They do listen. But people who "do" things don't necessarily see the big picture. And their interested might be misaligned with company mission, let alone shareholder interests.
I recall when I changed my mind on that topic. My employer at the time decided to change the logo. They hired a designer, designer did somewhat radical change, the new logo was accepted. Most employees were furious, new logo is stupid, too playful, it is betrayal of traditions, yada yada. Still management decided to proceed with new logo.
And in a year, old logo looked like we are still in the 80s. Virtually nobody wanted that old logo back.
At least I had a courage to admit I should not demand changes in the areas I don't really understand.
And realistically, if I understood these things, it would be me who does the hiring, not the opposite.
> only listen to the people whose only interest is extracting as much money out of the operation as possible
People who extract money hire people who know who should be listened and who shouldn't. Many people who "do" things really shouldn't be listened on any topic outside of their area of responsibility (a cook may have an opinion how to move goods more efficiently, but it's likely he or she is wrong). I mean, everyone should listened, but their speech should not necessary be followed.
> Of course, companies also essentially make the laws, so "illegal" is a very shallow line.
Well, man, I believe the world is much more complicated than this. There are too many players in the field, and not all of them are companies, and moreover, different companies want different conflicting laws (imagine Apple laws vs Google laws — Apple wants more privacy, Google wants more freedom to deal with data).
So, I believe your world view is too deeply flawed, so there's probably no point to discuss further. Cheers!
Employee interests are irreconcilably and diametrically opposed to employer and shareholder interests. This is a basic tenet of Marxist thinking. Each faction is trying to get as much from the other as possible.
> But people who "do" things don't necessarily see the big picture.
This is in part because they have no need to because they are not listened to.
> People who extract money hire people who know who should be listened and who shouldn't.
They hire people that advance their interests versus others.
> different companies want different conflicting laws
This is true. There are fights among the ruling class. None of them actually care about anything other than maximum wealth extraction. Human rights as a sales pitch to a consumer base to be discarded at the slightest turbulence.
> So, I believe your world view is too deeply flawed, so there's probably no point to discuss further. Cheers!
Likewise.
I totally understand the logo anecdote and that makes sense, but it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons, I'd say employees ARE more qualified to make those calls than those who are beholden to investors and motivated to maximize profits above all else - IF, that is, your goal is to be moral and not to maximize profits, which is where I'm feeling a disconnect with your posts.
This is correct. This is win-win for shareholders and employees.
And if an employee thinks the company should not maximize profits, they can work in non-profit organization.
But why come to for-profit company and demand that company to stop making profits? It does not make sense to me.
> it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons
Moral reasons is a slippery slope. What is moral to one group or people is immoral to other group of people.
I imagine employees may say, we must fight climate change, so we must replace our trucks with electric trucks. This is definitely moral, but this might be not sustainable, and this might be a way to make a company bankrupt. So you express your opinion about trucks, but leave it to the management to decide, whether it can afford it. They often can (because for example good publicity).
I agree this is foolish, but at the same time don't blame people for trying. I'm glad these companies have at least a few people applying pressure, potentially making it less profitable for companies to do the 'wrong' thing.
> I imagine employees may say, we must fight climate change, so we must replace our trucks with electric trucks. This is definitely moral, but this might be not sustainable, and this might be a way to make a company bankrupt
At the point we are right now, I'd prefer the company go bankrupt if they can't afford to not destroy the environment. I know it sounds extreme and if this happened at all such companies could cause a considerable economic/societal collapse, but I'd prefer societal collapse over societal collapse and destroyed planet.
> Moral reasons is a slippery slope. What is moral to one group or people is immoral to other group of people.
Overall I think I understand your point more now. I'm curious if you'd agree with the sentiment of the 2 points I just made in this post though. I do feel that just about any moral claim is debatable, but certain things like climate change I'm confident enough in my own beliefs to justify acting on them. The way I see it, we don't know anything 100% for sure, moral or not, so as humans we have to draw the line somewhere and act on the things we have the most conviction for. Other people might have opposing morals and I won't intentionally infringe on their rights but I'll still oppose them on whatever issues we disagree on. I don't claim to be the arbiter of truth but I'm also not going to disregard morality because other people have different views and I might be wrong anyway.