4 ms·

Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner.

Why should they? It is not their business. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the business as an investor/owner. Employees are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the companies goals.

katbyte 5y ago
so businesses are allowed to be racist because "they own it"? what's next start paying women and POC less because reasons? oh wait
- wreath 5y ago
  They are allowed to do anything within the law.
xpe 5y ago
> Why should they? It is not their business. Why shouldn't they? Companies make many decisions that are not central to their business -- what snacks to provide, where to hold the company holiday party, etc. Yes, you can claim the above somehow tie into the core business. If so, then I also get to make the connection. I'll argue that (e.g.) supporting Black Lives Matter is a net positive to the company. Take Away: I suggest we dismiss the notion that companies should not take positions on various issues. One may debate the wisdom of companies taking various stances, but I think it is quite ridiculous to claim that companies do not have the freedom to take various stances.
djrobstep 5y ago
You should take a moment to read your own comment and consider how much raw ideology is packed into it - it's just pure authoritarianism. As an illustration of this, consider this similar comment: "Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord. Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."
- anm89 5y ago
  You are comparing a government to a company. Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. For the record I think the peasants should and have every moral (althouth probably not legal)right to revolt. Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want. If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    > You are comparing a government to a company. Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible. > Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. Thinking that employers "belong" to the companies they work for is quite strange language. But more to the point, employees don't "optionally" sign employment contracts - most people are forced to work to pay the bills - in other words, they are coerced into signing the contract. Most people hate their jobs and would rather not do them.
    - Magicstatic 5y ago
      Sincere question - not meant to be inflammatory: Do you actually believe that most employees in the United States are coerced/forced to sign employment contracts, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?
      - drewbug01 5y ago
        It is virtually impossible to survive in the United States without employment. I don’t think the “coercion” perspective is the most convincing argument, personally: but there really isn’t much of an alternative to employment. The fact that the US has starving children speaks to how little of a social safety net we actually have. I guess while I wouldn’t personally use “coercion” in a debate about this stuff, it’s also somewhat of a reasonable argument when you consider the alternatives. It’s just very ... meta.

katbyte 5y ago

so businesses are allowed to be racist because "they own it"? what's next start paying women and POC less because reasons? oh wait

wreath 5y ago
They are allowed to do anything within the law.

xpe 5y ago

> Why should they? It is not their business. Why shouldn't they? Companies make many decisions that are not central to their business -- what snacks to provide, where to hold the company holiday party, etc. Yes, you can claim the above somehow tie into the core business. If so, then I also get to make the connection. I'll argue that (e.g.) supporting Black Lives Matter is a net positive to the company. Take Away: I suggest we dismiss the notion that companies should not take positions on various issues. One may debate the wisdom of companies taking various stances, but I think it is quite ridiculous to claim that companies do not have the freedom to take various stances.

djrobstep 5y ago

You should take a moment to read your own comment and consider how much raw ideology is packed into it - it's just pure authoritarianism. As an illustration of this, consider this similar comment: "Why should peasants have any voting power? It is not their country. If they want a say in how it is run they can leave or figure out how to buy into the country as a feudal lord. Peasants are literally in place to do one thing: trade time/energy for money in service of the King's goals."

anm89 5y ago
You are comparing a government to a company. Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. For the record I think the peasants should and have every moral (althouth probably not legal)right to revolt. Revolting from your company is called quitting. So go ahead and revolt if you want. If believing that both companies and workers should have the freedom to set their own terms for how they want to operate within the bounds of the law is authoritarianism then I will proudly take the label although of course, this is directly inverting the definition of authoritarianism.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  > You are comparing a government to a company. Indeed. Both can be run either a democratic or authoritarian fashion. "Ownership should mean absolute power" is a common belief (everywhere but particularly in the US where labor rights have never been strong), but is only one option, and more democratic forms are possible. > Peasants don't optionally sign contracts to belong to their nation. Thinking that employers "belong" to the companies they work for is quite strange language. But more to the point, employees don't "optionally" sign employment contracts - most people are forced to work to pay the bills - in other words, they are coerced into signing the contract. Most people hate their jobs and would rather not do them.
  - Magicstatic 5y ago
    Sincere question - not meant to be inflammatory: Do you actually believe that most employees in the United States are coerced/forced to sign employment contracts, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      It is virtually impossible to survive in the United States without employment. I don’t think the “coercion” perspective is the most convincing argument, personally: but there really isn’t much of an alternative to employment. The fact that the US has starving children speaks to how little of a social safety net we actually have. I guess while I wouldn’t personally use “coercion” in a debate about this stuff, it’s also somewhat of a reasonable argument when you consider the alternatives. It’s just very ... meta.