My favorite which would work in much of the US is "We'll fire anybody who registers with the Republican party." (Or Democratic, if you prefer.) Especially in a state where registration is required in order to participate in the primary. It is legal, but, I believe, completely unacceptable to just about everyone.
This is not true in my experience. Many people on the left, particularly under 35, earnestly believe that their political opponents are by definition racist and evil. In a manner similar to how I would not want a literal neo-nazi on my company's payroll, they do not want a registered Republican on the company's payroll.
Edit: In other words, this kind of bigotry is actually acceptable to a disturbingly large number of people.
I absolutely agree about the importance politics at local level. In fact, this is likely where regular citizens have biggest chance to actually influence an outcome.
I used to have a condescending attitude towards people who took sports 'way too seriously', but now I wonder if it is a net gain for society to give people a comparatively harmless outlet for these tendencies. Real harm is done when our policy discussions are dominated by the kind of tribalism, ideological intolerance, and rush-seeking engagement that seems to happen when people bring these tendencies to politics.
Tribalism in America goes deep, and you're right: rooting for a sports team is fairly harmless, and rooting for a political party is probably harmful, but I'd argue it's not nearly as harmful as as rooting blindly for an ideology. If you want your party to succeed, you should be engaged in your local politics, talk to people from the other side, listen honestly to their concerns, be willing to change your own opinion on specific policies, and push for those sensible policy changes to be adopted as part of your local party's platform. That's how you win people over, that's how you win elections, and how you enact real change that affects people's lives. Anything else is just yelling into your echo chamber, or getting into bar fights with the guys wearing the "wrong" jerseys.
Ideologies form the axes of socioeconomic space, they're not an ideal point, and the push toward an "us versus them" mentality in politics is embarrassing. It's a quirk that's arisen out of new media, an easily exploitable bug, and the sooner people see through the bullshit and we outgrow this, the better.
As an employer, do you want to have an employee that in a very public manner ( and these days it is oh so easy to be public ) trashes your business? Is that line crossed? I would argue, as usual, that it depends. If the employee's life is threatened by horrific business practices, then talking to the media is almost their civic duty. That said, I do not think they should be surprised they are fired after the fact though..
So where is the line for you?
Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case. If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong.
We are in absolute agreement. Frankly, I have argued before that they are already too big.
"There's also a big difference between criticizing the company's products and criticizing their business practices."
I am not sure I agree with that statement. Would you feel the same if the employee publicly criticized a company for using non recycled paper AND they have to change course now and use recycled paper; afterwards the story "went viral" and employee got fired for that specific action. Is employee justified in doing that without any repercussions? It is genuinely hard for me to argue for the employee here.
"Where "the line" is depends on the specific circumstances, but it's pretty clear to me that Amazon overdid it in this case."
To you it may be clear, but clearly not to everyone since we are having this discussion. Whether the pendulum should swing ( it should ) is a worthwhile conversation to have.
"If they found these employees' statements embarrassing enough to fire them, then it sounds like they know they are doing something wrong."
I don't know if I buy this argument. HR does not like troublemakers seems like more plausible explanation.
I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the following, but raising the question "at what headcount" is sometimes done to suggest that this is absurd or unfair position. Why should a company with 119 employees be subject to different rules than a company with 120 employees? But this problem exists everywhere we have laws to regulate behavior. What really is the difference between 65 and 66 miles an hour? Is a hot dog really different if it has 86% organ meat vs 85%?
To answer the question, assuming we want to force 'large' companies to play by different rules specifically in the case of tolerating employee criticism, we shouldn't even use headcount as a metric. Some other measure of size should be used.
The US is full of outrage about companies doing unethical things but nobody wants to make unethical things illegal.
That's patently false. Plenty of people want to make those unethical things illegal, it's just that the people who engage in those unethical things have had the political power to thwart many of those efforts so far.
I do think that it would be helpful to make the decision making public though. Limited legal liability isn't limited moral liability. Rather than saying "amazon fired" someone they should tell us "Jane Doe a manager at Amazon made the decision to fire."
People shouldn't hide behind the company logo when they do shitty things to other people. And if you want to rationalize it, cool, do it with your name attached so your pastor, spouse, friends, and kids know the things you'll do for a paycheck and you can justify it all you want to your community.
It's pretty telling to me that I'm being downvoted for saying that I think people should own up to their decisions in the workplace that impact other people and are questionable ethically. Removing any kind of moral liability for those decisions is how we wind up with businesses that employ good people that do shitty things to other good people.
I don't know what the policy is explicitly or if it's justified, but there should be visibility into that kind of decision making from the outside. It's in the lack of visibility that we see bad shit happen with hiring and firing.
Imagine you are an engineering manager running a team of 10. You got an email from your boss that the project revenue is way lower than projected, so the funding is getting cut and you need to get rid of one of your worst performers, but you have to pick who it is yourself, as your boss probably doesn't even know the actual people on your team. You have to fire them, even though you personally don't want to, because they are performing fine, just worse than all your other engineers.
Whose fault is this? Is it your boss' fault? They don't even pick the person and neither do they know any of them. Is it your fault? You've made the decision to fire that person, even though you don't want to fire them.
That's not particularly non-sensical, at all. That's a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen.
"We'll fire anybody who plays a game" would qualify as "absurd".
Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.
Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.
Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do well if they work hard enough doesn't mean everyone can, it's a race to the bottom of who can give up free time or family time to be more valuable to their employer. While in the short term employers might prefer that, I really don't think it's good for society long term.
Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.
You've already defined it with "The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract." I don't know of a single employer that would be interested in hiring someone who insisted on including a list of nonfirable offenses which included making public statements which paint the company in a bad light. That specific item we're talking about is completely unviable for most employees to negotiate, i.e. they have no meaningful/material/real/significant ability to negotiate it.
>Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t.
There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns," and if coercion specifically by men with guns is worth acting on then why shouldn't other forms be?
In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. If they're not able to work then your men with guns will come and remove them from their living space, and once on the street they'll likely have many more unpleasant encounters with more men with guns.
>Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.
Nothing I've argued goes against that. My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.
1. Work for a company that you don’t feel the need to publicly criticize.
2. Start your own company.
3. Increase your market value thru hard work to improve your negotiating position.
> There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns“
I don’t want to make assumptions. Please describe forms of coercion other than (threats of) physical violence.
> In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money.
A man’s need for food does not override my natural property rights. He must use his mind to productively participate in commerce. If he does not, he will perish.
> My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do.
From a consequentialist framework: I suspect the government’s cure will be worse than the disease.
The people who stole the land are dead. The people who were stolen from are dead.
The point is moot.
>1. Work for a company that you don’t feel the need to publicly criticize.
Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.
>2. Start your own company.
Not everyone can do that, and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.
>3. Increase your market value thru hard work to improve your negotiating position.
There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.
>I don’t want to make assumptions. Please describe forms of coercion other than (threats of) physical violence.
Coercion is the opposite of freedom, and in general coercion describes a party "forcing" another party to act in some way contrary to their preference either by force, implied force, or some form of a threat. As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.
>>In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. >A man’s need for food does not override my natural property rights. He must use his mind to productively participate in commerce. If he does not, he will perish.
Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die? How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?
>>My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.
>From a consequentialist framework: I suspect the government’s cure will be worse than the disease.
Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off? Are children worse off now that they're required to stay in schools instead of working in mines or textile mills?
Even in the case of this hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause, how exactly would it leave people worse off?
Most people will have to make major concessions to negotiate a clause like this into their contract. I am fine with this.
Do I think a hypothetical works where all employers guaranteed this power to laborers is an improvement over the current one? Maybe, but I am morally imposed to creating this world thru government intervention.
> I'm not claiming that this particular "freedom" to openly criticize your employer deserves government intervention
Noted.
> Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.
It takes hard work to get a better job with more money and benefits, but this is being human. This situation pleases me.
> Not everyone can do that [start a company], and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.
So prioritize learning these skills over starting a family or whatever else.
> There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.
I am suspicious of this because there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. People at the top of their field create new wealth.
> As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.
Children make the issue confusing. Let’s say that a man wants to use the WiFi at Starbucks, but he can’t get the password until he purchases something. This isn’t coercion. Starbucks is selling a service, the man can accept or deny the contract. If men with guns force him to buy the coffee, then it’s coercion.
(Edited)
> Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die?
Yes.
> How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?
If the government forces me to add this clause to employment contracts, then my right to free association has been violated.
> Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off?
Slavery is evil. I don’t know enough about American abolition to address the specific point. But it is certainly possible to do something evil while intending to resolve some other evil.
0: or religeous, or familial, or any other source.
I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man.
* And I am suspicious of market cartels (wage collusion, price fixing, labor unions, etc), but as they are freely made contracts between private individuals I can’t in good conscience support government intervention.
(I heavily edited this message)
That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? (Assume for the sake of argument that noone else interferes with this, perhaps because you're in a isolated rural area.)
(I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)
Yes, the barricader has “initiated force” because “man” owns his body and his possessions. Vandalizing the possessions is analogous to assaulting the body. (My language is clumsy.)
> I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)
Noted.
You go to a “friend’s” house. You go to the bathroom, but it’s actually a soundproofed room with a door that locks from the outside. He doesn’t let you out and you die from starvation. What is your view on this? The friend owns the home so the vandal-argument doesn’t make sense.
That it's a type of attack (and potentially coercion) relevantly distinct from physical violence. Hence why I found your definition of coercion as initiating physical violence oddly narrow.
Punching someone is coercion.
Advertising is not coercion.
Threatening to punch someone is maybe coercion.
Stealing a wallet is coercion.
Firing someone (and reducing his income) is not coercion.
An uninsured bank going bankrupt is probably not coercing its customers.
Maybe I mean “violate natural rights” rather than “coerce”.
A better definition of coercion is to use power over someone to make them do something you want. Might even be a dictionary definition.
All of the examples could be coercion using this definition, and its clearer how to treat the grey zones:
the punch uses physical power over you; without trying to make you do something it's not coercion though
Advertising might be if they're using tricks to bypass your judgement
Threatening to punch someone is definitely coercion, unless you are stronger than them/they don't have that power
Stealing your wallet definitely is
Firing somebody sometimes is. The big questions are:
- does the company(or manager) have power of the individual? Eg. Can the employee easily replace the company; do they even need a job? Are they on a work visa? - is the company trying to make them do something?
Ah, yes, this makes significantly more sense.
> Maybe I mean "violate natural rights" rather than "coerce".
Well, "coerce" obviously has a "or threaten to do so" and a "in order to cause or prevent certain behaviour" tacked onto it's definition, but "violate natural rights" otherwise seems like a plausible definition in and of itself; the question that immediately follows being what qualifies as a natural right. Absence of unprovoked physical violence certainly sounds like it would be included in that, but short of contrived and circular definitions of "violence" and "physical", it isn't really sufficient.
This should give you a hint about this person's intention. Their argument is a classic appeal to authority.
Separately, there is no "appeal to authority fallacy" in the post.
I think I either misunderstand this type of argument or you meant to use a different link. If you look at my history, I am hardly a proponent of all things Amazon. I recognize their strengths and their weaknesses. It is important to clear eyes about all this.
edit: corrected fallacy to argument
Right leaning people are fired all the time for their views on social issues, and no one seems to have a problem with that normally.
Further if these employees would have been fired to taking a counter view I bet there would have been cheers for their firing
no the outrage here is not really because " people shouldn't have outside-work activities be held against them" no it is more "I agree with these employee opinions and am outraged they were fired for an opinion I share"
It's pretty easy to come up with a lot of absurd and "legal" at-will policies (e.g. we'll fire anybody who watches porn)