5 ms·
At some point, folks at Twitter will realize that either they need to get mostly line with the owner's goals or, if they find that repugnant, to seek employment
by codefreeordie 4y ago
At some point, folks at Twitter will realize that either they need to get mostly line with the owner's goals or, if they find that repugnant, to seek employment elsewhere.
- emptyparadise 4y agoat some point folks at twitter will realize that only masochists who enjoy having their reputation ruined by their boss in public are welcome at the company
- jjgreen 4y agoThe "suck it or flee" dilemma, tricky one.
- eesmith 4y agoIMO it's short-sighted to think those are the only two options. Someone who finds it repugnant could: 1) Try to unionize, and hope for either a more effective bargaining position, or cause the owner to spend even more time on anti-union efforts and risk possible NLRB involvement. 2) Convince the owner to change his mind. This doesn't need to be direct; could leak internal information with the goal of influencing change through public reaction. 3) Not be so dedicated to getting the job done. If the wages and benefits decrease, then adjust the labor to match. 4) Sabotage from within. For classic examples, see the old OSS "Simple Sabotage Field Manual", section "General Interference with Organizations and Production". https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual/Specific_Suggestions_for_Simple_Sabotage https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Simple_Sabotage_Field_Manual/...
- codefreeordie 4y ago2) is a potentially viable endeavor -- though airing dirty laundry or being accusatory and combative are unlikely to be winning strategies. 4) is likely to result in termination. As is 3), really, though you can maybe milk it a long while.
- eesmith 4y agoI included 3) and 4) because I don't regard being fired as quite the same as "seek employment elsewhere".