Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not crazy. Caring about the business without caring about the people who literally are and empower the business is simply dehumanization.

It's been done to death. Literally.

Edit: People seem to think I'm proposing businesses keep operating how they are. I'm suggesting businesses that truly care need people running them who know how to care, not the normalized psychopathy that's become corporate culture. I'm not suggesting current or past harmful relationships with businesses continue or that even those businesses should continue.





Crazy. The whole notion of employer sponsored health insurance is a historical accident and never made any logical sense. I don't want my employer to care about me at that level and prefer a straightforward transactional relationship.

Should business also care about their employee's diets and fitness regimes? There are things that are outside of the purview of a business and the healthcare of their employees, outside of the direct impact of the business's work environment on the employee's health, should not be part of it.

Another way to say it, there is more to health than how an employer affects a person's life, and those things are none of the business' business.


Yes, businesses would be better off if they cared about wellbeing to such a degree. That doesn't mean control employees, though.

It means to actually care about the quality of food the employees have access to and the quality of culture surrounding them. It means caring about the environments people live in. It means recognizing people LEARN to make harming choices through harm (individual, familial, social, collective, cultural, systemic...etc) so recognizing repair is needed & pursuing that. This is what lobbying would be about without dehumanization.

Don't get lost in the fascist fantasies of what it means to care.


I don't want my employer to be involved in any of that though. Otherwise we'll be having a lot more conversations with people who are completely unqualified to make any determinations about things like my mental health.

Classic neo liberalism. Works for whoever owns the capital, yes, terrible for workers.

Dumb take, business is "spending" 30k plus to "help out" but not allowing any choice of options to employees and an opaque choice by joyce in HR.

I'm not suggesting implementing dumb care. Genuine care isn't fascistic and doesn't sacrifice people's wellbeing (which includes autonomy).

If my employer wants me to have good healthcare they can pay a salary that allows for it.

Yes. They can also lobby for all kinds of systemic changes (and already do, but usually away from care)

I mean this nicely but I don't really think you are making any sort of coherent argument.

Point out what's incoherent and I'll address it?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: