10 ms·

Extending the example, “if a company A (eg. Marlboro) pays you a salary X to do your fucking job Y ( make cigarettes more addictive) and if you use that money a

Extending the example, “if a company A (eg. Marlboro) pays you a salary X to do your fucking job Y ( make cigarettes more addictive) and if you use that money and time on activities Z(whistleblowing, protesting, etc), especially if it negatively affects company A's image / revenues, why shouldn't the company be allowed to fire I think people feel strongly about certain issues. That doesn’t imply that what they are doing is inherently wrong if driven by those core sentiments. How about we empathize- We can respect both Google’s and the employees’ action without choosing sides.

throwGuardian 7y ago
But this sophistry of comparing Marlbro to Google is tiring. While at it, why not just compare things to 1943 Germany? I say this as an ardent critic of Google: An individual finding irreconcilable differences with a bona fide good employer like Google is unlikely to find any other company fault-free. Tsk tsk: The issue is likely not with the companies.
ggambetta 7y ago
I mean, if you have moral objections, quit. It's not like Google engineers, of all people, are otherwise unemployable. What I don't understand is to complain about or refuse to do things you morally object to and at the same time insist in keeping collecting a nice paycheck. You can't have both.
- GuiA 7y ago
  If you have moral objections but still believe that the company can address them, why would you quit rather than try to change things from within?
  - ggambetta 7y ago
    By all means, try to change things from within, but keep it within. The moment you start leaking internal stuff, betraying the trust of your employer and your peers, you turn it into an us-vs-them situation, and I don't find it surprising that you end up suffering us-vs-them consequences. At the same time, if your moral objections are strong enough, you should quit immediately. E.g. if your company says good news, everyone! We're opening concentration camps tomorrow!, I suppose the only reasonable action is to quit in disgust (as I said before, it's not like Google engineers are otherwise unemployable). If you stick around you're implicitly saying that your moral objections aren't that strong (at least not as strong as your desire to get a fat juicy paycheck), and sure, try to change from within, but keep it private and keep it civil, without biting the hand that is feeding you.
- megablast 7y ago
  Exactly. And if you have moral objections to how a country is run, leave. Don’t try to change it.
  - ggambetta 7y ago
    Can't tell whether you're being ironic or not, but that's exactly why I left my home country, and two other countries I used to live in.
    - exergy 7y ago
      I hope he is being ironic. Because it's not always possible to change companies for people, let alone entire countries.
    - kidintech 7y ago
      He was ironic and you should accept that you are a coward.
      - ggambetta 7y ago
        Nope. I got tired of trying to cope with the situation or try to influence it, realized that meaningful change would take decades if not longer than my lifespan, and thought "fuck it, I'll move to a place that works like I want now, not in three generations if I'm lucky".
        coldtea 7y ago
        The reason the place you've landed works like you want "now", is that people didn't do the same when it needed to change -- and generations by generation helped improve it. If they just wanted to come, milk it, and leave on the first sign of trouble, it would be just like your country of origin.
        SubuSS 7y ago
        Humans have specialized enough over time AND powers have become very entrenched. This agency you're talking about to improve the current system has reduced/disappeared over time because of that IMO. For example, Try as I might, I would suck at say building roads - just not strong enough. I will get done over 4x the time what an expert will need. I think this analogy applies to residence as well: I just don't feel I have the power to change a whole country or community. There is also a huge amount of force required to reverse a flywheel compared to adding to the current direction. Given a choice, people find the flywheel that's turning in their direction. I also would like to work on what my specialization is and build up on it rather than trying to learn to lay roads. It is clearly better to do that in a place supportive of the same rather than trying to change my 3rd world country to adopt it, build it etc. Some probably have that skill to build from ground up in a hostile place - it is a rare skill. You can also try and extend your argument to the millions of refugees / immigrants that flow away from poor spots and see if it holds: Why don't they stay and make their place better? Because more often than not, they just want to make a living and don't believe they can effect measurable change. And believe me, this doesn't come as easy as you think. A ton of legal / ably employed / tax paying immigrants with completely clear records live 10s of years in the USA for example without any permanence or citizenship. IOW I wish it was as simple as you make it sound to up and leave :)
- coldtea 7y ago
  >What I don't understand is to complain about or refuse to do things you morally object to and at the same time insist in keeping collecting a nice paycheck. You can't have both. Yes, of course you can have both. Companies can and have been improved in their behaviour by employee protests, strikes, union bargaining, and other such measures.
  - dnissley 7y ago
    Historically hasn't this activism always been about improving working conditions? I was empathetic with the initial walkout since it was addressing working conditions directly (covering up sexual harassment and forced arbitration). Then the organizers of that action started agitating to change company direction regarding military contracts, censored search engines, and conservative people being on certain boards. While in general I have reservations about all those things, and think people should speak up about them, I don't think that organizing against general company direction should be protected in the same way labor organizing is.
meerita 7y ago
(make cigarettes more addictive) strawman here. You can be hired to do the opposite of addictive.

throwGuardian 7y ago

But this sophistry of comparing Marlbro to Google is tiring. While at it, why not just compare things to 1943 Germany? I say this as an ardent critic of Google: An individual finding irreconcilable differences with a bona fide good employer like Google is unlikely to find any other company fault-free. Tsk tsk: The issue is likely not with the companies.

ggambetta 7y ago

I mean, if you have moral objections, quit. It's not like Google engineers, of all people, are otherwise unemployable. What I don't understand is to complain about or refuse to do things you morally object to and at the same time insist in keeping collecting a nice paycheck. You can't have both.

GuiA 7y ago
If you have moral objections but still believe that the company can address them, why would you quit rather than try to change things from within?
- ggambetta 7y ago
  By all means, try to change things from within, but keep it within. The moment you start leaking internal stuff, betraying the trust of your employer and your peers, you turn it into an us-vs-them situation, and I don't find it surprising that you end up suffering us-vs-them consequences. At the same time, if your moral objections are strong enough, you should quit immediately. E.g. if your company says good news, everyone! We're opening concentration camps tomorrow!, I suppose the only reasonable action is to quit in disgust (as I said before, it's not like Google engineers are otherwise unemployable). If you stick around you're implicitly saying that your moral objections aren't that strong (at least not as strong as your desire to get a fat juicy paycheck), and sure, try to change from within, but keep it private and keep it civil, without biting the hand that is feeding you.
megablast 7y ago
Exactly. And if you have moral objections to how a country is run, leave. Don’t try to change it.
- ggambetta 7y ago
  Can't tell whether you're being ironic or not, but that's exactly why I left my home country, and two other countries I used to live in.
  - exergy 7y ago
    I hope he is being ironic. Because it's not always possible to change companies for people, let alone entire countries.
  - kidintech 7y ago
    He was ironic and you should accept that you are a coward.
    - ggambetta 7y ago
      Nope. I got tired of trying to cope with the situation or try to influence it, realized that meaningful change would take decades if not longer than my lifespan, and thought "fuck it, I'll move to a place that works like I want now, not in three generations if I'm lucky".
      - coldtea 7y ago
        The reason the place you've landed works like you want "now", is that people didn't do the same when it needed to change -- and generations by generation helped improve it. If they just wanted to come, milk it, and leave on the first sign of trouble, it would be just like your country of origin.
        SubuSS 7y ago
        Humans have specialized enough over time AND powers have become very entrenched. This agency you're talking about to improve the current system has reduced/disappeared over time because of that IMO. For example, Try as I might, I would suck at say building roads - just not strong enough. I will get done over 4x the time what an expert will need. I think this analogy applies to residence as well: I just don't feel I have the power to change a whole country or community. There is also a huge amount of force required to reverse a flywheel compared to adding to the current direction. Given a choice, people find the flywheel that's turning in their direction. I also would like to work on what my specialization is and build up on it rather than trying to learn to lay roads. It is clearly better to do that in a place supportive of the same rather than trying to change my 3rd world country to adopt it, build it etc. Some probably have that skill to build from ground up in a hostile place - it is a rare skill. You can also try and extend your argument to the millions of refugees / immigrants that flow away from poor spots and see if it holds: Why don't they stay and make their place better? Because more often than not, they just want to make a living and don't believe they can effect measurable change. And believe me, this doesn't come as easy as you think. A ton of legal / ably employed / tax paying immigrants with completely clear records live 10s of years in the USA for example without any permanence or citizenship. IOW I wish it was as simple as you make it sound to up and leave :)
coldtea 7y ago
>What I don't understand is to complain about or refuse to do things you morally object to and at the same time insist in keeping collecting a nice paycheck. You can't have both. Yes, of course you can have both. Companies can and have been improved in their behaviour by employee protests, strikes, union bargaining, and other such measures.
- dnissley 7y ago
  Historically hasn't this activism always been about improving working conditions? I was empathetic with the initial walkout since it was addressing working conditions directly (covering up sexual harassment and forced arbitration). Then the organizers of that action started agitating to change company direction regarding military contracts, censored search engines, and conservative people being on certain boards. While in general I have reservations about all those things, and think people should speak up about them, I don't think that organizing against general company direction should be protected in the same way labor organizing is.

meerita 7y ago

(make cigarettes more addictive) strawman here. You can be hired to do the opposite of addictive.