7 ms·

I know that we tell ourselves this story about management just so we can justify doing the bare minimum as employees. But where does that leave us as a society

by atonse 3y ago

I know that we tell ourselves this story about management just so we can justify doing the bare minimum as employees. But where does that leave us as a society? I just feel this cynical statement is as silly as a blanket statement as one that would say the opposite, something like "companies provide value and jobs and take care of employees" I would argue though, that the way you describe companies is definitely more true of larger companies because people just aren't invested/attached to each other and that enables that kind of thinking (employees just lines on a spreadsheet). Many small businesses (and small business owners like myself) do want to build a team and take care of the team and hope the team also invests back into the company. That doesn't mean they can't lay people off if they can't afford to keep them. But things are more likely to be human at a smaller size anyway.

esotericimpl 3y ago
Employee owned businesses combined with strong labor unions.
- itake 3y ago
  Why are there so few successful employee owned businesses?
  - truckerbill 3y ago
    Because they naturally don't want to rely on exploitation to the same degree. That's not a problem of the concept but the context.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Because the system dis-incentives it. It's hard to compete when your opponent is willing to play dirty and the referee doesn't care to stop it.
trey-jones 3y ago
As a 10 year veteran of a small (less than 20 employees) software company, I can confirm they do exist. Many a screw-up has been overlooked, and I do feel that my overall contribution to the company is valued. We are all friends here. It's not perfect, but I don't envy participants in the corporate rat race.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Can confirm. I worked in various roles and companies including small privately owned shop. I am now at a bigger company. It is super nice overall and while I did go overboard on last project, I kinda did it to myself. FWIW, the company did not start in US, which may part of the reason the culture is a little different. It also helps that this is the first team where we share the same interests ( gaming, technology and surrounding issues ). And that is a publicly traded company. Still, I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Maybe you should be asking that question of management, since there's no easy way for unhappy employees to fire a bad manager, decide not to promote them, weigh in on their pay etc. Why is it the responsibility for the people with the least amount of power in the corporate system to shoulder the moral burden of society's future direction?
akudha 3y ago
I have had more than 10 jobs in my life - big companies, small companies, even a non profit. The one common thing in these jobs? Firing at will, with zero thought for anything other than saving a penny. Same story among the people I know. Many small businesses (and small business owners like myself) do want to build a team and take care of the team Sure such places exist, but are they the majority? Some people get lucky to work for such companies, I'd guess most of humanity is just not that lucky.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- atonse 3y ago
  Exactly, and even my company, we have had to let go of people because we couldn't afford to keep them. Loyalty doesn't enter into the equation, in many cases these are people you genuinely enjoy working with. But it's more about, can you afford to keep the staff you have or not? What do you do for the health of the company (and the employment of the people that remain)? It doesn't just have to be a dichotomy between "cold-hearted" or "loyal" – sometimes you just can't afford it and don't have a choice if you want to keep yourself and others employed. I will agree strongly that in my interactions with dozens of small businesses, the way we do (and want to do) business is in the minority. There was once a phone call with a small business to explore a partnership and I messaged my exec team on slack "I don't like how ___ lied about something as small as ____, don't really want to get into a partnership with businesses that have such red flags" – but that is sadly too common. Call me naive, but I have to feel satisfied at the end of the day that we tried our best to do the right thing in our little corner, even if that limited our growth (and it certainly has).
  - maerF0x0 3y ago
    Letting folks go is IMO far superior to defaulting on Payroll. Under the current system employees are fronting 2ish weeks of time to their employers and risking not actually being paid. IMO because financial systems are so much more robust we should be moving to either a daily pay or even a prepay model. But likely that would take regulation because it doesn't benefit the decision makers. Additionally the status quo is such that the employer is earning interest on a pay period worth of capital, while the employee is eating the inflation on it. A spread of about 4 interest + 4 inflation = 8%
maerF0x0 3y ago
> But where does that leave us as a society? Not our problem. exec + mgmt creates the incentives set and reaps nearly all the rewards for it. Don't take personal loss for something you do not have meaningful equity in (ie you will not participate in the rewards). And btw the vast majority of equity plans are not meaningful equity. Compare your compensation to exec layer and decide if you're getting a proportional share, I'd argue unless your C suite compensation is around 10x the lower paid folks (it's usually closer to 100x) then no, you're not equitably participating. Now, if you own a meaningful part of the rewards, go HAM.
- atonse 3y ago
  I get that you're saying Not "our" problem from the perspective of an employee "our" – but you're a consumer, aren't you? A taxpayer too. Pretty much every single issue that we face as humanity will have a business component in the solution. Even larger government-funded solutions will have to fund private contractors to carry out whatever actions, and in many cases, make a difference whether some companies go above and beyond. Take public transit. The buses and trains are manufactured by private industry. So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude? How about the concept of having pride in your work? I'm honestly not trying to make excuses for predatory and greedy management. I'm not. I am arguing that having a "not our problem" makes you just as bad as the evil management. In both cases, the consumer (you) suffers. I wasn't aware there was even a question about fairness regarding equity. Sure, some places would be even more cutthroat in their negotiations, but if you want more equity, usually you have to take more risks. Has that calculation changed in any fundamental way?
  - dsr_ 3y ago
    " So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude?" The reality is that we do ride in those trains. It is not up to random employees to decide that today is a great day to go above and beyond. It is up to leadership to create a company that make that an easy and rewarding decision every day. If you want a better system, you're going to have to replace the existing systems.
hedora 3y ago
I think of it more as joining a team (like for recreational sports). If I am (and my coworkers are) are having fun, and we're collectively moving the business forward, then great. Things are low stress, with a pile of money coming (and I avoid places that expect unsustainable hours, so that is not an issue). If that's not how things are going, then, well, the tech gold rush probably has a few more decades in it (minimum), and there are other plenty of other companies that do offer those things.
leothecool 3y ago
I think a society where people mean what they say and say what they do is preferable to a society with more implied expectations. So go ahead and take care of me, but put it in writing. In my experience its pretty common for small businesses to have wishful thinking and have a desire to take care of the team, but for one reason or another, be unable or unwilling to actually follow through once they get into the details of it.
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
I know its talked about a lot abstractly or incorrectly, but this is a basic issue with how Capitalism works and the proposed solution of socialism. Socialism, being a system where the workers collectively own the business, has a lot more credit if they wanted workers to feel invested. Capitalism, being a system where workers produce the value but see a small portion of it, basically incentivizes dehumanizing the workers. The greater system creates a society where almost every interaction one has in their day to day life is a transaction. Jobs are like renting a space. Why would you make improvements to a space when a landlord can evict you and benefit from your extra effort. Small businesses are often, in a sense, infantilized. They're not like the big nameless corp, they're your neighbor, they're a smol bean who can't hurt. The reality is small businesses can get away with a lot more BS. IMO I'd be far more alert working at a small business waiting for the CEO to do something dumb or damaging than a large corp. Unless the small business gives employees a sense of ownership(actual stake, cooperatively owned) why should they feel invested? They're in the same precarious spot as any other employee. The power balance is greatly weighed against them.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I know that we tell ourselves this story about management just so we can justify doing the bare minimum as employees. > But where does that leave us as a society? The problem is the structural incentives, not the fact that workers respond rationally to them. To fix the problem, fix the incentives, don’t try to guilt trip workers to ignore them to give unrewarded gifts to their employers in an upward transfer of wealth. Because, if we encourage people to do that, where does that leave us as a society?
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
I've worked in every kind of company from the smallest startup with 2 other developers, to the huge worldwide company, and it happens everywhere.
groby_b 3y ago
> But where does that leave us as a society? I'll worry about that once we address what it does to us as a society that CEOs outearn workers by 400:1 while oddly almost never being affected by layoffs. Same goes for smaller businesses: Campaign for worker protections, and then we'll talk. (Some small businesses do in fact bend over backwards to protect their employees - and they usually get fierce loyalty as a reward. But the average business cares very little about long-term impact on workers)

by atonse 3y ago

esotericimpl 3y ago

Employee owned businesses combined with strong labor unions.

itake 3y ago
Why are there so few successful employee owned businesses?
- truckerbill 3y ago
  Because they naturally don't want to rely on exploitation to the same degree. That's not a problem of the concept but the context.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Because the system dis-incentives it. It's hard to compete when your opponent is willing to play dirty and the referee doesn't care to stop it.

trey-jones 3y ago

As a 10 year veteran of a small (less than 20 employees) software company, I can confirm they do exist. Many a screw-up has been overlooked, and I do feel that my overall contribution to the company is valued. We are all friends here. It's not perfect, but I don't envy participants in the corporate rat race.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Can confirm. I worked in various roles and companies including small privately owned shop. I am now at a bigger company. It is super nice overall and while I did go overboard on last project, I kinda did it to myself. FWIW, the company did not start in US, which may part of the reason the culture is a little different. It also helps that this is the first team where we share the same interests ( gaming, technology and surrounding issues ). And that is a publicly traded company. Still, I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush.

anigbrowl 3y ago

Maybe you should be asking that question of management, since there's no easy way for unhappy employees to fire a bad manager, decide not to promote them, weigh in on their pay etc. Why is it the responsibility for the people with the least amount of power in the corporate system to shoulder the moral burden of society's future direction?

akudha 3y ago

I have had more than 10 jobs in my life - big companies, small companies, even a non profit. The one common thing in these jobs? Firing at will, with zero thought for anything other than saving a penny. Same story among the people I know. Many small businesses (and small business owners like myself) do want to build a team and take care of the team Sure such places exist, but are they the majority? Some people get lucky to work for such companies, I'd guess most of humanity is just not that lucky.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
atonse 3y ago
Exactly, and even my company, we have had to let go of people because we couldn't afford to keep them. Loyalty doesn't enter into the equation, in many cases these are people you genuinely enjoy working with. But it's more about, can you afford to keep the staff you have or not? What do you do for the health of the company (and the employment of the people that remain)? It doesn't just have to be a dichotomy between "cold-hearted" or "loyal" – sometimes you just can't afford it and don't have a choice if you want to keep yourself and others employed. I will agree strongly that in my interactions with dozens of small businesses, the way we do (and want to do) business is in the minority. There was once a phone call with a small business to explore a partnership and I messaged my exec team on slack "I don't like how ___ lied about something as small as ____, don't really want to get into a partnership with businesses that have such red flags" – but that is sadly too common. Call me naive, but I have to feel satisfied at the end of the day that we tried our best to do the right thing in our little corner, even if that limited our growth (and it certainly has).
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  Letting folks go is IMO far superior to defaulting on Payroll. Under the current system employees are fronting 2ish weeks of time to their employers and risking not actually being paid. IMO because financial systems are so much more robust we should be moving to either a daily pay or even a prepay model. But likely that would take regulation because it doesn't benefit the decision makers. Additionally the status quo is such that the employer is earning interest on a pay period worth of capital, while the employee is eating the inflation on it. A spread of about 4 interest + 4 inflation = 8%

maerF0x0 3y ago

> But where does that leave us as a society? Not our problem. exec + mgmt creates the incentives set and reaps nearly all the rewards for it. Don't take personal loss for something you do not have meaningful equity in (ie you will not participate in the rewards). And btw the vast majority of equity plans are not meaningful equity. Compare your compensation to exec layer and decide if you're getting a proportional share, I'd argue unless your C suite compensation is around 10x the lower paid folks (it's usually closer to 100x) then no, you're not equitably participating. Now, if you own a meaningful part of the rewards, go HAM.

atonse 3y ago
I get that you're saying Not "our" problem from the perspective of an employee "our" – but you're a consumer, aren't you? A taxpayer too. Pretty much every single issue that we face as humanity will have a business component in the solution. Even larger government-funded solutions will have to fund private contractors to carry out whatever actions, and in many cases, make a difference whether some companies go above and beyond. Take public transit. The buses and trains are manufactured by private industry. So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude? How about the concept of having pride in your work? I'm honestly not trying to make excuses for predatory and greedy management. I'm not. I am arguing that having a "not our problem" makes you just as bad as the evil management. In both cases, the consumer (you) suffers. I wasn't aware there was even a question about fairness regarding equity. Sure, some places would be even more cutthroat in their negotiations, but if you want more equity, usually you have to take more risks. Has that calculation changed in any fundamental way?
- dsr_ 3y ago
  " So would you like to ride in a train manufactured or driven by people that every step of the way had a "not our problem" attitude?" The reality is that we do ride in those trains. It is not up to random employees to decide that today is a great day to go above and beyond. It is up to leadership to create a company that make that an easy and rewarding decision every day. If you want a better system, you're going to have to replace the existing systems.

hedora 3y ago

I think of it more as joining a team (like for recreational sports). If I am (and my coworkers are) are having fun, and we're collectively moving the business forward, then great. Things are low stress, with a pile of money coming (and I avoid places that expect unsustainable hours, so that is not an issue). If that's not how things are going, then, well, the tech gold rush probably has a few more decades in it (minimum), and there are other plenty of other companies that do offer those things.

leothecool 3y ago

I think a society where people mean what they say and say what they do is preferable to a society with more implied expectations. So go ahead and take care of me, but put it in writing. In my experience its pretty common for small businesses to have wishful thinking and have a desire to take care of the team, but for one reason or another, be unable or unwilling to actually follow through once they get into the details of it.

MSFT_Edging 3y ago

I know its talked about a lot abstractly or incorrectly, but this is a basic issue with how Capitalism works and the proposed solution of socialism. Socialism, being a system where the workers collectively own the business, has a lot more credit if they wanted workers to feel invested. Capitalism, being a system where workers produce the value but see a small portion of it, basically incentivizes dehumanizing the workers. The greater system creates a society where almost every interaction one has in their day to day life is a transaction. Jobs are like renting a space. Why would you make improvements to a space when a landlord can evict you and benefit from your extra effort. Small businesses are often, in a sense, infantilized. They're not like the big nameless corp, they're your neighbor, they're a smol bean who can't hurt. The reality is small businesses can get away with a lot more BS. IMO I'd be far more alert working at a small business waiting for the CEO to do something dumb or damaging than a large corp. Unless the small business gives employees a sense of ownership(actual stake, cooperatively owned) why should they feel invested? They're in the same precarious spot as any other employee. The power balance is greatly weighed against them.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I know that we tell ourselves this story about management just so we can justify doing the bare minimum as employees. > But where does that leave us as a society? The problem is the structural incentives, not the fact that workers respond rationally to them. To fix the problem, fix the incentives, don’t try to guilt trip workers to ignore them to give unrewarded gifts to their employers in an upward transfer of wealth. Because, if we encourage people to do that, where does that leave us as a society?

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago

I've worked in every kind of company from the smallest startup with 2 other developers, to the huge worldwide company, and it happens everywhere.

groby_b 3y ago

> But where does that leave us as a society? I'll worry about that once we address what it does to us as a society that CEOs outearn workers by 400:1 while oddly almost never being affected by layoffs. Same goes for smaller businesses: Campaign for worker protections, and then we'll talk. (Some small businesses do in fact bend over backwards to protect their employees - and they usually get fierce loyalty as a reward. But the average business cares very little about long-term impact on workers)