4 ms·
You don’t have to solve it. There’s not really any problem to solve to begin with. People who are happy with the changed working conditions will continue to wor
by AmericanChopper 4y ago
You don’t have to solve it. There’s not really any problem to solve to begin with. People who are happy with the changed working conditions will continue to work there. People who do not want to tolerate the change will not continue to work there. Every person can precisely choose the outcome they want, without cooperation from anybody.
- brigandish 4y agoThat's not what I was responding to though. This is: > Imagine if almost everyone collectively at Salesforce said, “nope, this is dumb! We are going to stop working until this benefit is handed out to everyone at the company.” It’d be changed back / expanded within 48 hours. That's a prisoner's dilemma, people holding out for the best they can get. If enough people defect then it won't work.
- AmericanChopper 4y agoThe prisoners dilemma doesn’t apply to this situation, because every single individual involved can, without any cooperation from anybody else, easily get the optimal outcome for themselves.
- Shish2k 4y agoIf you define “optimal outcome” as “people who don’t like having their benefits revoked quit”, yes. But I think a lot of people would define “optimal outcome” as “people who don’t like having their benefits revoked don’t get them revoked”.
- AmericanChopper 4y agoThe distinction is unimportant, and if you care about it very much then you’re just losing on purpose.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]