8 ms·

As an old person, I’m very much of the mindset, “Keep your mouth shut as much as possible, never air dirty laundry publicly, and don’t pick fights with your com

• SoftTalker 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • kelseyfrog 2y ago
    We should aspire to a society where people don't worry about paying rent. Whether this is through worker empowerment or other means, it is justified:)
    • summeroflove20 2y ago
      [dead]
• bloomingkales 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • bbqfog 2y ago
    It doesn't seem stupid at all. It seems brave and like it has a lot of business value. Why not expose the poor performing managers who are structurally protected by bureaucratic rot. Being a good person is good for business.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • santoshalper 2y ago
      The phenomenon you're observing is broken-down drones who are bitter that other workers are refusing to tolerate the abuse that they accepted.
      • Analemma_ 2y ago
        Yeah, the "I had to suffer pointlessly, so you do too" effect and the accompanying post hoc rationalization for why the suffering was actually good are a depressingly powerful force to maintain the status quo, and are already all over this post.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      The delineating line here is: - Is the employee including enough information and examples, and are those specific and strong enough, to communicate the toxic behavior? - Does the employee strip out emotion from their post? If yes, it tends to be well received. I.e. "Yes, that is shitty behavior that shouldn't happen in a workplace" That's the difference between spotlighting and venting. The former highlights something that objectively exists; the latter is more about you.
    • jjmarr 2y ago
      For a lot of toxic people, the business views them as "high performers" and their harassment of others as a personal flaw. "Separate the art from the artist". Sometimes, being a good person is seen as bad for business, since there's a meme that business is about being ruthless in success. I blame it on movies and TV.
      • no_wizard 2y ago
        Ruthless toxic business culture predates movies and tv. Look at Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, railroad conglomerates, the existence of legal slavery etc. It is a flaw in the system, given the prevalence unchecked.
        • jjmarr 2y ago
          Ruthlessness is for your competitors, not your employees. Locking people into low-wage jobs doesn't benefit the company, because as soon as you get a competitor, you're screwed! If we're using legal slavery as an example, countries that abolished slavery early ended up being more productive because employees actually want to work/innovate/create quality goods. By hiring slaves or treating your employees like crap, you're voluntarily specializing in the low-end of whatever market you're in, because your employees don't care about the product. That's rarely the most profitable move unless you have a monopoly or a commodity good, like the examples you've provided. We're doing this experiment right now in Canada by importing millions of temporary foreign workers/international students to work in slave-like conditions. If ruthless toxic slavery worked, we should be making more money. In reality, our GDP/capita has dropped continuously since 2019 indicating we're actually less profitable per person.
          • no_wizard 2y ago
            To be clear, I’m not equating these things to success in any forms, only that there has been a prevalence of negative patterns stemming from business culture for a long time
    • bruce511 2y ago
      Feedback is good for business. If your company wants to hear your feedback then communicate that information on those (private) channels. "Going public" is counter-productive if you are in a good faith organization that values feedback. If you are in an organization that doesn't value your feedback then your feedback is irrelevant. Going public just makes it harder for you to get a job elsewhere. Look, we've all had bad bosses and crappy managers. This isn't some surprising revelation. When you bad-mouth an ex employer in an interview, or in public, the next employer is wondering "what will you say about me to the next guy?" Past behavior is an excellent predictor of future behavior. And when an employee shows you their approach to solving interpersonal issues, believe them.
  • no_wizard 2y ago
    I prefer the public accountability of corporations as opposed to anything else. It’s more honest, and is one of the few things regular folks can do that leaves a very obvious paper trail if something goes sideways. I would say this is a positive development for society. Corporations have benefitted for too long by cultivating fear of speaking out. I’m glad it’s changing. I genuinely don’t understand why this is a bad thing
    • bloomingkales 2y ago
      Because at scale it creates a culture of whiny little shits that take on this ridiculous world view and are toxic with their Histrionics. Quite frankly they don't shut the fuck up, and they need a healthy shut the fuck up you are not that important, get over yourself. This job isn't a fit? Move on.
      • no_wizard 2y ago
        If something isn’t a good fit it doesn’t mean that the work place or boss gets to justify being toxic and then claim “well they weren’t a good fit” I’ve worked in roles that were very much not a good fit but I wasn’t treated bad at the same time, it was simply clear there was a mismatch. They aren’t the same thing at all. Accountability is extremely important and it must run both ways. Corporate culture has been top down for far too long
        • bloomingkales 2y ago
          Today the 34-year-old has more than 80,000 followers. A few times a week she publishes a post — often several hundred words — and a selfie in which she's holding up a whiteboard with a handwritten summary of that post, like "A toxic boss will use a performance improvement plan to control you, not to help you." A toxic boss, she writes in one post, will "shower you with praise when you meet their expectations but withhold recognition" and "exploit your fear of failure to push you beyond reasonable limits." Each post typically gets thousands of comments (most empathetic, some disparaging) from workers around the world. Listen to the story. This person's entire identity is now THIS. She is now the anti-work-bosses-are-bad-gimme-my-80k-followers. Two wrongs don't make a right. I cannot support this nonsense. If you can't see the phenomenon here at scale, then we're truly at odds and I can't see a middle ground between our camps.
  • ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    This is hilariously a-historic, and companies are still getting off with an absolute slap-on-the-wrist both from actual regulators, and from these maverick employees who trash them on social media. If they still don't like that maybe we need to go all the way back to what got us the weekends we love and 40 hour work weeks: blowing up rail bridges and throwing bricks of C4 in police cars. It blows my mind how thin-skinned businesses are now. Everybody talks about America's golden age from the end of WWII to the Reagan era when America dominated world markets (because we were the only unscathed nation from that conflict, and we had half of money worldwide) but nobody goes back further and I can't help but think that's because American businesses are quite content, contrary to public statements, with trashing campaigns on social media, specifically because consumer revolt doesn't and never has worked. If you want to know what did work, again: coal miners blew up rail bridges, locomotives, destroyed company assets by the ton, and killed thousands of Pinkerton strike breakers and their partners in law enforcement. Consumer boycott didn't get us weekends. Explosives did.
    • no_wizard 2y ago
      I agree with the sentiment, though violence is, to me, the solution of last resort. We should at least try actually organizing labor first. On the note of thin skinned corporations: it’s an outgrowth of the thin skin that corporate leadership has. Executives don’t like accountability or feedback that differs from their worldview. I’ve seen it so much, especially with these workplace surveys where the same issues come up and they never ever implement the proper solution to fix the issues.
      • ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > I agree with the sentiment, though violence is, to me, the solution of last resort. Oh for sure. I've already lived through enough historically significant times for my taste, though I suspect the ongoing issues are going to create more of them anyway no matter what I personally want to experience. People are suffering and social media is making it impossible to ignore, and increasingly the younger generations barely have lives worth considering as a loss if they end up the victims of state violence, which increases radicalization and you get more people ready to pick up guns. > We should at least try actually organizing labor first. It is good to see so much support for unions in the US again. They got a bad rap for a long time but people are coming back around in a big way now that we've had so many years of corporations basically being the shot callers in our supposedly representative Democracy nation. > On the note of thin skinned corporations: it’s an outgrowth of the thin skin that corporate leadership has. Executives don’t like accountability or feedback that differs from their worldview. I’ve seen it so much, especially with these workplace surveys where the same issues come up and they never ever implement the proper solution to fix the issues. Absolutely, and that's been a thing as long as mediocre wealthy people were lording their success over the peasant farmers they owned under feudalism. The noble of whatever land could have any of his subjects murdered at will but that power, while cool, doesn't change the fact that the same lord would probably be dead within a month if he had to live the lives of his subjects. He was always a useless bastard if you took away his money, and every great leap forward for common folks in human history occurred when enough people realized that and decided to take away his money, and possibly his head in the process. Our modern feudal lords are no different. Mark Zuckerberg is a mediocre college dropout programmer who built a website to rate the looks of his female classmates, and the sole reason he's still (mis)managing Meta is that he's institutionally unable to be fired for his incredibly poor performance at that job. Elon Musk has never done anything in his life that wasn't solely at the behest of the fortunes he was given (loaned, what the fuck ever) from his father. His only marketable skill is writing checks and the abysmal failure of the Cybertruck is a monument to his hubris. Tons of CEOs all over tech now aren't the people who actually built any of it, nor understand it, but are pure business graduates who's only ideas involve playing with fake numbers on spreadsheets to continue fooling Wall Street into thinking they can just grow forever, despite on how-on-it's-face ridiculous that is as a concept.
  • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    I agree it’s a risk to career connections but disagree that it is “stupid”. We need protections for speech such that people don’t have to fear repercussions.
    • bruce511 2y ago
      You can "protect" all you like, but speaking publicly about your employer has repercussions and you can't wish that away. Let's say I'm an employer filling a position. I narrow found the candidates to a handful, any one would be fine. So I start contacting ex-bosses, references, doing Google searches etc. Hmm, one of them has disparaged their employer online. I don't know who was right, and frankly I don't care. I'm never going to think "ah, there's someone we really want - someone who goes online when they don't get what they want." You can't "protect speech" this away.
  • downrightmike 2y ago
    AI is set to replace them by 2030, they don't care
  • Jgrubb 2y ago
    > ultimately realizes the phenomenon of youth stupidity and grows out of it. If only that were true. Some people never experience consequences and so there's nothing for them to learn.
    • bloomingkales 2y ago
      That is the Greek tragedy that the universe has warned us about. You better get wisdom in your life somehow, and the pre-requisite is growing up. If doesn't click before you are dead, that's the tragedy they have been warning about since forever. Like yeah, you can die on this hill. But if you really need a job one day because someone in your life is sick and needs caretaking (this is just one example, not a strawman anecdote, life is no joke, thats a causal thing that can easily happen) ... Oh you died on that stupid hill on Linkedin 5 years ago over bullshit right? Because nothing else in life could possibly be more important right? That's just how I see it. I see children.
  • pjc50 2y ago
    I'm reminded of the missing stair / metoo discourse, where it gradually emerges that lots of people knew that X was sexually assaulting employees, but they'd not dared to go public about it for fear of reprisal. And of course the "proper channels" is often the worse of both worlds: you get the reprisals, but without the help of your fellow victims or the public.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Most people have fear about this sort of thing. Even once you quit. Like maybe if you post something you won’t get hired back. Employee speech outside of work environments should be protected. But I think as long as people have something to lose, they will censor themselves. Young people have little to lose.
• tmpz22 2y ago
  What companies have been burned to the ground on Social Media? Equifax? Wells Fargo? Tesla? Twitter? Uber? I support civil disobedience but aren't many attempts at civil disobedience by lone actors largely ineffective? I think its important to call out ineffective civil activism so that individuals can create more effective strategies for creating actual change for the social good.
  • TheSkyHasEyes 2y ago
    They probably meant smaller companies. I too have noticed this and agree with the commenter above.