4 ms·
A bunch of folks are concerned about their ability to build healthy companies under conditions of such hostility from the legal system. ... so same problem, di
by afarrell 5y ago
A bunch of folks are concerned about their ability to build healthy companies under conditions of such hostility from the legal system.
... so same problem, different layer of abstraction.
Doesn't change the fact that running a company creates a duty of care.
It's hard to build safe cars if your workers worry that they're going to get shouted down with something that belongs in the 1920s.
------
I really would be keen for a deeper understanding of what went wrong in Tesla's sociotechnical systems that led to someone in such a position of leadership responding exercising power with such little attention to their word choice.
- MisterBastahrd 5y agoWell, part of the problem is with people like you who think that this can be boiled down to "word choice," as if those words didn't come from an entire package of racist sentiment that finally managed to become public.
- afarrell 5y ago> can all be boiled down to word choice I don't think that, but I lack the communication skill to be sufficiently clear to avoid being misunderstood in this medium on this topic.
- ngcazz 5y agoNot, by any measure, the same problem, since a company has no intrinsic right to exist. In fact, if the legal system needs to be hostile against a company so human rights are upheld, that company's very existence should be put in question.
- jollybean 5y agoThis is authoritarian hyperbole. People have a right to form groups and freely interact with others to the extent that they chose - that's a right not a privilege. The absurdity of the arguments in this threat are revealing - HN is normally viscerally against any kind of authoritarian appeal, hacking on cops for arresting actual criminals ... but for this one ... they're supporting coercive and completely disproportionate actions by the state? Because someone was called some names and meant to feel bad about themselves? You can see how quickly the hand of angry populist authoritarianism comes out, like a bad religious movement, whenever it triggers some group's sensitivities.
- vimacs2 5y agoNearly every company is authoritarian inherently. It's a small group of people or even one person leveraging capital to exploit the labour of a much larger group of people for profit with zero democratic process. I'm not disagreeing that the state should be given limited to zero say on the assembly of people but companies should not be framed as the counterweight against authoritarianism but another manifestation of it.
- afarrell 5y ago> Because someone was called some names and meant to feel bad about themselves. First: If you are in a leadership position, you have a duty of care to the way you practice leadership. And yes, a lot leadership consists of the language you use. Second: Someone feeling bad isn’t the problem here. The problem is choosing words which set company cultural norms to be hostile to employees based on unchangeable characteristics of their birth unrelated to the purpose of the group. Third: People do have a right to form groups and a wide range of norms they have a right to set within those groups. That right is constrained by certain responsibilities —- one of which is to be less racist!
- nuerow 5y ago> This is authoritarian hyperbole. No, not really. Just because you managed to put together a business model and get an investor to trust you with some cash that does not mean you have a greenlight from society to act as racist and as sexist as you desire. Everyone around you still has the right to be treated with respect and not be subjected to any sort of abuse, specially those that are actively working to validate your business and make you rich. In fact, allowing for a racist/sexist work environment to fester is an incredibly stupid move, as you're hindering productivity and limiting your access to skilled employees.