4 ms·

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

by lucian1900 5y ago

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?
      - asteroidbelt 5y ago
        > why is it moral that the people that do all the work have no control over their working lives? Basic principles of civilized society like respect of private property (which is the company which is owned by shareholders) and respect of contracts, and these principles are more important than employee wishes to play CEO. > Creating a company requires capital. So this is the problem. Some people worked hard to obtain that capital. They studied hard, got top notch education, deprived themselves of private life, had very high risk of failure (majority of entrepreneurs fail). And their work resulted in them being shareholders and top management. While others were smoking marijuana, downshifting, working 9-5 at best, taking long vacations. And the second ones demand the same rights to control the company. I don't see how that is fair. It is having a cake and eating. And I have another answer to that. Want to make decisions in the company? Then get hired as CEO. They don't want to hire you as CEO? Then perhaps you are not qualified to do company-wide decision. And if you are not qualified to do company-wide decisions, then probably you should not make these decisions working entry-level jobs.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        Most capital is inherited. No amount of hard work will make up for that. The very notion of private property exists to maintain that inherited capital, with state violence. Is that moral? Why?
        asteroidbelt 5y ago
        > Most capital is inherited. This is a common myth. (I should say, marxist myth.) > Of those folks, 67.7% were self-made, while 23.7% had a combination of inherited and self-created wealth. Only 8.5% of global high-net-worth individuals were categorized as having completely inherited their wealth. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-riche...
        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?
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      > why is it moral that the people that do all the work have no control over their working lives? Basic principles of civilized society like respect of private property (which is the company which is owned by shareholders) and respect of contracts, and these principles are more important than employee wishes to play CEO. > Creating a company requires capital. So this is the problem. Some people worked hard to obtain that capital. They studied hard, got top notch education, deprived themselves of private life, had very high risk of failure (majority of entrepreneurs fail). And their work resulted in them being shareholders and top management. While others were smoking marijuana, downshifting, working 9-5 at best, taking long vacations. And the second ones demand the same rights to control the company. I don't see how that is fair. It is having a cake and eating. And I have another answer to that. Want to make decisions in the company? Then get hired as CEO. They don't want to hire you as CEO? Then perhaps you are not qualified to do company-wide decision. And if you are not qualified to do company-wide decisions, then probably you should not make these decisions working entry-level jobs.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        Most capital is inherited. No amount of hard work will make up for that. The very notion of private property exists to maintain that inherited capital, with state violence. Is that moral? Why?
        asteroidbelt 5y ago
        > Most capital is inherited. This is a common myth. (I should say, marxist myth.) > Of those folks, 67.7% were self-made, while 23.7% had a combination of inherited and self-created wealth. Only 8.5% of global high-net-worth individuals were categorized as having completely inherited their wealth. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds-riche...
        lucian1900 5y ago