4 ms·

> The canonical point of a workplace is to come together to fulfill the aims of the entrepreneurs. Absolutely not, and for a very clear reason: the aims of the

by geofft 5y ago

> The canonical point of a workplace is to come together to fulfill the aims of the entrepreneurs. Absolutely not, and for a very clear reason: the aims of the entrepreneurs are to make money and reduce costs. My aim, in asking for raises, is to increase costs. Are you saying this is inappropriate? I am at work because the company and I came to a mutually beneficial arrangement. They need things done that are better done if I'm there; in exchange, I have a number of demands of them, starting with a sizable chunk of money. They're willing to meet those demands, so I work. If I make political demands of my employer, it may be novel, but it is not a fundamental change of a relationship where I am already making financial demands of my employer. If the employer doesn't like my demands, they are free to try to find someone else, and the process works the same in both cases.

ghufran_syed 5y ago
presumably you would also be ok with getting paid less money in exchange for more political freedoms at work?
- smegger001 5y ago
  as I am one that doesn't seek to evangelize my political views at work, I would rather go the other direction pay me more if I agree not too bring them up. (and that includes political causes I agree with. I don't like it because it inevitably causes arguments between other coworkers that hold opposing views and i have to put up with both sides.)
Aerroon 5y ago
>If the employer doesn't like my demands, they are free to try to find someone else, and the process works the same in both cases. That's not the problem though. The problem is that your political advocacy causes problems with your co-workers, not your employer. If you have political activism at the work place then you're possibly making the workplace hostile for people who disagree politically with you. You might never hear about it, especially if you're in the majority, but you're still turning people off.
- geofft 5y ago
  Sure, but it's not qualitatively different from many other situations where employees make incompatible demands, is what I'm saying. One employee can say, I want to be allowed to work from home; another can say, I have trouble interacting with people remotely and want to see them face to face. One employee can say, I want to bring my dog to the office; another can say, I'm allergic to dogs. One employee can say, I want a beer fridge at work; another can say, I'm a recovering alcoholic and free beer is too dangerous. One employee can say, I really want a strong management structure; another can say, I really want a flat structure. One employee can say, I wish to live in New York and work during the daytime; another can say, I wish to live in Tokyo and work during the daytime. It's the employer's job (not the employees') to mediate between those, if possible (such as by having different teams with different offices/policies/etc.), and figure out which employees to make contracts with, if not. Or, more directly, two employees can say, I want this much salary, and the company doesn't have budget for both. If they meet the demand of one employee, they are risking the other employee. But nobody would ever suggest (in good faith) that either of the employees needs to put the business first and not negotiate for a higher salary so that the company can retain the other employee. That's the company's problem to solve. (Since you mentioned a hostile work environment - sure, there is a law in some jurisdictions that you cannot discriminate based on political affiliations. If one employee is trying to put the company in violation of the law, then the company has an easy answer for which employee not to make a contracts with. And, again, such a law binds companies and effectively obligates them not to hire people who will put them in violation of the law; it typically does not bind employees. In the absence of a law giving the company only one choice, it's up to the employer to figure out what benefits them more. Underpaying a hard-working employee is certainly "hostile" in a colloquial sense, but it is not illegal, and many companies manage to retain underpaid employees in practice.)

by geofft 5y ago

ghufran_syed 5y ago

presumably you would also be ok with getting paid less money in exchange for more political freedoms at work?

smegger001 5y ago
as I am one that doesn't seek to evangelize my political views at work, I would rather go the other direction pay me more if I agree not too bring them up. (and that includes political causes I agree with. I don't like it because it inevitably causes arguments between other coworkers that hold opposing views and i have to put up with both sides.)

Aerroon 5y ago

>If the employer doesn't like my demands, they are free to try to find someone else, and the process works the same in both cases. That's not the problem though. The problem is that your political advocacy causes problems with your co-workers, not your employer. If you have political activism at the work place then you're possibly making the workplace hostile for people who disagree politically with you. You might never hear about it, especially if you're in the majority, but you're still turning people off.

geofft 5y ago
Sure, but it's not qualitatively different from many other situations where employees make incompatible demands, is what I'm saying. One employee can say, I want to be allowed to work from home; another can say, I have trouble interacting with people remotely and want to see them face to face. One employee can say, I want to bring my dog to the office; another can say, I'm allergic to dogs. One employee can say, I want a beer fridge at work; another can say, I'm a recovering alcoholic and free beer is too dangerous. One employee can say, I really want a strong management structure; another can say, I really want a flat structure. One employee can say, I wish to live in New York and work during the daytime; another can say, I wish to live in Tokyo and work during the daytime. It's the employer's job (not the employees') to mediate between those, if possible (such as by having different teams with different offices/policies/etc.), and figure out which employees to make contracts with, if not. Or, more directly, two employees can say, I want this much salary, and the company doesn't have budget for both. If they meet the demand of one employee, they are risking the other employee. But nobody would ever suggest (in good faith) that either of the employees needs to put the business first and not negotiate for a higher salary so that the company can retain the other employee. That's the company's problem to solve. (Since you mentioned a hostile work environment - sure, there is a law in some jurisdictions that you cannot discriminate based on political affiliations. If one employee is trying to put the company in violation of the law, then the company has an easy answer for which employee not to make a contracts with. And, again, such a law binds companies and effectively obligates them not to hire people who will put them in violation of the law; it typically does not bind employees. In the absence of a law giving the company only one choice, it's up to the employer to figure out what benefits them more. Underpaying a hard-working employee is certainly "hostile" in a colloquial sense, but it is not illegal, and many companies manage to retain underpaid employees in practice.)