> I was very impressed that this company so effectively neutered all staff that had any contact with customers.
I'm fascinated by the separation of them who do something (the company's employees), them who run it (i.e. who tell said employees how to work), AND them who actually own the company.
It's been mind-blowing to me how for all large-enough companies, the people who own it have no say at all in how it's run. and the people who run it (the managers or "executives"/bureaucrats who curiously do not actually peform the productivity-creating labor) cannot be really held liable for what the company does for it's only their job, the owners are liable, but they have no say (nor interest really) in how it's run, they just want them dividends/rent.
in this scenario, the giant multinational corporations are essentially skynet; i.e. rogue, unaccountable/never liable group of autonomous entities made mostly out of money.
Sometimes I like to imagine that on some level of companies who own other companies, there already exist groups of companies that own each other, such that if you followed the trail of ownership you'd go around a cycle.
> the people who own it have no say at all in how it's run. and the people who run it (the managers or "executives"/bureaucrats who curiously do not actually peform the productivity-creating labor) cannot be really held liable for what the company does for it's only their job
I'm sure that's the case somewhere, but not really sure that it applies to this instance. In this case it sounds like the whole thing would have worked as intended if it had been a non-persistent user. 99% of people will just give up after hearing this sort of repetitive "no it's your problem" and settle for writing a bad review online.
The owners ultimately can hire and fire the people necessary to implement their standards, so the company as a whole will mostly tend to reflect their overall preferences over time.
I disagree, I think even in this scenario the whole thing worked as intended.
It's just rare for people to be this persistent.
I'm supsect that when companies deal with other companies this kind of thing (this amount of persistence) is the norm; it's just rare when individual persons deal with companies.
I'm fascinated by the separation of them who do something (the company's employees), them who run it (i.e. who tell said employees how to work), AND them who actually own the company.
It's been mind-blowing to me how for all large-enough companies, the people who own it have no say at all in how it's run. and the people who run it (the managers or "executives"/bureaucrats who curiously do not actually peform the productivity-creating labor) cannot be really held liable for what the company does for it's only their job, the owners are liable, but they have no say (nor interest really) in how it's run, they just want them dividends/rent.
in this scenario, the giant multinational corporations are essentially skynet; i.e. rogue, unaccountable/never liable group of autonomous entities made mostly out of money.
Sometimes I like to imagine that on some level of companies who own other companies, there already exist groups of companies that own each other, such that if you followed the trail of ownership you'd go around a cycle.