Quoting Glazunov1, reply 185
bosses should be able to do what they want with their business. It's up to the consumer to buy or to boycott that company.
Does that mean that if your boss wants to put you in an unsafe environment with locked emergency doors, the only recourse should be consumers voting by walking to another company?
Because this has happened, repeatedly. Just curious about your take on this.
Customers don't get to have a say in how a Company is run. If they don't like it they can walk.
Trades Practises, Unions and other 'regulatory' bodies [depending where you are and what country, profession, etc] DO get to have a say.
Legislation may tell a business owner what he can or cannot do...but such an entity is not 'the customer'....
What about customers who stay away from a business because a product is produced in a way they don't care for? Or when you write here of how a company is run, do you mean only internal employer-employee relations? Because I can think of situations where companies have lost significant business because of bad service, or because of offering a product that offends consumers, which then altered the way they conducted business. Would this constitute feedback that indirectly affects how a company is run?
Whether I mistook Solam's position on this or not, I'd still like to hear from someone who has a laissez faire approach to employers that could be stated as Solam did: "Bosses should be able to do what they want with their own businesses." Adam Smith himself played the Higher Moral Authority card on businesses in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, but if that's set aside, as some people do, to what extent are any other factors available to respond to employer practices that are deemed harmful to employees? Or are there any available? I'm not looking for an argument, but to understand this point of view in the modern world.