This really got me thinking... of course, what Amazon is doing is bad, I don't want to deny that - OTOH, for a tech company, they are an easy target - for example, Google doesn't have as many low-paid workers, so we don't know if they would treat them more fairly. How about the contractors hired by Facebook to weed out the worst posts by extremists, terrorists and other lunatics so our sensitive eyeballs aren't confronted with them? Is that better because they aren't directly employed by Facebook? Maybe Amazon should divest its warehouses so they're not so much in the public eye anymore? If you start to think about these things, where do you stop? Tax evasion? I guess every tech company is guilty of that, because shareholders expect them to find and exploit every possible loophole. In the end, probably the only companies you can morally work for are non-profits like Mozilla et al. - which is probably easier to do after raking in half a million per year for some years at a less morally sound company...
We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
71–80 of 192 posts
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#72I 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 wor…
I agree that we have a moral line we can decide to cross at work or not. We can step in and say "this isn't right". We all have our own limits. If a company passes our line, we can decide to stay and be a dissenting voice in a sea of "yes men" or we can move on. The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end? Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Faceboo…
There is a stark difference between being perfect and putting in a modicum of effort to not work for garbage and in turn create garbage.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that we have a moral line we can decide to cross at work or not. We can step in and say "this isn't right". We all have our own limits. If a company passes our line, we can decide to stay and be a dissenting voice in a sea of "yes men" or we can move on. The one thing that bugs me about a post like this is where does our complicity end? Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Faceboo…
>Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Facebook or other company that is making the world worse? Yes. >Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies? Yes. >Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be s…
I'm sorry if you took this as an attack. That is not my intention or point. I'm not being a "Good German". I'm not saying we can't fight all evil so don't fight any.
I'm merely discussing that we too often we make a stand against one "evil" and not against others that are even easier. For a lot of people the line is what becomes inconvenient. People are posting comments that Amazon should treat people better while they spin up a new instance and order next day toilet paper. This is important stuff to talk about. I doubt that most people who agree with your actions and are posting support are also divesting the same way you are. We can all do more and take more action against what is wrong. I applaud your actions. The hard part is taking actions by a few and turning it into a movement that causes rippling change.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#74We technologists like to pretend we're powerful, that we could bring these giant megacorps to their knees because those fancy suits need us, right? No. They need an engineer, not any one specific engineer. Companies like Amazon reject many candidates that could probably do the job they applied for, but were rejected because they can afford to be picky. If anything changes at Amazon it not be because of the loss of th…
Engineers should begin to understand that they are not some enlightened beings that have somehow grown beyond the need for workplace organization. They are still cogs in the machine that can be replaced at any time; pricey cogs for sure, and replacing them may take some time, but they are still cogs.
Indeed, and even the ones where "replacing them may take some time" are only a very small percentage.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why unions exist: to enable collective action by workers. Maybe if we call it a "guild" (like the screen actors guild) it'll be more palatable to software developers who fancy themselves beyond the need for something as blue-collar as a union.
>This is why unions exist: to enable collective action by workers. Yes, in part. But it's almost always enabling collective action that benefits the (current) workers (and the union officials).
>> This is why unions exist: to enable collective action by workers.
> Yes, in part. But it's almost always enabling collective action that benefits the (current) workers (and the union officials).
What's the problem with that? Corporations almost always enable collective action to primarily benefit (current) shareholders (and executive management).
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#76Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#77> This is why I hold my peers accountable for working at companies which are making a negative impact on the world around them. Oh these are the rules now? Judging other people is easy. You can look at almost anyone and find something you don’t like about them: sweatshop sneakers, ignorance of their history, consumer waste, eating meat from commercial farms... don’t you know people around the world are starving and y…
There's a pretty damn big difference between throwing out $5 of food while someone across the Earth starves, and in directly making the software which opresses millions of people, raising millions of dollars for the people responsible, and pocketing huge salaries for yourself. >As a general rule, it costs a business your salary × 1.5 to employ you, given the overhead of benefits, HR, training, and so on. When you’re…
[deleted]
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#78I've been trying desperately to avoid working for big corporations because they are against my personal beliefs. So far I have mostly succeeded. I only worked for corporations for 1 year out of 12 in total in my career. It's been really tough to avoid and getting tougher.
I think if I'm faced with the prospect of not being able to retire, I will have to join one. I will have to knowingly participate in making the world a worse place but at least I will have tried.
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Did Drew also change all his investments to divest from Amazon or Facebook or other company that is making the world worse? Yes. >Nestle is one of the most evil companies in the world. Are we all boycotting all their products and not investing in their companies? Yes. >Most of us have been very happy with 30% returns in our retirement even though we secretly know it is driven by the same companies we claim must be s…
I'm sorry if you took this as an attack. That is not my intention or point. I'm not being a "Good German". I'm not saying we can't fight all evil so don't fight any. I'm merely discussing that we too often we make a stand against one "evil" and not against others that are even easier. For a lot of people the line is what becomes inconvenient. People are posting comments that Amazon should treat people better while th…
[deleted]
Re: We are complicit in our employer’s deeds
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you were to ask my circle of friends and family, even bigcorp programmer money isn’t sufficient to feel secure due to future economic volatility. Especially if your goal is to make sure your kids get to live in the richer neighborhoods and go to the richer schools, and so on and so forth. And it’s not just a perceived fear. The data shows that if you’re not in the portion of people increasing their rate of income/…
I talked about the dangers of value drift/cognitive dissonance upthread, and this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. It is very easy to say "I'll just work this job until I'm financially secure". But then you start hanging out with a bunch of highly paid people, and start to feel that you need "a few hundred thousand [dollars] in passive income" (which really means ~$7 million in assets, depending on what you mean by "few").
That is, from any objective viewpoint, absurd. Moreover, it's a recipe for talking yourself into an ever-extended stay in a situation that, fundamentally, doesn't comport with your values. I don't say this to attack the OP – I've seen the same process happen to good people, seen people feel "poor/underpaid" while making $200k.
Instead, my focus is on the other people. Pay attention to OP, and realize just how powerful an influence the right (wrong) "circle of friends and family" can be. Imo, you should think very carefully before spending your life around a circle that would cause you to think financial security requires $7 million.