. If someone were to actually argue that, I would just sort of stare at them like there were insane, despite not knowing how to rebut the argument except by blurting our words like "nuance" and "perspective" and "balance."
    - pron 6y ago
      Maybe, but I don't know enough details or background about this situation to debate over its nuances. I'm just criticising the views I see expressed here, that are bizarre even from a capitalistic perspective, that a corporation may do anything legal and will be judged by the market, while employees doing the same -- whether it's smart or not -- is crossing some line.
      - coward8675309 6y ago
        I don't know what general principles people are arguing for here, but the facts at the heart of TFA relate to someone laying down an ultimatum to an employer — "do these things or I'm going to quit" — and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye." That accepted conditional resignation (as someone mellifluously put it in an earlier HN discussion) is being interpreted by some as a firing. Having read the original letter, it sure sounded like a conditional resignation to me and, as a manager, I would've done my best to get the writer of the letter out the door ASAP. Keep in mind that as an IC, I once worked for a company that imposed a 10% across the board pay cut without consulting me. I resigned the day it was announced, because my compensation is a term of employment mutually agreed to by my employer and myself, not something imposed upon me. So I've been on both sides of this. As a general life rule, I go nuclear on people who play hardball with me, whether I am the manager or the managed.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
This comment (and these foolish entitled SJW employees) fail to observe that companies like Google only exist in America in no small part due to that fact. No other country has produced companies that are even remotely comparable, and the US produces them regularly. Assuming, of course, that one’s preferred alternative doesn’t involve serving the CCP. Maybe some folks prefer it that way, but they seem all too happy to compartmentalize the reality of the situation and let their ridiculously permissive (and coddling) employer pad their bank account, make them gourmet meals, babysit their kids, and do their laundry. Google screwed up by creating an environment that fosters perpetual children. They’re fools to put up with this behavior. Walkouts should be a one way door. Call their bluff. They will not quit in any significant numbers. Not once they realize how everyone else lives.
- pron 6y ago
  > that companies like Google only exist in America in no small part due to that fact That's a non-sequitur. There are many things that make America, and every other country, unique. Maybe America produced Google because it's the only country with that population size that's made up virtually entirely of immigrants? It's also an is-ought fallacy. America is also the only rich country that's built that much of its wealth on slave labour, so does that mean slave labour is a good thing? > let their ridiculously permissive (and coddling) employer pad their bank account As a reminder, just in case the principles of capitalism, quite ironically, elude you, the company hires employees it expects will pad its own bank account more than it pads theirs. > Not once they realize how everyone else lives. It is certainly true that the conditions of most Google employees are much better than those of the rest of the world, but they are so because the company's employees created that wealth.
  - thisiszilff 6y ago
    > It's also an is-ought fallacy. America is also the only rich country that's built that much of its wealth on slave labour, so does that mean slave labour is a good thing? I'm curious about this one. Most of what I've read indicates that modern American wealth was largely circumstantial due to european economies being obliterated during WW2. Do you have a source for how much slavery affected American wealth?

by pron 6y ago

coward8675309 6y ago

This makes no sense to me. If you don't believe in the raison d'être of a company, you should not join the company. There is no need to delve deeply into competing theories of the corporation. I'm willing to bet that even over in Europe, Ruger, Sig, Glock, Walther, and Beretta don't have a ton of gadflies on staff who are paid to write papers calling for the outlaw of handguns.

pron 6y ago
It's possible that the company's values or behaviour have changed, but, more importantly, the decision to work at a company is mutual: both sides want it (the company expects the value an employee will bring exceeds the cost of their employment; hiring someone is not a charity), and they enter into this relationship when neither side knows everything about the other, certainly not how they would behave in the future. Just as the company can and does exert pressure on employees to do something they might not want, so can the employees try and exert pressure on the company to change a decision.
- coward8675309 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you. I was at an adtech startup, and I had bright lines — no payday loans or for-profit education. Luckily we never needed to blur or cross those lines, but as our business evolved, the way I delivered my — and my colleagues delivered their— preferences was not through laying down ultimatums but by having conversations. Some people seem intent on creating drama and casting things not as their preferences but as Epic Struggles Between Good and Evil, where people who don't share their preferences are Evil. These people may not be offended by this characterization! Life is complicated. I re-watched Schindler's List the other day, and assuming for a moment it's historically accurate, one could argue that by laboring in the factory, the workers were aiding the war effort and trading their own temporary safety for the lives of the people who would be victims of a Nazi war machine fed out of the factory's enamel pots. If someone were to actually argue that, I would just sort of stare at them like there were insane, despite not knowing how to rebut the argument except by blurting our words like "nuance" and "perspective" and "balance."
  - pron 6y ago
    Maybe, but I don't know enough details or background about this situation to debate over its nuances. I'm just criticising the views I see expressed here, that are bizarre even from a capitalistic perspective, that a corporation may do anything legal and will be judged by the market, while employees doing the same -- whether it's smart or not -- is crossing some line.
    - coward8675309 6y ago
      I don't know what general principles people are arguing for here, but the facts at the heart of TFA relate to someone laying down an ultimatum to an employer — "do these things or I'm going to quit" — and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye." That accepted conditional resignation (as someone mellifluously put it in an earlier HN discussion) is being interpreted by some as a firing. Having read the original letter, it sure sounded like a conditional resignation to me and, as a manager, I would've done my best to get the writer of the letter out the door ASAP. Keep in mind that as an IC, I once worked for a company that imposed a 10% across the board pay cut without consulting me. I resigned the day it was announced, because my compensation is a term of employment mutually agreed to by my employer and myself, not something imposed upon me. So I've been on both sides of this. As a general life rule, I go nuclear on people who play hardball with me, whether I am the manager or the managed.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

This comment (and these foolish entitled SJW employees) fail to observe that companies like Google only exist in America in no small part due to that fact. No other country has produced companies that are even remotely comparable, and the US produces them regularly. Assuming, of course, that one’s preferred alternative doesn’t involve serving the CCP. Maybe some folks prefer it that way, but they seem all too happy to compartmentalize the reality of the situation and let their ridiculously permissive (and coddling) employer pad their bank account, make them gourmet meals, babysit their kids, and do their laundry. Google screwed up by creating an environment that fosters perpetual children. They’re fools to put up with this behavior. Walkouts should be a one way door. Call their bluff. They will not quit in any significant numbers. Not once they realize how everyone else lives.

pron 6y ago
> that companies like Google only exist in America in no small part due to that fact That's a non-sequitur. There are many things that make America, and every other country, unique. Maybe America produced Google because it's the only country with that population size that's made up virtually entirely of immigrants? It's also an is-ought fallacy. America is also the only rich country that's built that much of its wealth on slave labour, so does that mean slave labour is a good thing? > let their ridiculously permissive (and coddling) employer pad their bank account As a reminder, just in case the principles of capitalism, quite ironically, elude you, the company hires employees it expects will pad its own bank account more than it pads theirs. > Not once they realize how everyone else lives. It is certainly true that the conditions of most Google employees are much better than those of the rest of the world, but they are so because the company's employees created that wealth.
- thisiszilff 6y ago
  > It's also an is-ought fallacy. America is also the only rich country that's built that much of its wealth on slave labour, so does that mean slave labour is a good thing? I'm curious about this one. Most of what I've read indicates that modern American wealth was largely circumstantial due to european economies being obliterated during WW2. Do you have a source for how much slavery affected American wealth?