5 ms·

There’s two sides to freedom. Freedom of individuals to express themselves, and freedom of companies, which are also made of individuals, to want to work with e

by ITB 3y ago

There’s two sides to freedom. Freedom of individuals to express themselves, and freedom of companies, which are also made of individuals, to want to work with each other. I personally think all employment should be truly at will on both sides.

ITB 3y ago
My personal opinion is that it’s fine for an employee of my company to do comedy on the side, by the way. So it’s not about this case. It’s the principle that I’m highlighting
- aspenmayer 3y ago
  How do you feel about employers willingly entering into a union contract with an employee?
boringuser2 3y ago
Companies aren't people my friend. Someone isn't fired via democratic fiat of the entire "company" organism.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
icehawk 3y ago
They company had the freedom to enter into a contract that restricted their ability to fire employees, and they did so.
swells34 3y ago
That freedom exists. Anyone who didn't want to work with this person was free to quit at any time. We use a bit of asymmetrical freedom here in the US; we don't FORCE anyone to stay, but we don't allow you to bar people from being present without a good reason. And in general, "at will" employment is the norm and this is a special case; it's only when a company shows that it is incapable of being reasonable when stuff like this happens. They forfeited the control over their employment by being irresponsible, by being incredibly unprofessional, by holding employees to personal standards outside of professional bounds. They stopped acting like an employer, so they lost the benefits that come with that status.
solardev 3y ago
This sort of freedom only benefits capitalists, at the expense of everyday people, and threatens democracy itself. The employer-employee relationship is not a partnership of equals, especially in places like the US where lack of employment is pretty much a slow death sentence. A company isn't just a bunch of people who want to work with each other, unless it's structured as a worker owned coop, partnership, or similar. More often than not it's a legal institution created for the express purpose of extracting profit by extracting value out of poorer people's labor. There's no inherent "freedom" for any such entity, only what society chooses to give it.
- janice1999 3y ago
  Agreed. OP is rather naive. Would he support companies not choosing to employ LGBT people, Muslims, Jews etc? There are reasons people fought for employee protection and they're rooted in exploitation, discrimination and, in the case of Pinkertons and anti-union activity, the literal murder of workers by powerful employers and the state.
  - ITB 3y ago
    I wouldn’t personally support those companies, and I think most others wouldn’t either. But I think if a company was made of women who only want to hire women, that’s okay. Some laws are meant to bring fairness at a time of egregious unfairness. But don’t need to be laws forever. That doesn’t mean the problem will inevitably return without enforcement.
abeppu 3y ago
What does it mean for a corporation to have "freedom"? It's a structure which represents owners, who may be in disagreement. If 40% of shareholders want to employ a worker, they're not "free" to do so. Why should a corporation as a group of individuals representing owners have freedoms which a union (a group representing workers) does not?
armchairhacker 3y ago
I agree with you in theory but not in practice. The problem is that most people need a job to afford basic amenities like housing. Then, getting a new job of the same career isn't easy, this person may not like other careers, and then the new job may have similar requirements unrelated to the job. Life isn't fair. But we as a society do what we can to make life more fair. And I personally believe that it's more fair to ensure people aren't forced to choose between expressing their half-decent opinion, shitty jobs, and homelessness/emergency-only medical care/low-quality food/whatever else you would probably deem "essential", than it is to ensure bosses can hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reason. You can disagree, but I think most people do agree, considering most people are also working jobs and would be in danger of losing their essentials if they were fired (as apparently 62% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck). There are other solutions too. I think if we had UBI, or just better unemployment and an economy which guarantees you a decent job provided you can do decent work, unions and employee protections wouldn't matter. But currently it seems like those reforms are far away, while unions and employee protections exist right now.
CJefferson 3y ago
If "companies" want to have the rights of people, they have can have the responsibilities to. For a start, let's remove limited liability from shareholders and owners of companies.

by ITB 3y ago

ITB 3y ago

My personal opinion is that it’s fine for an employee of my company to do comedy on the side, by the way. So it’s not about this case. It’s the principle that I’m highlighting

aspenmayer 3y ago
How do you feel about employers willingly entering into a union contract with an employee?

boringuser2 3y ago

Companies aren't people my friend. Someone isn't fired via democratic fiat of the entire "company" organism.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

icehawk 3y ago

They company had the freedom to enter into a contract that restricted their ability to fire employees, and they did so.

swells34 3y ago

That freedom exists. Anyone who didn't want to work with this person was free to quit at any time. We use a bit of asymmetrical freedom here in the US; we don't FORCE anyone to stay, but we don't allow you to bar people from being present without a good reason. And in general, "at will" employment is the norm and this is a special case; it's only when a company shows that it is incapable of being reasonable when stuff like this happens. They forfeited the control over their employment by being irresponsible, by being incredibly unprofessional, by holding employees to personal standards outside of professional bounds. They stopped acting like an employer, so they lost the benefits that come with that status.

solardev 3y ago

This sort of freedom only benefits capitalists, at the expense of everyday people, and threatens democracy itself. The employer-employee relationship is not a partnership of equals, especially in places like the US where lack of employment is pretty much a slow death sentence. A company isn't just a bunch of people who want to work with each other, unless it's structured as a worker owned coop, partnership, or similar. More often than not it's a legal institution created for the express purpose of extracting profit by extracting value out of poorer people's labor. There's no inherent "freedom" for any such entity, only what society chooses to give it.

janice1999 3y ago
Agreed. OP is rather naive. Would he support companies not choosing to employ LGBT people, Muslims, Jews etc? There are reasons people fought for employee protection and they're rooted in exploitation, discrimination and, in the case of Pinkertons and anti-union activity, the literal murder of workers by powerful employers and the state.
- ITB 3y ago
  I wouldn’t personally support those companies, and I think most others wouldn’t either. But I think if a company was made of women who only want to hire women, that’s okay. Some laws are meant to bring fairness at a time of egregious unfairness. But don’t need to be laws forever. That doesn’t mean the problem will inevitably return without enforcement.

abeppu 3y ago

What does it mean for a corporation to have "freedom"? It's a structure which represents owners, who may be in disagreement. If 40% of shareholders want to employ a worker, they're not "free" to do so. Why should a corporation as a group of individuals representing owners have freedoms which a union (a group representing workers) does not?

armchairhacker 3y ago

I agree with you in theory but not in practice. The problem is that most people need a job to afford basic amenities like housing. Then, getting a new job of the same career isn't easy, this person may not like other careers, and then the new job may have similar requirements unrelated to the job. Life isn't fair. But we as a society do what we can to make life more fair. And I personally believe that it's more fair to ensure people aren't forced to choose between expressing their half-decent opinion, shitty jobs, and homelessness/emergency-only medical care/low-quality food/whatever else you would probably deem "essential", than it is to ensure bosses can hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reason. You can disagree, but I think most people do agree, considering most people are also working jobs and would be in danger of losing their essentials if they were fired (as apparently 62% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck). There are other solutions too. I think if we had UBI, or just better unemployment and an economy which guarantees you a decent job provided you can do decent work, unions and employee protections wouldn't matter. But currently it seems like those reforms are far away, while unions and employee protections exist right now.

CJefferson 3y ago

If "companies" want to have the rights of people, they have can have the responsibilities to. For a start, let's remove limited liability from shareholders and owners of companies.