4 ms·

There's literally a biblical parable about this (though sort of in reverse). I'll paraphrase it (it's from Matthew Ch 20): A man goes out in the morning to fin

There's literally a biblical parable about this (though sort of in reverse). I'll paraphrase it (it's from Matthew Ch 20): A man goes out in the morning to find workers for his vineyard, promising them each denarius for the day. Around lunch he goes to find more workers. During the afternoon, he goes to find even more workers. At the end of the day the man pays everyone, starting with those who arrived during the afternoon. To these folks he gives a denarius. The workers who had arrived earlier see this and think they're about to get a bonus, only to then also receive a denarius apiece. The main purpose of the parable is to describe that everybody who makes it to Heaven is there on equal terms. But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair?

froh 6y ago
the parable leverages our feelings of injustice tickled by the very relatable narrative to carry one point home, the Heavens part. the other, secular reading, has a heavy taste of prosperity gospel, putting employers into God's boots to justify blatant injustice and better margins, fka profits. it is and remains unfair to offer different employees different wages for the same work. please don't use the gospel to justify injustice. btw,bI'm amazed there are employee owned companies. For example whenever there is another round of Huawei bashing I remind myself that Huawei is fully employee owned with no majority shareholders. https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/who-owns-huawei#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20Huawei%20is%20owned,1.14%25%20stake%20in%20the%20company https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/who-owns-hua....
- ornornor 6y ago
  That’s very surprising, I didn’t know that about Huawei and didn’t expect it at all! 100% with you on the parable.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  > remind myself that Huawei is fully employee owned with no majority shareholders You know it’s a Chinese company right? That employees have as much control over it as they do companies that are formally state owned enterprises, none? That it’s run by the internal CCP committee?
- strogonoff 6y ago
  The exact situation is (intentionally or not) very obscure to outsiders. There’s a research paper[0] dedicated to the question of who actually owns Huawei. Its authors found that: > The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company. > We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected. > Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union. > What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme. > Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned. > Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not. For what it’s worth, Huawei’s own legal chief described[1] it as a private company back in 2019. [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-asks-court-to-rule-us-ban-unconstitutional/ https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-asks-court-to-rule-us-ban-u...
- twodave 6y ago
  The idea that a software engineer being bitter about his still probably high compensation being an injustice is laughable bordering on insane. We live in an age where you don’t even have to get out of your house in order to make a very good living and we have the audacity to call it an injustice when somebody else receives something that we didn’t instead of just being happy for them. As if the key to modern happiness is found in personal financial gain.
rsyring 6y ago
> The main purpose of the parable is to describe that everybody who makes it to Heaven is there on equal terms. I believe a closer reading of that passage suggests that the purpose of the parable is to show that Jesus is upending the social order that currently exists* to show favor to the those who are currently the downtrodden and outcast. See the end of chapter 19 where Jesus says the rich will not enter the kingdom of heaven and the first will be last. Then chapter 20, the parable in question, and the parable ends with: "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first, and the first last." Jesus would die for sinners, both Jews and gentiles. The gentiles would be grafted in, as Paul says in Romans 11. An incredibly offensive idea to the Jews of the day but demonstrative of a God who is rich in mercy. > But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair? FWIW, I think you are exactly right on that part. * I don't think this meaning parallels or supports current cultural efforts to "upend social order." Completely different culture and circumstances being discussed and Jesus' desired outcome is very different IMO from what I see many in our current culture fighting for. He was concerned primarily for people's souls, not their economic or political standing. In fact, that was one of the reasons he died the death he did...to show that his kingdom was not of this world, his concerns were not primarily those of this world, and his disciples should do likewise.
hellow0rldz 6y ago
> But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair? You define what's fair based on what information you have. If new information reveals that trade was not only unfair but a blatant rip off you are within your rights to feel something about it. Still, I think one should accept the past trade. But there's no reason for that, combined to the new information to guarantee a continuous relation. In other words, renegotiation based on new information that substantially change the deal is moral.
- faeyanpiraat 6y ago
  You have the right to feel anything about anything for any reason. Whether you can renegotiate or not is not based on your feelings or morals, but how good you are at power games.
  - hellow0rldz 6y ago
    This a very one linear way of looking at the world. Sure, it might be about "power games" but feelings do matter and morals too and how one feels about it does give you the extra energy and drive to succeed at a (re)negotiation. So... how can one ignore all that? The original debate was if it's unfair. I think taking advantage too much during an initial negotiation is unfair but since the other side did agree it is a "fair" trade for the other party (based on the partial info they had). Once extra information is revealed, the trade is not fair in retrospect. But new information should only apply to future trades: as such, negotiating or quitting is moral. You might be sub-estimating how good people are at power games. Quitting out of spite is know to happen so people are willing to take a loss due to unfairness. Assuming rationality and ignore feelings and morals while focusing only on the technicality of "power games" is super simplistic.
    - twodave 6y ago
      This isn’t really the situation GP was talking about. The company offered early employees stock. At some point obviously they have to draw the line and stop doing this. GP felt they were ripped off only after learning not that they missed the boat, but how close they were to being on it. The company wasn’t unfair to them, especially since GP agreed to a certain wage and the company was willing to pay that wage.

froh 6y ago

the parable leverages our feelings of injustice tickled by the very relatable narrative to carry one point home, the Heavens part. the other, secular reading, has a heavy taste of prosperity gospel, putting employers into God's boots to justify blatant injustice and better margins, fka profits. it is and remains unfair to offer different employees different wages for the same work. please don't use the gospel to justify injustice. btw,bI'm amazed there are employee owned companies. For example whenever there is another round of Huawei bashing I remind myself that Huawei is fully employee owned with no majority shareholders. https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/who-owns-huawei#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20Huawei%20is%20owned,1.14%25%20stake%20in%20the%20company https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/question-answer/who-owns-hua....

ornornor 6y ago
That’s very surprising, I didn’t know that about Huawei and didn’t expect it at all! 100% with you on the parable.
barry-cotter 6y ago
> remind myself that Huawei is fully employee owned with no majority shareholders You know it’s a Chinese company right? That employees have as much control over it as they do companies that are formally state owned enterprises, none? That it’s run by the internal CCP committee?
strogonoff 6y ago
The exact situation is (intentionally or not) very obscure to outsiders. There’s a research paper[0] dedicated to the question of who actually owns Huawei. Its authors found that: > The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company. > We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected. > Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union. > What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme. > Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned. > Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not. For what it’s worth, Huawei’s own legal chief described[1] it as a private company back in 2019. [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-asks-court-to-rule-us-ban-unconstitutional/ https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-asks-court-to-rule-us-ban-u...
twodave 6y ago
The idea that a software engineer being bitter about his still probably high compensation being an injustice is laughable bordering on insane. We live in an age where you don’t even have to get out of your house in order to make a very good living and we have the audacity to call it an injustice when somebody else receives something that we didn’t instead of just being happy for them. As if the key to modern happiness is found in personal financial gain.

rsyring 6y ago

> The main purpose of the parable is to describe that everybody who makes it to Heaven is there on equal terms. I believe a closer reading of that passage suggests that the purpose of the parable is to show that Jesus is upending the social order that currently exists* to show favor to the those who are currently the downtrodden and outcast. See the end of chapter 19 where Jesus says the rich will not enter the kingdom of heaven and the first will be last. Then chapter 20, the parable in question, and the parable ends with: "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first, and the first last." Jesus would die for sinners, both Jews and gentiles. The gentiles would be grafted in, as Paul says in Romans 11. An incredibly offensive idea to the Jews of the day but demonstrative of a God who is rich in mercy. > But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair? FWIW, I think you are exactly right on that part. * I don't think this meaning parallels or supports current cultural efforts to "upend social order." Completely different culture and circumstances being discussed and Jesus' desired outcome is very different IMO from what I see many in our current culture fighting for. He was concerned primarily for people's souls, not their economic or political standing. In fact, that was one of the reasons he died the death he did...to show that his kingdom was not of this world, his concerns were not primarily those of this world, and his disciples should do likewise.

hellow0rldz 6y ago

> But there's another truth to it that the article also describes--if you agreed to work for a wage and then receive that wage, can it really be called unfair? You define what's fair based on what information you have. If new information reveals that trade was not only unfair but a blatant rip off you are within your rights to feel something about it. Still, I think one should accept the past trade. But there's no reason for that, combined to the new information to guarantee a continuous relation. In other words, renegotiation based on new information that substantially change the deal is moral.

faeyanpiraat 6y ago
You have the right to feel anything about anything for any reason. Whether you can renegotiate or not is not based on your feelings or morals, but how good you are at power games.
- hellow0rldz 6y ago
  This a very one linear way of looking at the world. Sure, it might be about "power games" but feelings do matter and morals too and how one feels about it does give you the extra energy and drive to succeed at a (re)negotiation. So... how can one ignore all that? The original debate was if it's unfair. I think taking advantage too much during an initial negotiation is unfair but since the other side did agree it is a "fair" trade for the other party (based on the partial info they had). Once extra information is revealed, the trade is not fair in retrospect. But new information should only apply to future trades: as such, negotiating or quitting is moral. You might be sub-estimating how good people are at power games. Quitting out of spite is know to happen so people are willing to take a loss due to unfairness. Assuming rationality and ignore feelings and morals while focusing only on the technicality of "power games" is super simplistic.
  - twodave 6y ago
    This isn’t really the situation GP was talking about. The company offered early employees stock. At some point obviously they have to draw the line and stop doing this. GP felt they were ripped off only after learning not that they missed the boat, but how close they were to being on it. The company wasn’t unfair to them, especially since GP agreed to a certain wage and the company was willing to pay that wage.