3 ms·

I've never understood why people are confused or upset by these kinds of things. It's almost literally not in the companies best interest to just "let it happen

by seany 5y ago

I've never understood why people are confused or upset by these kinds of things. It's almost literally not in the companies best interest to just "let it happen" so why wouldn't they fight it?

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
It probably depends in some part on the replaceability of your workforce: Burning your workers isn't a big deal if they're cashiers. But if they're software engineers, burning the company's reputation with them may not be in the company's best interest: You might end up with a company that has no unionizers but also lost all its key talent.
happytoexplain 5y ago
Not trying to be smart by using your words: I legitimately have never understood why this comment is so common, considering how apparently obvious the fallacy of it is. You didn't imply "the company must do X", you implied "people shouldn't be upset that the company did X". The former is a totally reasonable argument to be made. The latter makes absolutely no sense (without extenuating context). You're not really confused as to why people are upset about something a company does that negatively affects people, either in actuality or only in perception, simply because it is in the company's best interests, are you? It's pretty normal for a human not to care about the hazy future consequences of a company hurting itself by embracing some external morality over its own interests as a company, and, depending on the specifics of the case, it can even be pretty reasonable not to care.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  It's just rhetoric clichés. I used to reply "I am surprised some people are surprised that company did X" but why bother.
- seany 5y ago
  No I am actually confused. What normal CEO _wants_ a union? A few random ones maybe; but the average CEO? zero. I'm not even anti union, just anti "union protection" which is where we are with unions in the US under the current stat of NLRB findings + case law; which is just a fucking disaster.
pfranz 5y ago
I'm confused why you're confused. Making it more adversarial when it's obvious the company is in the wrong and has been negligent for so long is a great way to continue to burn your talent and reputation and doesn't sound like a great way to solve the long term problem, either. Being a public facing company a large part of this is public relations. Mediating or looking for good faith resolutions is what I would expect as a consumer or potential employee. In 1982 someone laced Tylenol with potassium cyanide and seven people died. Johnson & Johnson within 2 months released a triple-sealed package and had a nation-wide recall. Their market share dropped from 35% to 8%, but rebounded within a year. It's often talked about as a great PR response. I doubt Activision Blizzard feels the need to be as responsive to this situation, but I don't see this as a great reaction.

by seany 5y ago

I've never understood why people are confused or upset by these kinds of things. It's almost literally not in the companies best interest to just "let it happen" so why wouldn't they fight it?

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

It probably depends in some part on the replaceability of your workforce: Burning your workers isn't a big deal if they're cashiers. But if they're software engineers, burning the company's reputation with them may not be in the company's best interest: You might end up with a company that has no unionizers but also lost all its key talent.

happytoexplain 5y ago

Not trying to be smart by using your words: I legitimately have never understood why this comment is so common, considering how apparently obvious the fallacy of it is. You didn't imply "the company must do X", you implied "people shouldn't be upset that the company did X". The former is a totally reasonable argument to be made. The latter makes absolutely no sense (without extenuating context). You're not really confused as to why people are upset about something a company does that negatively affects people, either in actuality or only in perception, simply because it is in the company's best interests, are you? It's pretty normal for a human not to care about the hazy future consequences of a company hurting itself by embracing some external morality over its own interests as a company, and, depending on the specifics of the case, it can even be pretty reasonable not to care.

johnchristopher 5y ago
It's just rhetoric clichés. I used to reply "I am surprised some people are surprised that company did X" but why bother.
seany 5y ago
No I am actually confused. What normal CEO _wants_ a union? A few random ones maybe; but the average CEO? zero. I'm not even anti union, just anti "union protection" which is where we are with unions in the US under the current stat of NLRB findings + case law; which is just a fucking disaster.

pfranz 5y ago

I'm confused why you're confused. Making it more adversarial when it's obvious the company is in the wrong and has been negligent for so long is a great way to continue to burn your talent and reputation and doesn't sound like a great way to solve the long term problem, either. Being a public facing company a large part of this is public relations. Mediating or looking for good faith resolutions is what I would expect as a consumer or potential employee. In 1982 someone laced Tylenol with potassium cyanide and seven people died. Johnson & Johnson within 2 months released a triple-sealed package and had a nation-wide recall. Their market share dropped from 35% to 8%, but rebounded within a year. It's often talked about as a great PR response. I doubt Activision Blizzard feels the need to be as responsive to this situation, but I don't see this as a great reaction.