4 ms·

It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company,

It might not be illegal, but you have to realize you've labeled yourself as a pain in the ass, or someone willing to irritate and cause problems for a company, thus this will probably affect your ability to be promoted, or work on important projects / teams. Everyone can respond how it is legal, their right, etc, but the fact that you are now known as a troublemaker won't bode well for you.

eropple 11y ago
If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Sorry but not really...You could be totally in the right to say whatever you want on a conference call, make promises to a customer that you've decided for yourself matter that the company has no way of fulfilling, these things are all legal and fine, but you aren't going to be getting promoted any time soon. The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.
  - eropple 11y ago
    I don't think you have a particularly strong conception of what a right is. I do not have the right to represent my company to a third party (though I may be tasked with doing so in the course of my duties, as an agent of the company). I do have the right to discuss compensation with my colleagues, as enshrined by the government that ensures that company's legal status. The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.
- msutherl 11y ago
  You seem to be equating 'acting within the law' with both moral conduct and efficacy (from the perspective of the charter). This is denying that efficacy from the perspective of the company, contra the law, moral code, or the charter could have a positive outcome. In fact, it appears that successful corporations are constantly pushing on all 3 restraints, and in the marketplace, corporations that ride the edge are more competitive, thus more successful, and therefore deliver greater benefit. How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)? It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. "If you violate the rules even slightly, you will be executed." Is that a good strategy for encouraging lawfulness while preserving efficacy? And is law the perfect (or the best) mechanism for encoding moral behavior?
  - eropple 11y ago
    > How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)? It determines the values of your society. Fuck with the powerless at your own, extreme risk. If your values are more important than your spreadsheets, then the violation of the rights of the weak must take precedence. And, for me, it does; I'm proud to say that I've been pretty on-point about hewing to that in my adult life, even when balancing managerial responsibilities to an employer. We can argue about the level of impact that must be assessed; I'll bend on something like the revocation of a charter for this (though there are plenty of corporate crimes for which it's a fair response). But suppression of worker rights should involve a very, very harsh penalty that makes the company not simply think twice from, but recoil in utter fear about, doing so again. (Perhaps a personal consequence to the actor involved; I don't really believe in the fictional person of the corporation and I'm okay with holding its agents responsible for its bad behaviors.) > It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. Essentially, yes, but there's a multiplier involved that makes this comparison fuzzy. Organizations, which are not people, should be held to significantly higher standards of moral rectitude than any individual due to their geometrically (even exponentially?) greater power and ability to impact others. Impacts that would be "small" on the individual scale are seismic at Google-scale, and the punishments must reflect this. I think there are better strategies for encouraging lawfulness (and, more important, ethical behavior) at the individual scale, and even at the societal level. But the modern corporation's entire schtick is being above that society--look how many useful idiots speak positively of the "amorality" of a corporation. If an appeal to the better nature of which people celebrate its non-existence, I'm okay with giving fear a go. I mean, we already live in the cyberpunk dystopia of the eighties, minus the mohawks and shoulderpads--at this point, inaction is acceptance.

eropple 11y ago

If a company decides that exercising one's rights is "troublemaking", that company should be utterly destroyed without hesitation or remorse. The corporation exists solely at the sufferance of the society that grants it its charter. Someday maybe we'll remember this instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

res0nat0r 11y ago
Sorry but not really...You could be totally in the right to say whatever you want on a conference call, make promises to a customer that you've decided for yourself matter that the company has no way of fulfilling, these things are all legal and fine, but you aren't going to be getting promoted any time soon. The world is not black and white, no matter how naive folks here believe it to be.
- eropple 11y ago
  I don't think you have a particularly strong conception of what a right is. I do not have the right to represent my company to a third party (though I may be tasked with doing so in the course of my duties, as an agent of the company). I do have the right to discuss compensation with my colleagues, as enshrined by the government that ensures that company's legal status. The world is not black-and-white. This is. I do not understand, Steinbeck notwithstanding, the steadfast desire to take the minimal power of the worker out of the worker's hands.
msutherl 11y ago
You seem to be equating 'acting within the law' with both moral conduct and efficacy (from the perspective of the charter). This is denying that efficacy from the perspective of the company, contra the law, moral code, or the charter could have a positive outcome. In fact, it appears that successful corporations are constantly pushing on all 3 restraints, and in the marketplace, corporations that ride the edge are more competitive, thus more successful, and therefore deliver greater benefit. How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)? It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. "If you violate the rules even slightly, you will be executed." Is that a good strategy for encouraging lawfulness while preserving efficacy? And is law the perfect (or the best) mechanism for encoding moral behavior?
- eropple 11y ago
  > How then does it make sense to immediately dismantle a corporation that breaks the rules even in a small way (destroying huge amounts of value)? It determines the values of your society. Fuck with the powerless at your own, extreme risk. If your values are more important than your spreadsheets, then the violation of the rights of the weak must take precedence. And, for me, it does; I'm proud to say that I've been pretty on-point about hewing to that in my adult life, even when balancing managerial responsibilities to an employer. We can argue about the level of impact that must be assessed; I'll bend on something like the revocation of a charter for this (though there are plenty of corporate crimes for which it's a fair response). But suppression of worker rights should involve a very, very harsh penalty that makes the company not simply think twice from, but recoil in utter fear about, doing so again. (Perhaps a personal consequence to the actor involved; I don't really believe in the fictional person of the corporation and I'm okay with holding its agents responsible for its bad behaviors.) > It seems that you're advocating a 'punishment as deterrent' strategy for society along the lines of capital punishment. Essentially, yes, but there's a multiplier involved that makes this comparison fuzzy. Organizations, which are not people, should be held to significantly higher standards of moral rectitude than any individual due to their geometrically (even exponentially?) greater power and ability to impact others. Impacts that would be "small" on the individual scale are seismic at Google-scale, and the punishments must reflect this. I think there are better strategies for encouraging lawfulness (and, more important, ethical behavior) at the individual scale, and even at the societal level. But the modern corporation's entire schtick is being above that society--look how many useful idiots speak positively of the "amorality" of a corporation. If an appeal to the better nature of which people celebrate its non-existence, I'm okay with giving fear a go. I mean, we already live in the cyberpunk dystopia of the eighties, minus the mohawks and shoulderpads--at this point, inaction is acceptance.