No, I don't think it should be. Companies are afforded protections and benefits under the law. They owe society something in return for that. One of the things I think they owe is a responsibility to act in certain ways with respect to the general public, which includes their own employees.

Unless it's written in law, no they don't.

There is no one size fits all "company" structure that works for everyone. If we can't have frat house brogrammers why can we have "remote only" companies? One person may hate said brogramming culture, others may love it, still others may hate remote only due to lack of physical interaction with their colleagues while others love it because they hate offices.

> Companies are afforded protections and benefits under the law. They owe society something in return for that.

I don't like this way of thinking. Individuals are also afforded unsolicited "protections and benefits". Therefore, individuals owe society? That's basically like the Mafia offering you protection, at a price.

Of course you owe something to society. Without it you would probably be sleeping naked under a tree in the forest. The system depends on people contributing back.

I disagree, but let's accept it as true for the sake of argument. This is civilization. The question is, is it still right and good? Being born into civilization automatically makes you indebted towards it, because of all its affordances?

I think that's morally wrong, and I don't like this attitude as a matter of principle.

Each of us is born into some structure that human animals impose. Some groups afford more or less ability to individuals to contribute (e.g. by voting, putting themselves forward as potential leaders, etc.) to a discussion about whether the existing structures are appropriate. Couching it in moral terms isn't interesting, from a practical perspective.

I don't really get your argument here. Are you sure it's not an thinly-veiled is-ought argument?

Moral terms shape politics, politics shape laws, laws shape civilizations. How can you say they're not interesting?

Of course there have been lots of societies that put people in their place with no social mobility, which has the benefit of not burdening them with the choice of what to do with their lives. This is very practical, but it's immoral - from my point of view.

Luckily, we don't live in one of these societies, but maintaining that "privileged" status doesn't come for free. That's why I don't like your attitude, I am worried you will make extremely poor political decisions because of it.

Of course companies have obligations to society but why the particular obligation not to have a loud, boisterous atmosphere? Why should they then be allowed to have geeky introvert cultures? That also alienates a lot of people, including probably a lot of women.

Hilarious you're getting downvoted to oblivion without a reply for a warranted opinion like this is reddit.