5 ms·

> it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices. No it totally is. The entire point in it being a sacrifice is that it comes at some

> it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices. No it totally is. The entire point in it being a sacrifice is that it comes at some cost and it’s not something you have to do. If you’re basically forced to do it, it’s not a sacrifice. If it’s no sweat of your back, it’s not a sacrifice. This applies to both parties. There’s no one-dimensional thing called “power”. If there was then there would be 100% absolutely nothing you could do about the situation.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Agree, this happens all the time in the real world, in fact close to the norm in some situations. e.g. Secretary messes up bosses' calendar/email/etc... really badly, usually with the help of a computer, and has to work overtime to fix it, without extra compensation.
- sublinear 3y ago
  That's not sacrifice.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Because...?
  - notnaut 3y ago
    Sure it is. Fucking up is part of a job. If you’re working 9-5 on the clock, you don’t have to fix shit after 5. Choosing to stick around to fix your mistake off hours without pay when you could do it the next day or take comp time later is a sacrifice of your time/money.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      That’s wage theft. It’s criminal to expect or not compensate for (unless salaried which is free season for exploitation)
    - ako 3y ago
      If I hire someone to work on my house and they fuck up, e.g., hit a water or gas pipe, I expect them to fix it asap, with no additional pay. Fucking up is not part of the job if you’re doing the hiring…… Happened to me once, long time ago, I was cleaning up an oracle db production server, and by accident deleted to system datafile of the database. Sat there till midnight to fix it, but at least I had proof the backups were working…
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - donw 3y ago
        No. This highlights one of the key differences between owners and employees. Employees are not nominally liable for mistakes they make while employed, excepting things like gross negligence or malicious behavior. If an employee makes a mistake, forcing them to work "off the clock" to fix that mistake is a violation of labor law in pretty much every jurisdiction of which I am aware. An employee could volunteer to do so, but frankly, as a "boss" myself, I would neither expect nor accept such a gesture. Mistakes happen. It's part of the cost of doing business, and if you're a competent businessman, you factor that in. What I expect is that that employee won't make the same mistake again. But I have and will never expect someone to work without being paid as agreed.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        You don't see a difference between a contractor and an employee?
        ilyt 3y ago
        ...does the company do, except for the amount of paperwork ?
        3y ago
    - ilyt 3y ago
      I think that heavily depend on severity of the fuckup. If you comitted a bug bringing the whole site down at 16:50 then went "welp, I won't fix it in 10 minutes, sucks to be on ops team today!", your login wouldn't work tomorrow
      - notnaut 3y ago
        Yes, but I assure you the pink slip won’t mention anything about how the employee should have worked free overtime to fix their mistake. These things all vary considerably based on the type of employment. The only thing I’m arguing is semantic, but an important distinction in terms of recognizing the dignity in choosing to work for free in regards to the original point about giving alms.
jancsika 3y ago
> If you’re basically forced to do it, it’s not a sacrifice. You just declared this by fiat. People are forced into making sacrifices all the time, and there are no logical fallacies up their sleeves.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  It’s semantics, and I don’t mean that to be dismissive - GP sounds like they’re using a definition of “sacrifice” that’s essentially voluntary; you sound like you’re using a definition of sacrifice that’s essentially hmmm maybe “diminishing” (“I am less that I was before I sacrificed”) I do agree with GP, in sentiment - part of the impact of giving something up in these situations is that it is voluntary. Forced sacrifice - I don’t think that can restore trust, only subservience; which, to be sure, can be seen as trust in certain situations (the loyalty of a yes-man, for example), but I’d strongly argue that that isn’t the kind of trust the article is talking about.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Agree, this happens all the time in the real world, in fact close to the norm in some situations. e.g. Secretary messes up bosses' calendar/email/etc... really badly, usually with the help of a computer, and has to work overtime to fix it, without extra compensation.

sublinear 3y ago
That's not sacrifice.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Because...?
- notnaut 3y ago
  Sure it is. Fucking up is part of a job. If you’re working 9-5 on the clock, you don’t have to fix shit after 5. Choosing to stick around to fix your mistake off hours without pay when you could do it the next day or take comp time later is a sacrifice of your time/money.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    That’s wage theft. It’s criminal to expect or not compensate for (unless salaried which is free season for exploitation)
  - ako 3y ago
    If I hire someone to work on my house and they fuck up, e.g., hit a water or gas pipe, I expect them to fix it asap, with no additional pay. Fucking up is not part of the job if you’re doing the hiring…… Happened to me once, long time ago, I was cleaning up an oracle db production server, and by accident deleted to system datafile of the database. Sat there till midnight to fix it, but at least I had proof the backups were working…
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - donw 3y ago
      No. This highlights one of the key differences between owners and employees. Employees are not nominally liable for mistakes they make while employed, excepting things like gross negligence or malicious behavior. If an employee makes a mistake, forcing them to work "off the clock" to fix that mistake is a violation of labor law in pretty much every jurisdiction of which I am aware. An employee could volunteer to do so, but frankly, as a "boss" myself, I would neither expect nor accept such a gesture. Mistakes happen. It's part of the cost of doing business, and if you're a competent businessman, you factor that in. What I expect is that that employee won't make the same mistake again. But I have and will never expect someone to work without being paid as agreed.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      You don't see a difference between a contractor and an employee?
      - ilyt 3y ago
        ...does the company do, except for the amount of paperwork ?
        3y ago
  - ilyt 3y ago
    I think that heavily depend on severity of the fuckup. If you comitted a bug bringing the whole site down at 16:50 then went "welp, I won't fix it in 10 minutes, sucks to be on ops team today!", your login wouldn't work tomorrow
    - notnaut 3y ago
      Yes, but I assure you the pink slip won’t mention anything about how the employee should have worked free overtime to fix their mistake. These things all vary considerably based on the type of employment. The only thing I’m arguing is semantic, but an important distinction in terms of recognizing the dignity in choosing to work for free in regards to the original point about giving alms.

jancsika 3y ago

> If you’re basically forced to do it, it’s not a sacrifice. You just declared this by fiat. People are forced into making sacrifices all the time, and there are no logical fallacies up their sleeves.

RangerScience 3y ago
It’s semantics, and I don’t mean that to be dismissive - GP sounds like they’re using a definition of “sacrifice” that’s essentially voluntary; you sound like you’re using a definition of sacrifice that’s essentially hmmm maybe “diminishing” (“I am less that I was before I sacrificed”) I do agree with GP, in sentiment - part of the impact of giving something up in these situations is that it is voluntary. Forced sacrifice - I don’t think that can restore trust, only subservience; which, to be sure, can be seen as trust in certain situations (the loyalty of a yes-man, for example), but I’d strongly argue that that isn’t the kind of trust the article is talking about.