> If you have certain principles such as support for LBGTQ+, anti-military contracts, or a conservative in tech for example, and your company signs a contract to work with another organization that doesn't care about the cause or are completely against it, what happens?
I guess things are changing, but historically refusing to serve customers based on political differences would be considered intolerant. You can disagree with someone without refusing them service. I don't see any ethical dilemmas in serving someone you disagree with. You are free to disagree with that principle.
For any business owner, making a decision to walk away from business on grounds of political disagreement is a huge luxury. I don't think it's commonly exercised, and for good reason, imo. This is very different from walking away from a "bad customer", one who may cost you money over the long run while sapping your soul. Empowered employees also feel capable of walking away from these customers because they understand the business so well that they see the issues coming, and they've earned to decision making respect for their choices to have weight.
> Growing pains, but an employee who is competent or incompetent will face the same dilemma because of what I suggested earlier.
This is exactly what I'm saying. The two are more similar than I think most people make them out to be. You will have differences in freedom, but those are often determined by your competence and success, more so than whether you have a business license.
The way you talk about a business owner sleeping well at night makes me wonder if you know any. Owning a business is extremely stressful. The buck stops with you, and while in theory you are free, your entire business depends on your decisions. You think it's hard to change jobs? How hard do you think it is to move on from a failed business? In a capitalist society, business owners are as much slaves as anyone else. The difference is, you take so much risk on that if you succeed, you end up making a return that does buy you a good deal of freedom. But that's not intrinsic to the business you own, and it is determined as much but what you need as what you have. It's a freedom derived from being a human being that has "enough".
>I guess things are changing, but historically refusing to serve customers based on political differences would be considered intolerant. You can disagree with someone without refusing them service. I don't see any ethical dilemmas in serving someone you disagree with. You are free to disagree with that principle.
Let's not separate a single example, the entire example list is as a whole, i.e. any of the situations listed are that to the person involved. Sure for you it doesn't, however, someone else will have a different opinion with respect to dealing with other political stripes. There are people who won't deal with other religions in this day and age.
>> Growing pains, but an employee who is competent or incompetent will face the same dilemma because of what I suggested earlier.
I typed this in a way it was not clear. The growing pains will heal. The competent and incompetent employees will always be slaves, their competence won't help them.
No I was a wage slave. It is why I'm saying you can't succeed as an employee without compromising your principles. Even CEOs of Fortune 500s don't have the ability as they have a board to report to. Well except Zuck.
I think it's worth considering that, just because you didn't do it, does not mean it can't be done. Perhaps your personal growth was as big of a difference as the format of your labor relationship.
I guess things are changing, but historically refusing to serve customers based on political differences would be considered intolerant. You can disagree with someone without refusing them service. I don't see any ethical dilemmas in serving someone you disagree with. You are free to disagree with that principle.
For any business owner, making a decision to walk away from business on grounds of political disagreement is a huge luxury. I don't think it's commonly exercised, and for good reason, imo. This is very different from walking away from a "bad customer", one who may cost you money over the long run while sapping your soul. Empowered employees also feel capable of walking away from these customers because they understand the business so well that they see the issues coming, and they've earned to decision making respect for their choices to have weight.
> Growing pains, but an employee who is competent or incompetent will face the same dilemma because of what I suggested earlier.
This is exactly what I'm saying. The two are more similar than I think most people make them out to be. You will have differences in freedom, but those are often determined by your competence and success, more so than whether you have a business license.
The way you talk about a business owner sleeping well at night makes me wonder if you know any. Owning a business is extremely stressful. The buck stops with you, and while in theory you are free, your entire business depends on your decisions. You think it's hard to change jobs? How hard do you think it is to move on from a failed business? In a capitalist society, business owners are as much slaves as anyone else. The difference is, you take so much risk on that if you succeed, you end up making a return that does buy you a good deal of freedom. But that's not intrinsic to the business you own, and it is determined as much but what you need as what you have. It's a freedom derived from being a human being that has "enough".