We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
drewdevault.com
We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
1–10 of 192 posts
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#2Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in.
Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that.
Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad.
That makes them care for their family first.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#3Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
I don't think that anyone with a developer salary and the ability to find another job with exactly the same salary or better within a month you can honestly say they have $$$ issues.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#4Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
Author here. I addressed this upfront in TFA. Especially if you're working at for FAANG level salaries, there's no excuse for trying.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#5Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
That was sort of the entire point of the writing. Because tech folks are in a privileged class, they have the ability to move jobs based on morals. And therefore they should. Not doing that, when you are making as much as you are as a programmer at BIGCORP means you are complicit in the bad behavior.
That was the entire point. He addressed your concern in the first two paragraphs.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#6Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
[deleted]
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#7Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
Right. Is this the situation you imagined when you started?
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#8Everyone will always prioritize the wellbeing of their own family VS some random people in the company you work in. Well-off devs like the guy who quit Amazon don't have $$$ issues, so he can afford to do that. Others don't, and that doesn't make them bad. That makes them care for their family first.
Author here. I addressed this upfront in TFA. Especially if you're working at for FAANG level salaries, there's no excuse for trying.
People making FAANG level salaries on this site routinely complain that they are "grossly" underpaid.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#9If BIGCORP is acting outside of labor laws, then there should be legal action.
If the law doesn't explicitly outlaw BIGCORP's actions (yet), and we all kinda know that it should, then opposing BIGCORP is the correct thing to do.
If Amazon is acting legally, yet in an ugly way, to suppress workers organizing, it seems hard to complain.
Now, if Amazon workers exercise the right of free association in their spare time to stick it to JeffB, well, it sounds like he's got a problem.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#10I agree with this, but also think that working for an employer that is "making a negative impact on the world" might _sometimes_ be the right choice. Specifically, it could be justified for two reasons:
First: you might have more impact on the organization from the inside than from the outside (this is most relevant to people joining at a high/senior level). For example, Google seems to be making privacy far, far worse. Yet there are some people on the inside fighting to limit the privacy violations, which leads to decisions like banning GPS tracking in their contact tracing app[0]. Would the world be better or worse off if the only people working at Google were people who don't care at all about user privacy? I'm honestly not sure, but I can at least see an argument that it might be even worse off.
Second: you might get something from the organization that lets you do good that outweighs any harm you contribute to (this is more relevant to junior employees). Many employers provide something (training, future job opportunities, or a high enough income to open your own small business/non-profit). A thoughtful employee can go into a "negative impact" employer with eyes wide open and a plan to get something, and get out.
However, in either case, self awareness and a definite exit plan are _key_. As Drew writes, once you are working at a "negative impact" employer,
> Doublethink quickly steps in to protect your ego from the cognitive dissonance, and you take another little step towards becoming the person you once swore never to be.
The way to avoid that sort of conative dissonance is 1) know that you'll experience it and be on guard against it, and 2) know all along that you're there temporarily and should never get too comfortable. Even then, you should be realistic about how long you can maintain your personal values in face of a very different culture. For a junior employee, I'd say two, maybe three years should be the absolute limit before you get out.
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ap...