| ▲ | upboundspiral a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
I agree that this would cause a reckoning in who has oversight over hiring, as it dramatically shifts the balance of power in a different direction than the one companies are currently organized around. I think for large enough businesses this would incentivize them give the team the person is hiring into much more oversight into the process. I don't think HR is useless, far from it, but incentivizing them to point their efforts to benefit the teams they are hiring for is a plus in my book. As for the question of new hires getting to vote I think they should be able to vote (past standard probationary period of no more than say 1 month, idk). The company hired them, they should trust their employees with the responsibility of voting. If one person is able to upend a company then they should take some time to reflect on their processes. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | za_creature 17 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I was picking on hiring because it creates perverse incentives for nepotism. Managers already hire just for the status symbol of having more underlings, imagine what would happen if these underlings get a vote into who gets a performance bonus at the end of the year. A true democracy would place control over "the process" in the hands of the employees. Reflect on the ramifications of that. > Do we need more people? Sure, I love working less. > Do we give everyone a raise? Yay, more money. > Do we switch to a 4 day work week? Of course! > Should we abolish all night shifts? Yes, working nights is bad for your health. A more responsible version of the above would have everyone voting that all responsibility should fall onto Greg, because nobody likes him. ... at least until Greg gets fed up and quits. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||