login about faq

Is a businessman giving sanction by continuing to employ progressives when it's relatively easy to replace them?

We've seen how Hank gives sanction by supporting his family. What about employees who votes for a government that's out to destroy him?

asked Jan 20 '13 at 19:13

Humbug's gravatar image

Humbug
5181285

edited Jan 22 '13 at 10:40

I suppose it would depend on the type of job, but if the best suitor in town happens to think Social Security is a moral program, I'd still get my suits fitted from him. Now if I'm running a more political business, I'll need to be more careful of whom I hire and choose to represent my business.

(Jan 22 '13 at 10:37) JK Gregg ♦ JK%20Gregg's gravatar image

The key qualifier, which I've just bolded to make it more obvious, is "relatively easy to replace them". If "best suitor" is best only by a narrow margin, what would you do? I recognize that the narrowness of the margin is going to be dependent on the individual's judgment. The question is more on the general principle of: Should the businessman start considering people's political views in his hiring process to avoid giving sanction?

(Jan 22 '13 at 10:40) Humbug Humbug's gravatar image

You'd have to ask yourself a few questions then: is the marginal effort worth my time? Is the country's existence threatened by progressive ideology so much so that you're willing not to trade with them (kind of like "going Galt")? I guess what I'm saying is that such decisions happen within a context that needs to be objectively analyzed.

(Jan 22 '13 at 10:48) JK Gregg ♦ JK%20Gregg's gravatar image

According to the objectivist view it would be rational to employ the entity which will most benefit you in the long term. If you come to a rational conclusion that ones political views will interfere or hinder production of your business then an action must be taken as a result of that view. ie. employ the more productive/beneficial alternative. It would be immoral to hold prejudice against a party as a result of unjustified judgement.

(Jan 23 '13 at 16:59) John Galt John%20Galt's gravatar image
showing 2 of 4 show all

I think your question and your explanation are actually asking different things. Should one employ progressives at all? Yes, if they are the best individuals you can find which are qualified for the job. It is in a company's best interested to be run by the most qualified people possible, and it would be an unusual situation (albeit possible) that an individual's political opinions would matter more than being well qualified.

The second issue is whether things constitutes "sanction". I don't think this is the case. You sanction an idea by failing to denounce it when your silence can be taken as agreement. In the vast majority of cases, there is no question of "sanction" when an employer hires an employee. For most jobs, no one assumes that the employer agrees with (or even knows) the political or philosophical positions of their employees.

However, what I think what you might really be asking is: "When there's little difference between candidates, shouldn't I hire those with whose political options I agree?" For this, I don't think there are many contexts in which this would be worth the trouble. In order to know a person's political opinions, you'd have to interview them (at a minimum), and potentially ask questions which will potentially alienate some qualified candidates. This will add time to your hiring process (which can no-doubt be spent more productively), and might drive away a genuinely better candidate. Finally, not hiring someone because of their political views is unlikely to either change their mind or diminish their impact on the political system.

answered Feb 04 '13 at 01:13

Andrew%20Miner's gravatar image

Andrew Miner ♦
976415

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×223
×23
×9

Asked: Jan 20 '13 at 19:13

Seen: 624 times

Last updated: Feb 04 '13 at 01:13