It's true that employees will always be a line item (in the eyes of the board/shareholders anyway), but I don't think this story really demonstrates that. Mostly it demonstrates a breakdown of trust between the author and his boss.
Ultimately relationships with humans are what matter and the only place we can ever really put any level of trust. Corporations themselves don't have agency or even consciousness—they are just the chaotic sum of actions by a wide range of people with different varieties and levels of power, most of whom will never know, let alone care, about you as an individual. Dystopian as that sounds, it's not really different from the natural world. The key is not to anthropomorphize an organization—companies and jobs come and go, but the reputation and relationships you build with people are what will sustain you.
The point of this article is that the relationship between the author and his boss was irrelevant. A business doesn’t trust or distrust a line item. The business simply discards the line item in the safest way possible when it is no longer needed. You should never assume that your boss’s feelings about you will come into play during termination at all.
That's the point, but it's a weird way to illustrate it - by focusing on being fired from a very small business by a single person who did so in a very hurtful manner.
> Corporations themselves don't have agency or even consciousness
"Agency" in the sense you're using it is "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power" (Merriam Webster). It seems pretty clear that corporations have that.
It always struck me as odd that people get emotionally attached to, and even make sacrifices for, work they do for a company they have no ownership over. It's just weird, but you hear so much of it in the tech industry. At least unionise first.
Agree with the overall perspective, but the union thing is marginal at best. Do you think swearing alliance and allegiance to a different org, delegating authority to it, and funding it is a guaranteed success? The game theory of this is tipped to iterate to failure.
Just plug in to something you like, do your best, and recognize it for what it is. You should have neither an adversarial nor misrepresented relationship. If you have it, you by definition support it.
Totally agree. Bewildering even how many people I know that gladly spend what would otherwise be free time just whittling away on more work when they’re salaried and that work isn’t likely to result in more pay.
I think the author here maliciously ascribed "all companies being evil" with mega-corp HR practices and working for a dysfunctional "family business" run by awful people.
I've had startups in the past with co-founders like this. Seemingly nice sales-guy types who turn out just to be awful people with no real respect for others or class.
I always mark the people more than the org. Do your best to work with honest good people and dividends will always be paid.
Yep; that's the tradeoff. Either you run your own thing and hope to make enough money to sustain yourself and your family, or you work for someone else, who will pay you predictably but get rid of you once they no longer find you useful.
It's true that employees will always be a line item (in the eyes of the board/shareholders anyway), but I don't think this story really demonstrates that. Mostly it demonstrates a breakdown of trust between the author and his boss.
Ultimately relationships with humans are what matter and the only place we can ever really put any level of trust. Corporations themselves don't have agency or even consciousness—they are just the chaotic sum of actions by a wide range of people with different varieties and levels of power, most of whom will never know, let alone care, about you as an individual. Dystopian as that sounds, it's not really different from the natural world. The key is not to anthropomorphize an organization—companies and jobs come and go, but the reputation and relationships you build with people are what will sustain you.
The point of this article is that the relationship between the author and his boss was irrelevant. A business doesn’t trust or distrust a line item. The business simply discards the line item in the safest way possible when it is no longer needed. You should never assume that your boss’s feelings about you will come into play during termination at all.
That's the point, but it's a weird way to illustrate it - by focusing on being fired from a very small business by a single person who did so in a very hurtful manner.
> Corporations themselves don't have agency or even consciousness
"Agency" in the sense you're using it is "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power" (Merriam Webster). It seems pretty clear that corporations have that.
As for consciousness, prove it. But first read "If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious": https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/USAconscious.ht...
It always struck me as odd that people get emotionally attached to, and even make sacrifices for, work they do for a company they have no ownership over. It's just weird, but you hear so much of it in the tech industry. At least unionise first.
Some people work for a company whose mission they believe in.
Agree with the overall perspective, but the union thing is marginal at best. Do you think swearing alliance and allegiance to a different org, delegating authority to it, and funding it is a guaranteed success? The game theory of this is tipped to iterate to failure.
Just plug in to something you like, do your best, and recognize it for what it is. You should have neither an adversarial nor misrepresented relationship. If you have it, you by definition support it.
Totally agree. Bewildering even how many people I know that gladly spend what would otherwise be free time just whittling away on more work when they’re salaried and that work isn’t likely to result in more pay.
I think the author here maliciously ascribed "all companies being evil" with mega-corp HR practices and working for a dysfunctional "family business" run by awful people.
I've had startups in the past with co-founders like this. Seemingly nice sales-guy types who turn out just to be awful people with no real respect for others or class.
I always mark the people more than the org. Do your best to work with honest good people and dividends will always be paid.
Yep; that's the tradeoff. Either you run your own thing and hope to make enough money to sustain yourself and your family, or you work for someone else, who will pay you predictably but get rid of you once they no longer find you useful.