That's why it is not insubordination, the order must be lawful. Your boss is your superior but there are plenty of possible scenarios where disobeying their orders is not insubordination.
Besides that, your boss is not in a position to give you orders. It is a work place not a prison or a platoon.
In modern times insubordination is almost always related to military contexts.
It depends on where you live, at least in Europe most people would find the word inappropriate. For us here "disobedience" or something alike would be a better term.
I disagree (and am European, and a union rep for many years). Subordination is what I expect from an employee and obedience from a dog.
Subordination is a role you opt into. Obedience is something you can't get away from.
You take a job as mailman and then you are a subordinate to the postmaster. Refusing to carry out sensible and appropriate orders (without a valid reason) is insubordination and grounds for being fired (more or less) on the spot, even in Scandinavia.
What counts as an appropriate order and a valid ground for refusal is probably very different in different regions/countries/states, but the basic dynamic is not.
1. The act of subordinating, subjecting, or placing in a lower order, rank, or position, or in proper degrees of rank; also, the state of being subordinate or inferior; inferiority of rank or dignity.
2. Degree of lesser rank.
3. The state of being under control of government; subjection to rule; habit of obedience to orders.
4. The act of subordinating, placing in a lower order, or subjecting.
5. The quality or state of being subordinate or inferior to an other; inferiority of rank or dignity; subjection.
6. Place of inferior rank.
7. The process of making something subordinate.
8. The property of being subordinate.
9. The quality of being properly obedient to a superior (as a superior officer).
As you see when you expect your dog to be obedient your are placing yourself on a higher rank, so your dog is your subordinate.
When you expect your employee to be subordinate your are expecting him to obey when something is asked or tasked from ranks higher than their's in your organization. Your are also expecting him to obey to what is written in the subordination contract signed by both.
Wikipedia: obedience, in human behavior, is a form of "social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure".
What I think to be the main issue is the word "order". IMHO an order is not something that might exist in a workplace, with few exceptions. Your boss gives you tasks and expect you to execute them remaining inside a more or less explicit set of rules, your boss cannot give you orders.
Insubordination is an english word, and it is written into employment law as grounds for immediate dismissal. "Disobedience" isn't. Basically, if you take a paid job, you subordinate yourself to your boss.
If you pick it apart, it really means failure to put yourself below.
Outside of acknowledged overt heirarchy like the military where the strict heirarchy has a defensible purpose (there is always some sort of heirarchy, but only in something like a military is a pathological form of it justified) you are theoretically always equal to anyone else, and your order-taking is merely a very limited commercial transaction. You are not actually subordinate to your boss or anyone else.
There is just this very narrow scope where you have voluntarily agreed to accept some specific kinds of directions in a specific context in return for pay.
Swap subordinate for subservient and I would not consider "insubservience" or "failure to be a servant" a very damning charge and I would look more at anyone who thought it was.
True, but it's still the case that he was fired by his company with the claimed reason of insubordination. I think it's a valid translation given the context (i.e. talking about what they said he did, not about what he actually did.)
Your boss is just some other person. If he thinks he's superior to anyone else, he can fuck right off. He'll end up as worm food just like the rest of us.
Most certainly but that’s not the point. The point is that companies are structured so that division of labour flows from a core group deciding the strategical priorities towards more specialised groups and ultimately line workers through levels of organisation making tasks more and more specific along the way. As a salaried worker, provided it was in your contract, you can’t entirely refuse to do what’s asked of you by the strata defining your work and expect to keep your position.
Thankfully, in Europe, unions have harshly fought for somewhat fair employment laws and this relationship only applies to actual work and not the whimsies of your boss.
I think you're right about things like chain of command; most companies are hierarchical in this way. But I think there's a fallacy that's widely believed that people "at the top" see things more clearly than those... not at the "top". I think we see very little no matter where we are, and we have to rely on each other to get the whole picture. To me, this indicates that a more flat structure makes sense: I'm good at the tech thing, you're good at the budgeting thing, if suddenly you stop being good at the budgeting thing I want someone else to do it, and vice versa.
The amount of people that advocate in favour of master-servant mentality is appallingly high. No wonder there are so many that prefer working in human farms.
Sorry, but no. That is a falsifiable statement in just about every respect and possible interpretation. The implied assumptions about everything from employment law to the notion that in all work environments everyone has a “boss”, let alone the meaning of that term, are far from universal.
The world just isn’t that limited, thankfully.
Tip: think about why you had to put “superior” in quotes.
lawful just means the order itself wasn't illegal. It doesn't mean that it's "enforcing the law"
If I tell you to go buy 10 apples, refusing would be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.
If I tell you to go steal 10 apples, refusing would not be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.
Until the court ruled against them, the view of the firm would have been it was legal to require someone to have their camera on. Hence they viewed it as insubordination to refuse.
They are wrong, it's not insubordination, but it's not unfair of them to think it was.
There is also the word "reasonable". In civil law countries like Netherlands, that actually means something. One can argue that even if being ordered to turn on the webcam all day is not illegal, it is still an unreasonable request e.g. because it infringes on privacy too much.
as it's only insubordination if they were entitled to require him to buy apples.
if i tell my friend or my brother to buy apples, and he says no, then that's not insubordination
That's why it is not insubordination, the order must be lawful. Your boss is your superior but there are plenty of possible scenarios where disobeying their orders is not insubordination. Besides that, your boss is not in a position to give you orders. It is a work place not a prison or a platoon.
In modern times insubordination is almost always related to military contexts.