Defending Free Speech in the Private Sphere

[Ironchew]

As long as you take it as a given that employment is the only way to avoid destitute poverty, you're not going to solve the issue of free speech in the workplace, which is more fundamentally a power imbalance between employers and employees.

I posted a little ways up the thread about that.

[Lt. Fred]

Just because it doesn't violate your freedom of speech doesn't mean its alright, though.  I know that's likely not what you're saying, but a lot of people use that as justification.  Besides, even a single firing can look really bad to future employers, potentially costing you work and, therefore, the ability to live.

Well, yes, firing someone for stupid reasons (read: reasons that don't affect the bottom line) is wrong and stupid.

Even that is not good enough I think. It should prevent the company doing the thing it exists for.

[rookie]

I've been going back and forth whether or not to say this. But I'm feeling like the hell with it right now. There are some rights I'm confused about. Mainly the origins. Like this right to be able to use various social media groups. Or the right to have a job? Or the right to even own a home. I'm not really sold these are rights. You've no right to the internet. You've got to set up a provider and buy something to get on, set up an account, and advise by their terms of service. The terms of service and Internet connection is set up as a matter of trust between you and the various companies. You could stop paying your bills, or violate the terms. If then you're cut off fair and square. If the company changes its policies, add long as you're not in a contract you're not beholden to them. Move on. Deal with life.
You're not owed a job. You earn it. You're not required to work for me and I'm not required to hire you. You want a job, you've gotten the required shills and education (hopefully). You write a resume. You beat the pavement looking for one. You put in the work to get it. It's not a right anymore than driving is a right.
To all of that, as long as the established laws are being followed, it's working to everyone's advantage. As long as the laws are being followed. If there's a law that needs to be changed, well then use your Internet connections to get ahold of your legislators.
I see a lot of stuff here about how this is wrong and that's wrong. Ok. But what have you done to fix it?

[Ironchew]

The terms of service and Internet connection is set up as a matter of trust between you and the various companies.

Utter bullshit. The terms of service are written by corporations for corporations, and they coerce the customer into following them because they can and there's often no other choice. This is not a negotiation between equal entities.

You're not owed a job. You earn it. You're not required to work for me and I'm not required to hire you. You want a job, you've gotten the required shills and education (hopefully). You write a resume. You beat the pavement looking for one. You put in the work to get it. It's not a right anymore than driving is a right.

Sure, I'll give you that. But what if I can't find a job? I am very interested to hear what you have to say about what the unemployed deserve.

If there's a law that needs to be changed, well then use your Internet connections to get ahold of your legislators.

A dubious claim. When society considers something a right and a minority group does not have access to that right, change almost never comes from the whim of the majority, i.e. Congress. That's why we have more than one branch of government in the U.S., and it's why nationwide gay marriage came down to a court ruling rather than a piece of legislation.

[RavynousHunter]

You don't understand the right to own a home...the right.  To have a roof over your head so you don't freeze to death during the winter trying to sleep under a pile of newspapers in a filthy alleyway.  Don't get where that comes from.  Sorry, Rook, but I don't even.  This is not some luxury.  Its not like saying that I have a right to own a yacht.  Its a right to a fundamental requirement to live according to the standards of the age.  Homeless people, to my knowledge, live little better than cavemen unless they find a good shelter, which is rare.  A hundred years ago, living without a phone was, if not normal, not something that would perturb your ability to seek gainful employment and achieve a reasonable standard of living.  Nowadays, however, it is all but impossible to get a job without a phone, and its becoming increasingly difficult to get one without some form of internet access.  The reason such things are viewed as a right: guaranteed minimum income, guaranteed housing, etc, is because they are necessities of modern life.  Technically, yes, you can live without them, but that's pretty much all you'll be able to do.  Everyone deserves a reasonable standard of living.  Everyone.  From you to your children to your dickhead neighbour.  That we deny a multitude of people the advantages of modern living is a travesty.

[rookie]

Deserves? Where did that word come from?

ETA: Phrasing phail on my part. I'm sorry about that. You earn the right to whatever. You aren't born with the right to a job, you earn it. And own a home, I'm not taking about homelessness. Apartments, couch surfing, living with family. You can do any of these without owning a house. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[RavynousHunter]

Aah, aye.  I agree with earning your job instead of simply being handed one, I just don't want it to be the dividing line between being able to have your basic, modern needs met and being forced to live in grinding poverty.  Also, we have plenty of space to give homes to those without them, either in the form of simple, prefabricated houses or apartments or whatever.  The only real reason we don't is because the people in charge seem to be of the (misinformed and incorrect) idea that homeless people are all a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing bums.  Other countries with less than half our GDP have pulled it off.  If we cut our god-awful level of military expenditure to maintenance level, maybe a small amount for R&D, we'd be able to do it easily.

[pyro]

Just because it doesn't violate your freedom of speech doesn't mean its alright, though.  I know that's likely not what you're saying, but a lot of people use that as justification.  Besides, even a single firing can look really bad to future employers, potentially costing you work and, therefore, the ability to live.

Well, yes, firing someone for stupid reasons (read: reasons that don't affect the bottom line) is wrong and stupid.

Even that is not good enough I think. It should prevent the company doing the thing it exists for.

Can't tell if you think that firing employees for no reason has a negative affect on the bottom line, or if you think we should pass laws to make sure it does.

[Lt. Fred]

Just because it doesn't violate your freedom of speech doesn't mean its alright, though.  I know that's likely not what you're saying, but a lot of people use that as justification.  Besides, even a single firing can look really bad to future employers, potentially costing you work and, therefore, the ability to live.

Well, yes, firing someone for stupid reasons (read: reasons that don't affect the bottom line) is wrong and stupid.

Even that is not good enough I think. It should prevent the company doing the thing it exists for.

Can't tell if you think that firing employees for no reason has a negative affect on the bottom line, or if you think we should pass laws to make sure it does.

It's easy to think of examples of behaviour that might reduce a company's bottom line without hurting the consumer. EG, if you badmouth the legal firm you work for to your friends, you're hurting the company but not the customer. By contrast, if you're leaking to the competition, you're hurting the customer.

Only in the second case can firing be justified, I think.

There are some rights I'm confused about. Mainly the origins.

Correct. This is easily the biggest debate in philosophy.

There are two sensible approaches to take regarding rights.

The first is basically utilitarian: rights exist because restricting what one person can legitimately do to the other maximises happiness. Therefore, you have a right to work, to a home, to medical care, to a living wage and to a safe work environment. You have a right to these things. They are not earned, they're basic minimums. That's what right means. These things are rights because a world where people live without them is a worse place than where all people are guaranteed them as a minimum.

The other view that is worth thinking about is the Rawlsian view, which is more complicated.

Obviously there are fascists and others who believe that people don't have a right to live and so on, but why take them seriously? Rand and so on been pretty discredited by history I dare say.

[pyro]

It's easy to think of examples of behaviour that might reduce a company's bottom line without hurting the consumer. EG, if you badmouth the legal firm you work for to your friends, you're hurting the company but not the customer. By contrast, if you're leaking to the competition, you're hurting the customer.

Only in the second case can firing be justified, I think.

In other words, the company exists to serve the customer as much as it exists to earn a profit?

[mellenORL]

The customers being the source point of those profits, damaging relations with customers would be a harm to the company.

[Canadian Mojo]

Depending on the industry the simple act of hiring, equipping, training, and certifying an employee can be very costly so dumping good employees for dumb reasons can be costly and harmful.

For employees out of the public eye, the only thing a boss should care about is if they are detrimental to production.

[Sigmaleph]

Just because it doesn't violate your freedom of speech doesn't mean its alright, though.  I know that's likely not what you're saying, but a lot of people use that as justification.  Besides, even a single firing can look really bad to future employers, potentially costing you work and, therefore, the ability to live.

Well, yes, firing someone for stupid reasons (read: reasons that don't affect the bottom line) is wrong and stupid.

Even that is not good enough I think. It should prevent the company doing the thing it exists for.

Can't tell if you think that firing employees for no reason has a negative affect on the bottom line, or if you think we should pass laws to make sure it does.

It's easy to think of examples of behaviour that might reduce a company's bottom line without hurting the consumer. EG, if you badmouth the legal firm you work for to your friends, you're hurting the company but not the customer. By contrast, if you're leaking to the competition, you're hurting the customer.

Only in the second case can firing be justified, I think.

I think I disagree with you here. Suppose, for instance, an employee regularly charges customers he likes 20% less than the actual price. This clearly harms the company but doesn't hurt the customer (indeed, in some cases, helps them). Would you say that firing that employee is not justified?

Or suppose the employee regularly tells customers that they can get a much better deal at [competitor] (and isn't lying).

(my personal view is that ideally we want basic income guarantee to make it so you don't need to work to live, followed by relaxing employment laws such that your employer can fire you for any or no reason, but since that's not going to happen anytime soon employers should require to show your behaviour substantially harms the company, where "substantially" is admittedly vague)

[Lt. Fred]

It's easy to think of examples of behaviour that might reduce a company's bottom line without hurting the consumer. EG, if you badmouth the legal firm you work for to your friends, you're hurting the company but not the customer. By contrast, if you're leaking to the competition, you're hurting the customer.

Only in the second case can firing be justified, I think.

In other words, the company exists to serve the customer as much as it exists to earn a profit?

Employees work to serve the customer. The profits' how you make them.

[pyro]

Employees work to serve the customer. The profits' how you make them.

This is where I have to disagree. Employees work to make a living (read: profit). Serving customers is how they make one.