Hacker News Reader

So you don't agree with employees disagreeing with their company hosting code or developing tools for the Chinese government to run their concentration camps? Like the parent says, being non-political IS being political. You cannot separate it.

What is so bad about employees at a company having a say in what type of work the company does?

>What is so bad about employees at a company having a say in what type of work the company does?

No, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, that's how we can change direction of the company and produce good. I think that's a very problematic path filled with mine-lands where employees decide how company makes money. GitHub can just outsource this project to Russia, Australia or India, still make money and deliver the project. Silencing voiced of those who speak, but still, being on a path of conflict of interests between board members and workers.

Would you be Ok with GitHub recruiting based on political opinion since there would for these to "match"?

> Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money.

Companies exist because society, represented by elected governments, considers them a useful concept. Their activity is assumed to be beneficial to society without any explicit requirements to that effect, because they operate in a free market where Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand generally applies.

It is strange how this is always being used to justify any and all morally reprehensible behavior by companies. If you expect people to, on occasion, go above and beyond the minimum required by law, there is no reason to hold companies to a lesser standard.

There are infinite examples where society noticed some less-than-ideal behavior in the pursuit of profits and acted on it, by, for example, legislating environmental, labor, or consumer safety standards.

At the other end of the spectrum, companies do regularly consider ethics in their decisions. This happens so often in fact, most any American CXO would be in jail if the crowd that keeps repeating that any consideration but shareholder value is prohibited by law were right. Google left China at some point for ethical reasons. Apple has invested earlier and more than competitors into environmental improvements. On labor issues, they have often done the right thing where a company like Nike, faced with very similar questions, has not.

Almost tautologically, any publicly known selfless act I could give as an example can be dismissed as still being done solely in the pursuit of money, by being PR exercises. But that just points at how easy it is to get around this fictional requirement to be amoral caricatures of capitalists: do as much good as you want, and call it PR!

Or, in Github’s case, point out how reliant you are on attracting talent. And ditch ICE in the name of recruitment, and, therefore, future profits.

> companies exist literally only to make money

I see another commenter has suffered downvotes for blankly replying "false" to this, so I'll try to be more substantive.

This is confusing symptom and cause. We have evolved a system where companies are defined as having profit as being their "raison d'être" but that's not the same as saying that's why they exist in the first place.

Companies were created to solve problems, those problems required resources and those resources required finance. Economic systems evolved to place individuals with capital in the position of being providers of such finance, who demanded profit as a return, and as such redefined the impetus of companies as existing to provide them with that return.

But it is not the reason they exist.

> Who will make future contracts with such company? Would you outsource your project delivery to a company where employees decide whether your project/office/political stand is good or bad?

I'd gladly prefer to contract with a company that's not known for supporting agencies running concentration camps. This political moment will pass, but twenty years from now after this history chapters have been written on ICE, we still have to live with the choices we made.

> Who will risk employing a person who rebels against board members of a company and causes financial damages over broken contract?

Plenty of companies. Our skill set is very much in demand.

> Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money.

No, this is a misconception. Companies are a part of society and exists for several other reasons.

> Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money.

False.

Shareholders don't want to make money? That's not their primary goal?

it isnt typically the only goal, no. Many people own stocks and stakes in companies because they believe in what the company is doing, producing, or working towards.

“Primary” != “only.”

“Shareholders” != “only people with a stake in a company existing.”

Yes, I worded it completely wrong and people are responding me by concentrating on this word rather than message :(

For a lot of them, no. Also, even if they only want to make money, they will have different opinions about how different company strategies will succeed, and be interested in different time frames.

Yes but they understand that in free market, they have to spend money on quality employees to make money. Hence, people still invest in companies where employees are treated better than their competitors.

Unhappy employees is not good for business over long term. That is why you see in news that racist, sexiest, or other bad actors getting fired even when they were top performers.

No it's true that companies exist literally only to make money, not all companies however.

Exactly. Everyone needs to study the history of the Friedman doctrine before parroting statements like that.