Companies are made of people. Companies only use people if the people who make up the companies are ok with it. Being a decisionmaker in a company doesn't give you carte blanche to behave like an amoral automaton.
So no, MongoDB are assholes for doing this. They could have had some humanity and prioritized human well-being over cost savings.
I did not say MongoDB weren’t being assholes here. I’m saying asshole behavior is the norm and should be expected. I have an excellent boss (and his boss is fantastically supportive too). Several coworkers have needed leave for sometimes weeks and they have accommodated them. I don’t expect this is the norm or written in our company policies.
I disagree, if you expect asshole behaviour, you make it the norm. Expect the behaviour you want, and complain when the standard isn't met. That's how you raise the bar.
If companies operated as partnerships instead of limited liability companies, then I guess I could buy into this.
But states grant special privileges of capping personal liability for investors. Perhaps states should rethink the conditions for granting this if too many companies act like Gordon Gecko psycho paths.
The British East India company had its charter revoked once it started stepping over red lines. Voters need to reconsider the cart-blanche granting of privileges to corporate entities.
I wish someone had sat me down and told me this as a teenager, especially with the addendum that anything about "family" in business descriptions is nothing more than bullshit/marketing.
I wonder if this should be the case. The state consists of it's voters and it's voted representatives. Companies and the economy in general, are secondary entities (unless you really treat them as people, which opens a whole can of worms, see PACs etc), and a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
As such, yes, be pro-economy, but don't forget the people having to live in that society.
Trying to force companies to keep people longer than they want is how the social safety net works in some places (like Japan) and it's how the US healthcare system works, but both of those are, like, bad.
It's better to make it easier to quit and find a new job and support people in the meantime. Denmark as an example.
But to do this you have to have other ways to push people to stay productive.
That's part of it, I'm not saying that companies should keep employees past their usefulness, I'm saying government intervention should be pro-citizen first, and pro-economy second (ideally the latter is a logical consequence of the former). Currently it seems like it's companies first, and workers maybe third to last, but only because companies still need workers (and they try really hard to make those obsolete too).
That results in profit maximizing for the few who made it to the carpet floors, and nothing for the rest. It's become too extractive, and short sighted.
IMO, there should be a balance. My brother lives in Europe and it seems every time he has a small ache/cold he can go to the doctor and get a note for a couple of days off. On the other hand, companies here in the US expect you to be at work unless you’ve been hit by a bus.
if you are in pain, you need to rest. period. there is no other option. of course the system can be gamed simply because pain can't be measured objectively, at least not without expensive machinery. a cold can be infectious. i don't want people to come to work with a cold.
I like this post where you agree with the person you’re replying to and then imagine somebody posting “Wow this was so unexpected because my worldview does not have room for companies to be mean, can somebody explain this??” and calling out that imaginary poster for being naive.
>>"...She asked for an extension to complete her treatment, or at the least a short period to consult with her medical providers about whether and how she might be able to return to work before the treatment was completed. .."
>>"An extension of Annie’s leave would have cost MongoDB nothing. We made it clear that they did not need to pay her or hold her job open for her. We just asked them not to fire her while she was in such a vulnerable state, as we feared that would result in tragedy. We just wanted a little more time to get her stabilized."
There is no plausible need of management that would outweigh simply letting someone stay on the books as "employed-on-unpaid-leave" for some extra weeks or months.
Whoever did this should be held personally responsible for negligent harm.
And yeah, never touching their software, IDGAF how useful it is.
It’s already normal and has been for a long time. Defeatist? No, people who have mortgages to pay and families to feed can’t be martyrs for workers’ rights. You want to change it, I’m not opposed, but you make it sound simple/easy.
Continually acknowledging it renews its legitimacy as the status quo. Who said anything about families or mortgages? The tech industry has plenty of single mobile renters; we can make change by having a little faith in each other.
Companies are made of people. Companies only use people if the people who make up the companies are ok with it. Being a decisionmaker in a company doesn't give you carte blanche to behave like an amoral automaton.
So no, MongoDB are assholes for doing this. They could have had some humanity and prioritized human well-being over cost savings.
I did not say MongoDB weren’t being assholes here. I’m saying asshole behavior is the norm and should be expected. I have an excellent boss (and his boss is fantastically supportive too). Several coworkers have needed leave for sometimes weeks and they have accommodated them. I don’t expect this is the norm or written in our company policies.
I disagree, if you expect asshole behaviour, you make it the norm. Expect the behaviour you want, and complain when the standard isn't met. That's how you raise the bar.
3 replies →
Groups of people don’t act with the same ethics as individuals.
Yes, companies are made of people, but behave differently than people.
Yes, this is the justification decisionmakers use to shirk moral responsibility for their decisions.
Individual Corporate Humanism
It exists some places!
I definitely wouldn’t bet my life on it existing in a random company.
If companies operated as partnerships instead of limited liability companies, then I guess I could buy into this.
But states grant special privileges of capping personal liability for investors. Perhaps states should rethink the conditions for granting this if too many companies act like Gordon Gecko psycho paths.
The British East India company had its charter revoked once it started stepping over red lines. Voters need to reconsider the cart-blanche granting of privileges to corporate entities.
I wish someone had sat me down and told me this as a teenager, especially with the addendum that anything about "family" in business descriptions is nothing more than bullshit/marketing.
That is broadly true, but it's possibly better to pretend it isn't, because it is self-fulfilling.
The less people expect ethical behavior, the lower the pressure people feel to behave ethically... and repeat.
I wonder if this should be the case. The state consists of it's voters and it's voted representatives. Companies and the economy in general, are secondary entities (unless you really treat them as people, which opens a whole can of worms, see PACs etc), and a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
As such, yes, be pro-economy, but don't forget the people having to live in that society.
Trying to force companies to keep people longer than they want is how the social safety net works in some places (like Japan) and it's how the US healthcare system works, but both of those are, like, bad.
It's better to make it easier to quit and find a new job and support people in the meantime. Denmark as an example.
But to do this you have to have other ways to push people to stay productive.
That's part of it, I'm not saying that companies should keep employees past their usefulness, I'm saying government intervention should be pro-citizen first, and pro-economy second (ideally the latter is a logical consequence of the former). Currently it seems like it's companies first, and workers maybe third to last, but only because companies still need workers (and they try really hard to make those obsolete too).
That results in profit maximizing for the few who made it to the carpet floors, and nothing for the rest. It's become too extractive, and short sighted.
2 replies →
IMO, there should be a balance. My brother lives in Europe and it seems every time he has a small ache/cold he can go to the doctor and get a note for a couple of days off. On the other hand, companies here in the US expect you to be at work unless you’ve been hit by a bus.
if you are in pain, you need to rest. period. there is no other option. of course the system can be gamed simply because pain can't be measured objectively, at least not without expensive machinery. a cold can be infectious. i don't want people to come to work with a cold.
> Really quite nasty of the company.
> This is a sad situation
I like this post where you agree with the person you’re replying to and then imagine somebody posting “Wow this was so unexpected because my worldview does not have room for companies to be mean, can somebody explain this??” and calling out that imaginary poster for being naive.
But this is particularly egregious
>>"...She asked for an extension to complete her treatment, or at the least a short period to consult with her medical providers about whether and how she might be able to return to work before the treatment was completed. .."
>>"An extension of Annie’s leave would have cost MongoDB nothing. We made it clear that they did not need to pay her or hold her job open for her. We just asked them not to fire her while she was in such a vulnerable state, as we feared that would result in tragedy. We just wanted a little more time to get her stabilized."
There is no plausible need of management that would outweigh simply letting someone stay on the books as "employed-on-unpaid-leave" for some extra weeks or months.
Whoever did this should be held personally responsible for negligent harm.
And yeah, never touching their software, IDGAF how useful it is.
Sickening
It's expected because of a large swath of defeatist citizens making comments like this. If we don't make this normal, it won't be normal.
It’s already normal and has been for a long time. Defeatist? No, people who have mortgages to pay and families to feed can’t be martyrs for workers’ rights. You want to change it, I’m not opposed, but you make it sound simple/easy.
Continually acknowledging it renews its legitimacy as the status quo. Who said anything about families or mortgages? The tech industry has plenty of single mobile renters; we can make change by having a little faith in each other.
6 replies →