Why are so many people ok with a world where you have no say in what your employer does, and they can do whatever they want to suit their bottom line?

Though I wonder how much of this is actually corpophilia and how much is people hiding behind it because they don’t want to say “I’m glad these people I disagree with got fired”.

Here are some threads to show what I’m talking about:

r/technology

r/conservative (though this one feels like cheating)

r/news

r/bayarea

r/google

hacker news

washington post comments

etc…

  • huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not gleeful - just fully understanding why.

    I admire their principled stand. They had to know it would cost them their jobs but chose to do it anyway.

    Their firing isn’t a surprise and is fully reasonable by the company. I hope they get great jobs elsewhere, where their morals will be appreciated… But there are very few workplaces that give a damn about morals.

    • Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Lets be clear, there’s a difference between “reasonable” and “expected behavior” and it’s an important one.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s both reasonable and expected.

        We can discuss if a corporation deserves to exist but granted that it does: it is implicitly reasonable that it deserves to maintain its premises and staffing in a way that is conducive to business.

        Now if you want to talk about corporate structures and the dissolution of capitalist enterprise that’s a different story.

        But in today’s world and with today’s rules it is entirely reasonable.

        • Umbrias@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’d argue corporations should strive to represent their employees. Corporations don’t deserve to maintain anything, they aren’t people and have no ethical status either.

          Nonetheless you’re working double time to make sure the use of ‘reasonable’ with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.

          We will not reach a common ground.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’d argue corporations should strive to represent their employees.

            That’s not a corporation that’s a co-op. I think cooperatives are great. Corporations less so.

            Corporations don’t deserve to maintain anything, they aren’t people and have no ethical status either.

            Ethical status isn’t what I’m talking about here: I’m talking about legal protections for entities. A corporation is an entity and has legal protections.

            Again we can discuss if capitalism should be the system we use but as long as it is then corporations will, by definition, have legal status and protections.

            Nonetheless you’re working double time to make sure the use of ‘reasonable’ with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.

            It’s absolutely mundane and normal. It’s unnatural but not strange.

            I’d rather the system didn’t work like this: but it is entirely expected given the laws that govern the nation in which this occurred.

            And that’s by definition normative.

            We will not reach a common ground.

            You went from talking about concepts to directly attacking me. I wouldn’t expect you’d ever come to a truce with someone you see as an enemy. I’m sorry you feel that way.