Shutterstock censorship, the woes of employees

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

So what, can't the employees disagree and keep complaining?

In short no they can't, not in this situation.

 

If I had an employee who kept using the tool box meeting to complain about a 1st world ideal when I needed to discuss daily running issues I would fast tell them to piss off too.  You can't waste an employers time trying to change their business model because it upsets your personal ideals.  They run the company not the employee.

 

 

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

China can't afford to stop business with the outside world entirely. If there was a unified refusal to comply with this sort of thing they'd have no choice but to allow it. Too bad that will never happen, because corporations are more concerned with immediate profits than human rights.

At the moment I think you will find it's the other way around, the rest of the world can't afford to not trade with china.  They manufacture the lion's share of everything (nearly everything) and when they have issues we have issues.

 

People tend to forget that china is not an insignificant part of the global economy, The reason tariffs on Chinese imports have a massive effect (for better or worse) is because of the necessity of the Chinese market.

[Eaglerino]

still astounding to me how easily any company is willing to bend over and spread wide while begging for it when it comes to China

[Belgarathian]

3 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

still astounding to me how easily any company is willing to bend over and spread wide while begging for it when it comes to China

It's a requirement for doing business in China that you comply with their laws and regulations, just like any other country. It's not 'bending over and spread wide while begging for it'.

 

By that logic ZTE 'bent over and spread wide while begging for it' when they stopped selling to Iran and North Korea because of the US sanctions. It was (to the best of my knowledge) legal in China to do so.

[Suika]

Didn't Activision-Blizzard and Apple called out by several US lawmakers for this sort of behavior? Kind of hope we get to see more of that.

[ARikozuM]

1A rights should extend and be part of every American company's code of ethics and with it all of the protections afforded the American people. If they don't want to listen to the employees, that's even more reason to give employees mandatory rights to a seat at the table. 

 

Anyone defending this doesn't realize that this gives China more power to extort the world to their demands. 

[Belgarathian]

51 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

1A rights should extend and be part of every American company's code of ethics and with it all of the protections afforded the American people. If they don't want to listen to the employees, that's even more reason to give employees mandatory rights to a seat at the table. 

 

Anyone defending this doesn't realize that this gives China more power to extort the world to their demands. 

The USA is one of if not the biggest bullies on the block except instead of requesting censorship they'll just sanction you, up the tarrifs, or simply ban companies from trading with you under the threat of similar action.

 

And then if you survive round one be prepared for round 2 where you just get sued into oblivion.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

The USA is one of if not the biggest bullies on the block except instead of requesting censorship they'll just sanction you, up the tarrifs, or simply ban companies from trading with you under the threat of similar action.

And I'm against those as well. 

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

1A rights should extend and be part of every American company's code of ethics and with it all of the protections afforded the American people. If they don't want to listen to the employees, that's even more reason to give employees mandatory rights to a seat at the table. 

 

No it shouldnt. Thats a horrible idea.

 

A) Employees get a seat at the table when they get a position that is needed at the table. The guy/girl who washes my dishes doesnt get to be a part of decision making. They can choose not to work for me if they dont like my decisions. But they dont get a say in them.

 

B) Making the 1st amendment part of company code is literally the dumbest thing a company could do. If the 1A was part of my companies code that means my host could tell customers "fuck off" and wear swastikas and I wouldnt be able to fire them because they are expressing their first amendment rights. Means the young lady who handles our social media could start posting racists comments everywhere and I would just have to deal with it.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

No it shouldnt. Thats a horrible idea.

 

A) Employees get a seat at the table when they get a position that is needed at the table. The guy/girl who washes my dishes doesnt get to be a part of decision making. They can choose not to work for me if they dont like my decisions. But they dont get a say in them.

You're a small business and you should still listen to your employees within reason. You don't get to just silence them without reason. 

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

B) Making the 1st amendment part of company code is literally the dumbest thing a company could do. If the 1A was part of my companies code that means my host could tell customers "fuck off" and wear swastikas and I wouldnt be able to fire them because they are expressing their first amendment rights. Means the young lady who handles our social media could start posting racists comments everywhere and I would just have to deal with it.

You're confusing the employee talking to the employer for employee to customer. 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

You don't get to just silence them without reason.

Except I do, if they want to keep their job. Again if they dont like the decisions I make then they are free to go work elsewhere. No hard feelings. But making decisions are way above their pay grade. You dont get to have a say in decisions just because you are an employee.

 

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

You're confusing the employee talking to the employer for employee to customer. 

No. but it seems you are confusing the 1st amendment. It cant be part of the company code and only include talking to other employers. But even if it was that still wouldnt work. That means in the middle of a staff meeting my employees could start yelling "fuck you" and using racial slurs and I couldnt do anything about it because they are practicing their right.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No. but it seems you are confusing the 1st amendment. It cant be part of the company code and only include talking to other employers. But even if it was that still wouldnt work. That means in the middle of a staff meeting my employees could start yelling "fuck you" and using racial slurs and I couldnt do anything about it because they are practicing their right.

There are processes in place to quell disorderly conduct. You're creating extremes to deviate the issue of censorship. 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

There are processes in place to quell disorderly conduct. You're creating extremes to deviate the issue of censorship. 

But you cant do that if the 1st amendment is part of the company code. Thats the point of the 1st amendment. You cant say your company is going to include the 1st amendment and then step on their 1st amendment rights. You would be breaking your own rules.

 

There is very very few things you can say that isnt covered under the 1st amendment. So if its part of my company's rule set then all of that would be allowed. The 1st amendment allows someone to say just about anything they want. They could say an racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc thing they wanted because all of that is protected by the 1st amendment.

 

Thats why I said you are confused about the 1st amendment. And why it would be a horrible decision for a company to make.

 

 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

But you cant do that if the 1st amendment is part of the company code. Thats the point of the 1st amendment. You cant say your company is going to include the 1st amendment and then step on their 1st amendment rights. You would be breaking your own rules.

 

There is very very few things you can say that isnt covered under the 1st amendment. So if its part of my company's rule set then all of that would be allowed. The 1st amendment allows someone to say just about anything they want. They could say an racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc thing they wanted because all of that is protected by the 1st amendment.

 

Thats why I said you are confused about the 1st amendment. And why it would be a horrible decision for a company to make.

 

 

Except I'm not confused. You can't yell out at a restaurant and then not expect the police (gov't) to take you off of the premise. You can't yell "fire" in a theater nor speak violence towards another. Same here. 

 

If you want to call it by another name, go ahead. Freedom to speech is important for employees especially in cases like this where the company is looking at profits, but the employees are more concerned over the moral argument. 

[RonnieOP]

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Except I'm not confused. You can't yell out at a restaurant and then not expect the police (gov't) to take you off of the premise. You can't yell "fire" in a theater nor speak violence towards another. Same here. 

 

If you want to call it by another name, go ahead. Freedom to speech is important for employees especially in cases like this where the company is looking at profits, but the employees are more concerned over the moral argument. 

Yelling "fire" is a call to action. its one of the few things that isnt protected under the first amendment. But you can use racial slurs and be protected under the first amendment. Hence why it would never work as part of a company's code of conduct.

 

And in this case its not important at all. Again if they dont like it they are free to leave. Simple as that. They are not entitled to have a say in anything when it comes to the company. And in alot of cases when you are hired you sign an agreement that says you will not bad mouth the company (obv it says it in more defined legal terms) or be at risk of being fired.

 

If they believe that the company is doing something very morally wrong. Then they should quit.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

If they believe that the company is doing something very morally wrong. Then they should quit.

And that's the problem. As soon as something is wrong with the company that you've worked years in, you're asked to just leave. 

 

Not talk about it. 

Not organize.

Not unionize.

Not change it. 

Just leave. 

 

That's the major issue as we allow more authoritarian rule in our businesses and less of a grasp from the actual workforce, the actual producers of profits. 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

And that's the problem. As soon as something is wrong with the company that you've worked years in, you're asked to just leave. 

 

Not talk about it. 

Not organize.

Not unionize.

Not change it. 

Just leave. 

 

That's the major issue as we allow more authoritarian rule in our businesses and less of a grasp from the actual workforce, the actual producers of profits. 

Yes. Thats why if you dont want someone else to tell you how to do your job you become your own boss/start your own business.

 

If the employees dont like the decisions they should quit. and if everyone else agrees with the former employees they wont be able to fill the positions and the company will be fucked.

 

Or they could do the job they are paid to do. The job they agreed to do through their own free will.

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Meh. Private company policy, private company rules. Nothing much a lower grade employee can do to change things, Only Management has the final say in the overall well being of their companies operations in respective nation to work up a stable environment to gain profit for them & their employees. it isn't just this you know, every nations got some form of restriction on what can or cannot be posted. we probably wont hear about it, like flag burning, nations officials attacking protestors, sensitive/covert location or facility & such. 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

And that's the problem. As soon as something is wrong with the company that you've worked years in, you're asked to just leave. 

 

Not talk about it. 

Not organize.

Not unionize.

Not change it. 

Just leave. 

 

That's the major issue as we allow more authoritarian rule in our businesses and less of a grasp from the actual workforce, the actual producers of profits. 

 

Context is important,  if the issue is workplace safety, legal concerns, abuse or some other condition that negatively effects employees then sure they should have a voice, but to assume they should be able to make executive decisions alongside the managers/directors over ideals is frankly absurd.

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ***

 

This is another one of those very loosely related to tech things. This is about two things, markets and business laws in different countries. And worker rights in different countries. Neither is really tech. So this one has very slim change of staying out of political discussion which is behind both of those main lines of discussion.

 

I touch slightly few things:

14 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Oh they can. Just like how their boss can just fire them.

If your boss tells you to stop/drop something and you refuse, that's called insubordination. Which you can be fired for. No matter how "right" you think you are.

 

This depends on country's worker rights. For example in most European countries (maybe all of them), company can't terminate contract after trial period without good reason. Having disagreement over values is not good reason. If worker breaks something written in contract, thats reason for verbal/written warnings and after 3 of those, termination of contract. Actually very close to how this forums moderation operates.

 

13 hours ago, Phill104 said:

 What this particular case shows is another form of restriction on free speech dictatorship on a smaller scale. Employees have the right to their views and should not face threats for having them.

I would highly recommend that you read-up what free speech or freedom of expression means before using it as base of your argument. Here's Linus explaining it:

In short, company can set their own rules which must follow laws of the country they are based on. They ofc also must follow laws of any country they operate in, though only within that country. Telling employee that if they don't like company rules, they can leave is not threatening them. If the wording would be that their contract is terminated if they voice themselves against management, then it would be different.

 

But in free speech, its only about being able to criticize government actions without fear of being persecuted/jailed for it.