6 ms·
you've got the importances inverted. letting companies do as they please is no way to run a society. people first, then companies. it's this sort of inversion t
by clairity 5y ago
you've got the importances inverted. letting companies do as they please is no way to run a society. people first, then companies. it's this sort of inversion that's gotten us into the mess of a society we're facing now.
- bko 5y agoI disagree. You need strong leadership in an organization. You can't run an organization with 10k employees where any employee can hold you hostage and refuse to work if they disagree with any decision made.
- bawolff 5y agoAny employee can refuse to work. Its called quitting. That's a very different thing than this of course, which is based around the idea, its not worth it to fire them all.
- clairity 5y agoso coercive tactics by companies against employees is ok but not the reverse? again, that’s a perverse inversion, against the common interests of society at large. corporations are chartered by the government as a means to direct their efforts toward the common good. they’re not natural entities, and we should be way more willing to revoke those charters for the betterment of society.
- rsj_hn 5y agoThe interests of society are not served by a group of activists with extremist views trying to impose their values on the entire planet by leveraging the fact that they work for a global brand, and then trying to use that leverage to deplatform anyone who offends them. Letting people watch what they want is the democratic position that benefits society at large.
- clairity 5y agothe company should use this opportunity to move the ball forward wrt deeper, mutual understanding, not retaliate with mass firings (which is the recommendation i was responding to). that’s escalation, and does nobody any good.
- bawolff 5y agoI'm not sure what you are responding to in my comment. I don't think i said anything of the sort. If an individual employee doesn't like their job, they should quit and find a different one. If a large portion don't like it, then a labour dispute is one possible way to try and resolve the situation.
- clairity 5y agoi may have read too much into it, as it seemed to be making the same trite argument (that many others are making) that the employees should just quit, as their only recourse.
- krainboltgreene 5y agoLiterally every steel mill worked this way for quite a long time and did just fine.
- arthurcolle 5y agoLook at the booming US steel industry we have today! /s
- krainboltgreene 5y agoI know this is probably an off-hand comment from someone who doesn't know US unionization history very well, but it's hilarious still. That we even still have any steel production is because of unionization. That corporations were allowed to outsource is because of anti-unionization efforts.
- xdennis 5y agoThe reason the US still has a steel industry is because it's essential for any future major war.
- arthurcolle 5y agoI am familiar with unions and union history. Also union busting efforts and the growth of unions until the 80s during the Reagan era - but to compare a factory worker or a longshoreman to software engineers feels like a facetious comparison with little merit IMO. I worked at a retail job briefly after high school and it was a joke that I had to pay union due by law in the state of Maryland. Software engineers are politically probably one of the strongest positioned labor groups in modern history, up their with probably high finance and heirs of huge fortunes. The fact of the matter is that most people don't want to work the vast majority of union jobs and simultaneously, corporations are willing to offshore many of these labor requirements in part due to the cost burden. Sure, management takes home a lot, but honestly I'm unsympathetic to most union industries and I shouldn't have to pay another tax to some obscure group to handle issues.
- clairity 5y agostrong leadership can tolerate disagreement and critique. it’s weak leadership, of which we have an overabundance, that cannot. you advocate coercion, which is the favored tool of weak leadership. also, it’s a fallacy that the senior managers of an organization (at least successful ones) “run” it. at best, they have outsize influence.
- bawolff 5y agoPeople can speak from the perspective of what companies need/want without neccesarily implying anything about what is best for society overall.
- version_five 5y agoI think you and many of the comments below are missing a critical point: the employees are objectively in the wrong here. This is not about labor conditions or abuses or something, it's about a group trying to censor content and impose ideology on others. You'd have a point if this was Netflix not allowing breaks or something, but it's really just censorship. If there was a group of christian employees walking out over non-Christian values in a show, would you still support it as "people first"? Censorship is censorship, whatever the ideology behind it, it's up to me what I want to watch, not employees at the infrastructure provider
- clairity 5y agoi can concede that attempting to censor content is generally a poor remedy, for society at large. however, the notion that netflix should then fire the employees without discussion or recourse is just as egregious. let’s get past these superficial aspects, otherwise such discussions are useless.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bawolff 5y agoThere is no such thing as objectively "wrong" and "right". You can't prove normative statements. [I'm not a fan of cencorship either]
- pandaman 5y agoIf you hired landscapers to mow your lawn and they refuse to do so because they spotted political banners on the aforementioned lawn they don't approve, what's going to happen? Forget the reason, what's going to happen if you hired somebody and that person did not show up to work? Same thing with the companies, they hire people to do work just like people hire other people. If hired people don't want to work - that's fine, just let them go. I am pretty content with this way of society and don't see how changing it can make it any better.
- clairity 5y agothat’s a false equivalence. employment law recognizes the difference between contracting (many-to-many) and employment (many-to-one) and the power and leverage therein. it’s simplistic takes like this that derail genuine and productive discussion.
- pandaman 5y agoIs employment law forbidding firing people who did not show up to work? If it does not then you are trying to make a false equivalence, not I.