• bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wrong. Enabling employees to do their best is what helps companies.

    Demotivating them by having uncertainty and nonnegotiable terms is bad for the company.

    One man can not know what is required for a hundred men to work efficiently

    It’s megalomania for him to think that he knows best, and even if he did, for him to think that he could communicate what is best.

    Musk has 110000 employees worldwide, but he still pretends to know exactly what each and everyone should be doing. No chance in hell.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are too idealistic for an actual conversation

      If what you said was true then there would be no need for unions

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe so. I think it’s more a matter of company owners having to educate themselves instead of playing God towards their employees.

        It’s becomes very evident when you look into psychological interactions in companies. It seems soo unnecessary - until you look at the results. Companies that actively work to prevent demotivating behaviour also produce better results at the bottom of their financial statements.

        Just similar to how violent behaviour resulted in people not working due to broken arms, demotivating behaviour stops employees from doing the job well. You can see it in the contemporary term “Silent quitting” which is a result of poor management. People do minimum work because they are only motivated to as they’re told and don’t get a say in how they do it.

        Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.

        Unions exist because serious workers actually like doing their job well.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.

          Which companies do because….

          It benefits them

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Only in the short term. It’s not sustainable against competitors who does otherwise.

            • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you make more money than your competitors in the short term then you can buy them out

              • bstix@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nah. There’s a cut off point somewhere between “making a profit” and “making a large scale company”. The personally owned and personally controlled companies that are happy with turning a profit using whatever means they think are necessary will never be able to buy out the companies that are controlled by an elected board who knows that it is necessary to invest in their staff. Quite the contrary. The professional businesses buy out the smaller ones.

                Despite Musk being extremely wealthy, he’s still acting like he’s running a family business in the most unprofessional manner. Tesla had a good run disrupting the industry being first with long range batteries, but the larger car manufacturers have caught up and they have the infrastructure to back it up and staff that will do their job. Unlike Tesla currently.

                • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Can’t say I’ve ever heard someone argue that the mega corps are the good guys and the family companies are the bad ones

                  • bstix@feddit.dk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In Euro scale so it is. The family businesses are the ones that steal from the tip jar, while the big companies are generally more lawful and democratic.

                    This is because of unions. It’s easy to cheat one guy on a payslip. It’s impossible to cheat on 100 payslips of which 80 of them are in a union. When caught it’s easy to pay off one guy whatever is owed. It’s a stupid bet to try and cheat 100 guys who have a union to pay for their lawyers even if it’s just a minor mistake. Big companies in Europe need to play by the rules for their own sake and not create risky situations like Musk is doing now. Musk might be smarter than a car mechanic but he can’t “outsmart” an entire sector of mechanics.

                    Of course, big companies might be bad for other reasons, like for smaller entrepreneurs, just the same as everywhere, but they’re generally better for the employees.