Maybe I don’t know what your argument is responding to specifically. I’m not suggesting that Slack should be by itself “in charge” of solving all social problems, and I don’t think the article suggested that either. I’m suggesting that their participation should be non-zero.
Is this really a black and white issue, do or don’t? I don’t feel that way at all.
Do you think private companies can “contribute” to the solutions alongside the government and the public, by being open to hiring non traditional workers, by having support programs that help people keep their jobs? Can companies encourage and support the government’s support programs, by enrolling the government’s help and joining together to pay for them, by writing corporate policy to foster non-traditional workers, by making work allowances for people who need more help?
> when the government has vastly more authority to act
I don’t agree with this framing. Large and small companies get local zoning laws changed all the time. If Slack was lobbying for zoning regulations near it’s business, it’s entirely likely they can, in fact, get them changed. Companies can, and do routinely, suggest regulation changes, participate in policy making, and the government listens and routinely acts on those requests, and involves private companies in the legislation process. When companies band together to get zoning changed, it happens even faster.
The government does not really have that much more “authority” than the rest of us when it comes to the basics of taking care of each other. This isn’t really an authority issue, it’s an issue of whether we care and take action, it’s an issue of what our goals are as a society, it’s an issue of whether we view it as our collective responsibility, or someone else’s responsibility. If we all think it’s someone else’s responsibility, and we do nothing and think of the government as the only solution, then we not only end up with a crappy solution, we are ceding our own authority as well.