2 ms·

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 th

by 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.

by pron 6y ago

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.