3 ms·

> bad corporate leadership does not require govt oversight and intervention. And employees don't decide who is breaking the rules, just like crime victims don't

by piva00 3y ago

> bad corporate leadership does not require govt oversight and intervention. And employees don't decide who is breaking the rules, just like crime victims don't actually run our courtrooms: it's not a good idea, noble as it sounds in a childish sort of way. So who does? Not the government, not the employees, who decides the corporate leadership is acting in bad faith and needs to be accountable? Stop the boring soapboxing, for Christ's sake...

fsckboy 3y ago
define acting in bad faith, you can't just soapbox it, then get your way. After you've defined it, then point out who is the counterparty in that transaction. that person/entity has the recourse they have, it can vary. Once you decide you don't like transacting with a person, you can stop. Everything doesn't necessarily work out the way you want, we all take lumps. "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.)
- piva00 3y ago
  Acting in bad faith in this case is pretty clear, no? Going against the agreed code of conduct that all members of the organisation should follow is pretty much in bad faith. Some (or even most) of the employees speaking up are also shareholders, so even in your very narrow definition of whom should have the power to criticise actions in bad faith of leadership would grant those employees that power. > "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.) You are basically giving carte blanche to the owners of capital to do whatever they want, even if that would negatively impact a whole organisation and the workers producing the value for such organisation. That's a very corporate-centric worldview which I don't abide to. Capitalism is an amoral system, we humans need to instill some morality into it so it can function in a way that's more beneficial than damaging, employees speaking up against leadership in a very clear case of such leadership breaking their own agreed code of conduct is well within bounds of what should be acceptable. Bosses are not slave masters, the employment relationship can be economically viewed as a transaction for market modeling, but as a societal relationship we should strive to lessen the intrinsic power imbalance of it, employees generate value, no company would exist without them, reducing that to "owners can do whatever they want under the bounds of contract/civil/criminal law" transfers more of the power to employers since those have much more capital to deploy on lobbying, lawyering and so on. The system doesn't work "fine", it works but it can always be better. And in this specific case the actions taken were even illegal, so the employees had the right to speak up. I don't understand what you are defending.

by piva00 3y ago

fsckboy 3y ago

define acting in bad faith, you can't just soapbox it, then get your way. After you've defined it, then point out who is the counterparty in that transaction. that person/entity has the recourse they have, it can vary. Once you decide you don't like transacting with a person, you can stop. Everything doesn't necessarily work out the way you want, we all take lumps. "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.)

piva00 3y ago
Acting in bad faith in this case is pretty clear, no? Going against the agreed code of conduct that all members of the organisation should follow is pretty much in bad faith. Some (or even most) of the employees speaking up are also shareholders, so even in your very narrow definition of whom should have the power to criticise actions in bad faith of leadership would grant those employees that power. > "Society" and "limited liability corporations" didn't just get invented, we have a system that works fine. People who own things ultimately get to decide what happens to them, within the strictures of their ownership (for example, shareholders, contracts, etc.) You are basically giving carte blanche to the owners of capital to do whatever they want, even if that would negatively impact a whole organisation and the workers producing the value for such organisation. That's a very corporate-centric worldview which I don't abide to. Capitalism is an amoral system, we humans need to instill some morality into it so it can function in a way that's more beneficial than damaging, employees speaking up against leadership in a very clear case of such leadership breaking their own agreed code of conduct is well within bounds of what should be acceptable. Bosses are not slave masters, the employment relationship can be economically viewed as a transaction for market modeling, but as a societal relationship we should strive to lessen the intrinsic power imbalance of it, employees generate value, no company would exist without them, reducing that to "owners can do whatever they want under the bounds of contract/civil/criminal law" transfers more of the power to employers since those have much more capital to deploy on lobbying, lawyering and so on. The system doesn't work "fine", it works but it can always be better. And in this specific case the actions taken were even illegal, so the employees had the right to speak up. I don't understand what you are defending.