[majewsky]

Here's the thing. You assert confidently that GP is acting on a "broken moral compass". But you can also make the case that it is moral to act in interest of the company: After all, if the company fails, a potentially large number of people are at risk of losing their household income (and, in broken economical systems, also stuff like health insurance).

[9dev]

That's just the slippery slope of neoliberalism. The ends do not justify the means, no matter how you spin them: A company will not fail if you continue to employ parents of many children, employ a regional candidate, or write fair performance reviews regardless of strategic goals. If any of these cases appears to lead to the downfall of a corporation, there were much bigger problems looming that actually caused the failing in the first place.

A company is literally a group of people working towards the same goal. The people are just as important as the goal itself, it's not a company otherwise.

[mike_hearn]

Why are you switching between corporations and companies as if they're the same?

I actually do know of a small company that was quite badly screwed over by a vindictive employee who hated her boss, deliberately did not quit because she knew she was about to have another child, got pregnant and then disappeared for a year. Local law makes her unfireable almost regardless of reason (including not actually doing any work), and then gives her three months maternity leave too. So she basically just didn't work for a year. She said specifically she did that to get back at her boss, she didn't care about the company or its employees at all.

For a company of that size something like that can put it in serious financial jeopardy, as they're now responsible for paying a year's salary for someone who isn't there. Also they can't hire a replacement because the law also guarantees the job is still there after maternity leave ends.

> If any of these cases appears to lead to the downfall of a corporation, there were much bigger problems looming that actually caused the failing in the first place.

This kind of thinking has caused ruin throughout history. Companies - regardless of size - aren't actually piñatas you can treat like an unlimited cash machine. Every such law pushes a few more small companies over the edge every year, and then not only does everyone depending on that company lose, but it never gets the chance to grow into a big corporation at all.

[itsdrewmiller]

Where did this happen? Typically the government covers some or all of the parental leave costs where it is mandated, and while a company can't fire her they are allowed to hire someone to do the job in the meantime with the money they would have paid her. It's obviously not ideal but it's hard to imagine it is screwing the company over all THAT badly.

[RF_Savage]

In Finland parental leave is not fully covered by the government. So you get to pay both the original worker and their temporary replacement.

[c22]

It's okay for unprofitable companies to fail. Desirable, in fact.

[mike_hearn]

No, it's desirable for them to become profitable and successful again, especially if the only reason they're unprofitable is people abusing the rules to extract capital from them unsustainably.

[bluefirebrand]

> especially if the only reason they're unprofitable is people abusing the rules to extract capital from them unsustainably

Employees don't extract capital from companies, especially unsustainably.

Executives and Boards of Directors do though

[mike_hearn]

Sure they do. Unions, abuse of other worker rights laws and voting in socialist parties that raise corporate tax rates to unsustainable levels are all exactly that, and have a long history of extracting so much the companies or even entire economies fail. Argentina is an extreme example of this over the past 100 years but obviously there are many others.