6 ms·

> people leak to reporters when they feel like they have no ability to control the direction of their organization Also people leak to reporters when they feel

> people leak to reporters when they feel like they have no ability to control the direction of their organization Also people leak to reporters when they feel like they are entitled to control the direction of their organization even if they sell all the stocks immediately after the vesting. Unpopular opinion: employees should express their concerns, and they are usually heard. And if the company decided to go against wishes of salaried employees, that's simply because the company exists to maximize profits of shareholders, not to make employees happy, and managers report to shareholders, not to employees. If one disagrees with management decision, there are two options: trust management judgement (perhaps they are better qualified to make certain decisions), or work elsewhere, in a company whose management they trust. But leaking e-mails is not just illegal, it is immoral. This does not apply of course to problems like, for example, intentional significant violation of the laws by the company.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Also people leak to reporters when they feel like they are entitled to control the direction of their organization even if they sell all the stocks immediately after the vesting. Yeah, they do. However you're confused about the organization in question: it's the Human Society or the United States of America (or some other nation), not Facebook, Inc.
tehjoker 5y ago
Yea, don't listen to the people actually doing the thing, only listen to the people whose only interest is extracting as much money out of the operation as possible. Of course, companies also essentially make the laws, so "illegal" is a very shallow line.
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  > don't listen to the people actually doing the thing They do listen. But people who "do" things don't necessarily see the big picture. And their interested might be misaligned with company mission, let alone shareholder interests. I recall when I changed my mind on that topic. My employer at the time decided to change the logo. They hired a designer, designer did somewhat radical change, the new logo was accepted. Most employees were furious, new logo is stupid, too playful, it is betrayal of traditions, yada yada. Still management decided to proceed with new logo. And in a year, old logo looked like we are still in the 80s. Virtually nobody wanted that old logo back. At least I had a courage to admit I should not demand changes in the areas I don't really understand. And realistically, if I understood these things, it would be me who does the hiring, not the opposite. > only listen to the people whose only interest is extracting as much money out of the operation as possible People who extract money hire people who know who should be listened and who shouldn't. Many people who "do" things really shouldn't be listened on any topic outside of their area of responsibility (a cook may have an opinion how to move goods more efficiently, but it's likely he or she is wrong). I mean, everyone should listened, but their speech should not necessary be followed. > Of course, companies also essentially make the laws, so "illegal" is a very shallow line. Well, man, I believe the world is much more complicated than this. There are too many players in the field, and not all of them are companies, and moreover, different companies want different conflicting laws (imagine Apple laws vs Google laws — Apple wants more privacy, Google wants more freedom to deal with data). So, I believe your world view is too deeply flawed, so there's probably no point to discuss further. Cheers!
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    > And their interested might be misaligned with company mission, let alone shareholder interests. Employee interests are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed to employer and shareholder interests. This is a basic tenet of Marxist thinking. Each faction is trying to get as much from the other as possible. > But people who "do" things don't necessarily see the big picture. This is in part because they have no need to because they are not listened to. > People who extract money hire people who know who should be listened and who shouldn't. They hire people that advance their interests versus others. > different companies want different conflicting laws This is true. There are fights among the ruling class. None of them actually care about anything other than maximum wealth extraction. Human rights as a sales pitch to a consumer base to be discarded at the slightest turbulence. > So, I believe your world view is too deeply flawed, so there's probably no point to discuss further. Cheers! Likewise.
  - mnowicki 5y ago
    I understand your individual points, but not your final conclusion. It gives me the sense that you think maximizing profits for shareholders is "the greater good", moreso than doing what(in the opinion of employees) is right. I totally understand the logo anecdote and that makes sense, but it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons, I'd say employees ARE more qualified to make those calls than those who are beholden to investors and motivated to maximize profits above all else - IF, that is, your goal is to be moral and not to maximize profits, which is where I'm feeling a disconnect with your posts.
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      > It gives me the sense that you think maximizing profits for shareholders is "the greater good", moreso than doing what(in the opinion of employees) is right. This is correct. This is win-win for shareholders and employees. And if an employee thinks the company should not maximize profits, they can work in non-profit organization. But why come to for-profit company and demand that company to stop making profits? It does not make sense to me. > it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons Moral reasons is a slippery slope. What is moral to one group or people is immoral to other group of people. I imagine employees may say, we must fight climate change, so we must replace our trucks with electric trucks. This is definitely moral, but this might be not sustainable, and this might be a way to make a company bankrupt. So you express your opinion about trucks, but leave it to the management to decide, whether it can afford it. They often can (because for example good publicity).
neolog 5y ago
> the company exists to maximize profits of shareholders, not to make employees happy How can you tell?
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  Just common sense. People invest in companies to get more money, not to lose money. There are exceptions, they are very rare, especially for public companies. Moreover, CEO is legally obliged to work in the interests of shareholders. That is the law, and that is one of many reasons why corporation flourish in the US: you can buy stocks and be protected from management deciding to waste money listening to each immature employee.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Just common sense. People invest in companies to get more money, not to lose money. There are exceptions, they are very rare, especially for public companies. Yeah, that's why investors invest, but you (like many people) are forgetting that society allows companies to exist in the first place: to provide social value and increase the general welfare. That's not measured in how much money a company makes for its investors. If an employee finds themselves working for a company that's hurting society, their primary duty is to stop that harm, not to be circumspect of the investor's profits.
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      > If an employee finds themselves working for a company that's hurting society, their primary duty is to stop that harm, not to be circumspect of the investor's profits. An employee may report the violation of the law to the authorities, but generally employee should not be the authority themself. Especially, when their view on what is harm is very subjective.
  - otterley 5y ago
    This should be posted automatically every time someone mindlessly parrots the myth about the duty to maximize shareholder value: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...
NicoJuicy 5y ago
> And if the company decided to go against wishes of salaried employees, that's simply because the company exists to maximize profits of shareholders, not to make employees happy, and managers report to shareholders, not to employees. Why does everyone act like all employees are golden. A lot of employees want to maximize their own profits too, some without even hard work.
- blooalien 5y ago
  > "Why does everyone act like all employees are golden. A lot of employees want to maximize their own profits too, some without even hard work." You do make an excellent point there, and I've often wondered at many jobs I've worked in the past why some employees aren't simply fired on the spot for actively avoiding doing any work while at work. It's incredibly demoralizing to those of us who were raised on a "do your job to the absolute best of your ability or go home" mentality. Taking pride in a job well done is a rare thing these days. Equally demoralizing is the fact that doing your best work these days is a free ticket for most boss-types to abuse your hard work by piling more work on for no extra pay, unlike when I was younger and hard work gained you respect and pay raises.
apis_nearctica 5y ago
It sounds like the Facebook execs agree with you, and through this leak are finding out why they’re wrong. You are right that companies exist to maximize profit at the cost of everything good, but they still rely on employees to get anything done, and employees will only take so much before they take matters into their own hands. A company that expects its employees to act like robots that will do anything the company wants in search of greater profits will find out they are wrong when they push the limits too far.
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  Well, company might listen to employees requests and treat them well. That would be the reasonable thing to do (at least to be able to pay less; but also because employees might produce important feedback). However, if company doesn't do that 100% of time, employees do not have moral or lawful rights to sabotage company.
lucian1900 5y ago
If it’s immoral to leak, why is it moral for employees to have no democratic rights in the workplace?
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  Because employees voluntarily agreed to these conditions when they signed the contract.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Was it voluntary? If all workplaces offer the same terms, what choice does someone without capital have?
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      There's an option to create own company. There's an option to work as freelancer. Intermediate option is to work in a smaller company where the distance between the entry level employee and the CEO is much smaller, so the changes of being heard are much higher. There is an option to work in non-commercial organization, which does not have a goal to make profits, so there are more reasons to listen to the employees. But you can't have your cake and eat it. I. e. pick a company which pays the best because it works efficiently and uses the employees to their best abilities and at the same time works inefficiently because it listens to incompetent employees.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        Creating a company requires capital. Freelancing does too, without necessarily offering more control. Smaller companies can easily be more dictatorial than big ones, small business tyrants are common. Non-commercial organisations aren’t necessarily any better. They also often don’t pay enough for survival. I’m asking something fairly simple: why is it moral that the people that do all the work have no control over their working lives?

tablespoon 5y ago

> Also people leak to reporters when they feel like they are entitled to control the direction of their organization even if they sell all the stocks immediately after the vesting. Yeah, they do. However you're confused about the organization in question: it's the Human Society or the United States of America (or some other nation), not Facebook, Inc.

tehjoker 5y ago

Yea, don't listen to the people actually doing the thing, only listen to the people whose only interest is extracting as much money out of the operation as possible. Of course, companies also essentially make the laws, so "illegal" is a very shallow line.

asteroidbelt 5y ago
> don't listen to the people actually doing the thing They do listen. But people who "do" things don't necessarily see the big picture. And their interested might be misaligned with company mission, let alone shareholder interests. I recall when I changed my mind on that topic. My employer at the time decided to change the logo. They hired a designer, designer did somewhat radical change, the new logo was accepted. Most employees were furious, new logo is stupid, too playful, it is betrayal of traditions, yada yada. Still management decided to proceed with new logo. And in a year, old logo looked like we are still in the 80s. Virtually nobody wanted that old logo back. At least I had a courage to admit I should not demand changes in the areas I don't really understand. And realistically, if I understood these things, it would be me who does the hiring, not the opposite. > only listen to the people whose only interest is extracting as much money out of the operation as possible People who extract money hire people who know who should be listened and who shouldn't. Many people who "do" things really shouldn't be listened on any topic outside of their area of responsibility (a cook may have an opinion how to move goods more efficiently, but it's likely he or she is wrong). I mean, everyone should listened, but their speech should not necessary be followed. > Of course, companies also essentially make the laws, so "illegal" is a very shallow line. Well, man, I believe the world is much more complicated than this. There are too many players in the field, and not all of them are companies, and moreover, different companies want different conflicting laws (imagine Apple laws vs Google laws — Apple wants more privacy, Google wants more freedom to deal with data). So, I believe your world view is too deeply flawed, so there's probably no point to discuss further. Cheers!
- tehjoker 5y ago
  > And their interested might be misaligned with company mission, let alone shareholder interests. Employee interests are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed to employer and shareholder interests. This is a basic tenet of Marxist thinking. Each faction is trying to get as much from the other as possible. > But people who "do" things don't necessarily see the big picture. This is in part because they have no need to because they are not listened to. > People who extract money hire people who know who should be listened and who shouldn't. They hire people that advance their interests versus others. > different companies want different conflicting laws This is true. There are fights among the ruling class. None of them actually care about anything other than maximum wealth extraction. Human rights as a sales pitch to a consumer base to be discarded at the slightest turbulence. > So, I believe your world view is too deeply flawed, so there's probably no point to discuss further. Cheers! Likewise.
- mnowicki 5y ago
  I understand your individual points, but not your final conclusion. It gives me the sense that you think maximizing profits for shareholders is "the greater good", moreso than doing what(in the opinion of employees) is right. I totally understand the logo anecdote and that makes sense, but it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons, I'd say employees ARE more qualified to make those calls than those who are beholden to investors and motivated to maximize profits above all else - IF, that is, your goal is to be moral and not to maximize profits, which is where I'm feeling a disconnect with your posts.
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    > It gives me the sense that you think maximizing profits for shareholders is "the greater good", moreso than doing what(in the opinion of employees) is right. This is correct. This is win-win for shareholders and employees. And if an employee thinks the company should not maximize profits, they can work in non-profit organization. But why come to for-profit company and demand that company to stop making profits? It does not make sense to me. > it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons Moral reasons is a slippery slope. What is moral to one group or people is immoral to other group of people. I imagine employees may say, we must fight climate change, so we must replace our trucks with electric trucks. This is definitely moral, but this might be not sustainable, and this might be a way to make a company bankrupt. So you express your opinion about trucks, but leave it to the management to decide, whether it can afford it. They often can (because for example good publicity).

neolog 5y ago

> the company exists to maximize profits of shareholders, not to make employees happy How can you tell?

asteroidbelt 5y ago
Just common sense. People invest in companies to get more money, not to lose money. There are exceptions, they are very rare, especially for public companies. Moreover, CEO is legally obliged to work in the interests of shareholders. That is the law, and that is one of many reasons why corporation flourish in the US: you can buy stocks and be protected from management deciding to waste money listening to each immature employee.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Just common sense. People invest in companies to get more money, not to lose money. There are exceptions, they are very rare, especially for public companies. Yeah, that's why investors invest, but you (like many people) are forgetting that society allows companies to exist in the first place: to provide social value and increase the general welfare. That's not measured in how much money a company makes for its investors. If an employee finds themselves working for a company that's hurting society, their primary duty is to stop that harm, not to be circumspect of the investor's profits.
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    > If an employee finds themselves working for a company that's hurting society, their primary duty is to stop that harm, not to be circumspect of the investor's profits. An employee may report the violation of the law to the authorities, but generally employee should not be the authority themself. Especially, when their view on what is harm is very subjective.
- otterley 5y ago
  This should be posted automatically every time someone mindlessly parrots the myth about the duty to maximize shareholder value: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...

NicoJuicy 5y ago

> And if the company decided to go against wishes of salaried employees, that's simply because the company exists to maximize profits of shareholders, not to make employees happy, and managers report to shareholders, not to employees. Why does everyone act like all employees are golden. A lot of employees want to maximize their own profits too, some without even hard work.

blooalien 5y ago
> "Why does everyone act like all employees are golden. A lot of employees want to maximize their own profits too, some without even hard work." You do make an excellent point there, and I've often wondered at many jobs I've worked in the past why some employees aren't simply fired on the spot for actively avoiding doing any work while at work. It's incredibly demoralizing to those of us who were raised on a "do your job to the absolute best of your ability or go home" mentality. Taking pride in a job well done is a rare thing these days. Equally demoralizing is the fact that doing your best work these days is a free ticket for most boss-types to abuse your hard work by piling more work on for no extra pay, unlike when I was younger and hard work gained you respect and pay raises.

apis_nearctica 5y ago

It sounds like the Facebook execs agree with you, and through this leak are finding out why they’re wrong. You are right that companies exist to maximize profit at the cost of everything good, but they still rely on employees to get anything done, and employees will only take so much before they take matters into their own hands. A company that expects its employees to act like robots that will do anything the company wants in search of greater profits will find out they are wrong when they push the limits too far.

asteroidbelt 5y ago
Well, company might listen to employees requests and treat them well. That would be the reasonable thing to do (at least to be able to pay less; but also because employees might produce important feedback). However, if company doesn't do that 100% of time, employees do not have moral or lawful rights to sabotage company.

lucian1900 5y ago

If it’s immoral to leak, why is it moral for employees to have no democratic rights in the workplace?

asteroidbelt 5y ago
Because employees voluntarily agreed to these conditions when they signed the contract.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Was it voluntary? If all workplaces offer the same terms, what choice does someone without capital have?
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    There's an option to create own company. There's an option to work as freelancer. Intermediate option is to work in a smaller company where the distance between the entry level employee and the CEO is much smaller, so the changes of being heard are much higher. There is an option to work in non-commercial organization, which does not have a goal to make profits, so there are more reasons to listen to the employees. But you can't have your cake and eat it. I. e. pick a company which pays the best because it works efficiently and uses the employees to their best abilities and at the same time works inefficiently because it listens to incompetent employees.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      Creating a company requires capital. Freelancing does too, without necessarily offering more control. Smaller companies can easily be more dictatorial than big ones, small business tyrants are common. Non-commercial organisations aren’t necessarily any better. They also often don’t pay enough for survival. I’m asking something fairly simple: why is it moral that the people that do all the work have no control over their working lives?