Not universally though. In countries with stronger labor protections and unions, you can’t just fire people for philosophical disagreements (not without those disputes being mediated anyway).
I don’t understand how we arrived at some conception of workplaces as little dictatorships, where bosses can treat people however they want and that’s somehow good or legitimate.
Managers are supposed to exercise power on behalf of the company. In this case, it’s unclear whether the manager was exercising power in the best interests of the company or of himself.
In my opinion, might doesn’t make right. Managers aren’t de facto right purely by virtue of being a manager.
A company is not a government... Yes, someone who owns a company has the legal right to do whatever they want, as long as it's not criminal, with their property.
They have complete authority... They don't have to have someone else endow it to them or give it to them...
So yes, they are by definition authoritarian. That's one of the cornerstones of being able to own private property.
Citizen of country with some of the strongest worker protections here: not over philosophical differences.
Very much so for refusing to do work assigned to you.
And it doesn't mean "bosses can treat people however they want". It means "you are employed to do a job, if you refuse to do that job, you are no longer employed"
I don’t understand how we arrived at some conception of workplaces as little dictatorships, where bosses can treat people however they want and that’s somehow good or legitimate.