Loads of nurses accept bonuses contingent on serving a certain amount of time in a given place or hospital system. Then they leave and take another job before their time has been served. You know what happens to them? Also not prosecution or even civil clawback.
I get it. We have more people than we know what to do with but kneecapping guys who will work as hard as they have capacity to, doesn’t make someone else more useful all of a sudden.
If people like Vaish had even a drop of self-awareness and integrity, they would admit that they respond to Tortuga this way because they are extremely high in conscientiousness, and therefore are suspicious of all attempts to act or seek status "outside the system".
In Vaish's case specifically, since he is an H1B immigrant, he as a lot of material incentive to try to follow the rules and pretend that taking such a stance is more ethical than other choices. Plus, he is engaged to (are they married yet? Would it even be appropriate to call what they have marriage?) to a 'woman' who is literal embodiment of the hyperized HR mentality gripping our society. The fact that Walt aggressively hit on his fianceé is a direct reminder that he is too feeble to inspire real desire in her.
The job of most public intellectuals is to defend the integrity of existing systems (whether or not that starts out as their goal, that is what it tends to become), so someone who intentionally chooses to brand against that all while admitting it's self-serving is triggering; because it shines a light on their own self-serving behavior; but as impotent intellectuals, they have to be much more indirect about their ambitions. Rather than embracing being rapacious alligators or whatever.
It's all a signaling game, the idea that the money from these companies is not tracking any underlying value does not enter in as a consideration. The worst part is that the behavior of people like Vaish provides cover for those who do fraud the system, but are polite enough to hide it behind existing social norms. (Ask him whether he thinks Walt or SBF is more evil, and watch him waffle and squirm trying to justify his answer.)
I’ve listened to their podcast and liked it. They had a disagreement on a certain issue I’ll leave out and thought his response was great. I also like and respect Regan. I’m sure I have disagreements with both.
Having said that, I can totally wrap my head around not wanting to expand the amount of disciplines open to fraud but job stacking is one of the last places I’d look because I have have hundreds of people report to me over the years and have taken action against every person who knowingly got in the way of getting things done. I honestly don’t think I would tolerate ANY form of drag from someone so congrats to them is they somehow made me richer and also someone else.
I would probably focus on red tape, NGO’s education, public health, environmental causes, social justice, medicine, etc.
They can discuss anything they like but I think that the job stacking thing is small potatoes and I have trouble finding a victim unless, of course, you think someone else who is not doing one of those jobs somehow deserves it more than the person currently doing it.
Not for nothing, someone worked for my friend and was job stacking and he didn’t even have to fire her. He was on her case about productivity and HR swooped in after taking a look at her activity.
Would be better if we emphasized merit but instead we’ll argue about whether strong people are too strong.
A good, concise article on the topic. Moralizing objections to Job-Stacking are generally absurd convolutions of wage-cage mentality, as if jobs are in themselves precious, scarce commodities needing fair distribution rather than agreements to mutually provide value between manager and laborer.
While I have also argued that the business-side interest is generally to milk you of every productive drop for the least-cost possible, it isn't bad to still do the spirit of the job that will satisfy the relevant side of the contract. What is available to those with the will, discipline, and competency however is to discern what is that spirit-of-work to bowl a strike in your employment versus the Corpo-bumper tubes in that contract that could be safely ignored in sending the ball down the lane. If you can handle working multiple jobs while satisfying your employers and you want to do it, then I have found no real moral objection to it.
For those hungry for another cool-kid nonsense essay on the morality of substacking, my article is also available for perusal.
Loads of nurses accept bonuses contingent on serving a certain amount of time in a given place or hospital system. Then they leave and take another job before their time has been served. You know what happens to them? Also not prosecution or even civil clawback.
I get it. We have more people than we know what to do with but kneecapping guys who will work as hard as they have capacity to, doesn’t make someone else more useful all of a sudden.
If people like Vaish had even a drop of self-awareness and integrity, they would admit that they respond to Tortuga this way because they are extremely high in conscientiousness, and therefore are suspicious of all attempts to act or seek status "outside the system".
In Vaish's case specifically, since he is an H1B immigrant, he as a lot of material incentive to try to follow the rules and pretend that taking such a stance is more ethical than other choices. Plus, he is engaged to (are they married yet? Would it even be appropriate to call what they have marriage?) to a 'woman' who is literal embodiment of the hyperized HR mentality gripping our society. The fact that Walt aggressively hit on his fianceé is a direct reminder that he is too feeble to inspire real desire in her.
The job of most public intellectuals is to defend the integrity of existing systems (whether or not that starts out as their goal, that is what it tends to become), so someone who intentionally chooses to brand against that all while admitting it's self-serving is triggering; because it shines a light on their own self-serving behavior; but as impotent intellectuals, they have to be much more indirect about their ambitions. Rather than embracing being rapacious alligators or whatever.
It's all a signaling game, the idea that the money from these companies is not tracking any underlying value does not enter in as a consideration. The worst part is that the behavior of people like Vaish provides cover for those who do fraud the system, but are polite enough to hide it behind existing social norms. (Ask him whether he thinks Walt or SBF is more evil, and watch him waffle and squirm trying to justify his answer.)
I’ve listened to their podcast and liked it. They had a disagreement on a certain issue I’ll leave out and thought his response was great. I also like and respect Regan. I’m sure I have disagreements with both.
Having said that, I can totally wrap my head around not wanting to expand the amount of disciplines open to fraud but job stacking is one of the last places I’d look because I have have hundreds of people report to me over the years and have taken action against every person who knowingly got in the way of getting things done. I honestly don’t think I would tolerate ANY form of drag from someone so congrats to them is they somehow made me richer and also someone else.
I would probably focus on red tape, NGO’s education, public health, environmental causes, social justice, medicine, etc.
They can discuss anything they like but I think that the job stacking thing is small potatoes and I have trouble finding a victim unless, of course, you think someone else who is not doing one of those jobs somehow deserves it more than the person currently doing it.
Not for nothing, someone worked for my friend and was job stacking and he didn’t even have to fire her. He was on her case about productivity and HR swooped in after taking a look at her activity.
Would be better if we emphasized merit but instead we’ll argue about whether strong people are too strong.
Insects: “JUST FOLLOW THE RULES!”
Tortugans: “Can’t, too busy stacking cash and quoting Pirates of the Caribbean, peace out.”
A good, concise article on the topic. Moralizing objections to Job-Stacking are generally absurd convolutions of wage-cage mentality, as if jobs are in themselves precious, scarce commodities needing fair distribution rather than agreements to mutually provide value between manager and laborer.
While I have also argued that the business-side interest is generally to milk you of every productive drop for the least-cost possible, it isn't bad to still do the spirit of the job that will satisfy the relevant side of the contract. What is available to those with the will, discipline, and competency however is to discern what is that spirit-of-work to bowl a strike in your employment versus the Corpo-bumper tubes in that contract that could be safely ignored in sending the ball down the lane. If you can handle working multiple jobs while satisfying your employers and you want to do it, then I have found no real moral objection to it.
For those hungry for another cool-kid nonsense essay on the morality of substacking, my article is also available for perusal.
https://thenorme.substack.com/p/the-morality-of-job-stacking