Guillotine Rule
(midwest.social)
Zizzy
196Janitors clean up everyone's shit.
CEOs make shit for everyone.
Bullshit. The moment that janitor went Luigi, you'd totally rescind that position. Meanwhile, the CEOs are denying claims for their subscriber's health, which may be killing regular folk.
You can tell a lot about someone by how they treat people that work the lower wage occupations.
Cashiers, entry level customer service or other entry level desk jobs, entry level blue collar work. All of those people are hard working members of society who contribute so much despite how little they get paid in return and I don't want anything to do with anyone who doesn't treat them with respect and kindness.
I still maintain that everyone should have to do one year of retail work, kind of like national service. People who have worked retail are almost always nice to other retail workers because they know the kind of shit they have to deal with every day.
Security is like this. I work unarmed security, and people will sometimes treat me like a sentient security camera. I am a person, I promise.
Sending hugs!
Janitor works quietly in the background making the world around them slightly better whilst getting paid about as little as legally possible.
CEOs loudly ruin the world around them whilst making more than 100x what the janitor makes (and that's just their salary)
I certainly know who I'd want rid of.
Try to have the company run for a week without the janitor and 1 week without the CEO, and everybody would tell you who's doing the most important job.
Know you meant this as rhetorical, but I can speak from my own experience.
Having had our janitor go on leave for a week without replacement, I can sure tell you I missed them by the end of the week.
In an old SME job, our CEO left for an entire fortnight to some corporate BS, and genuinely the only tell was the managers being more friendly and relaxed.
It'd be fun to actually have a study to point to. Feels like the type of thing people cloud try.
I feel like 100x is way way lowballing that CEO.
100x would require some sort of hypercommunist wage equality regulation
I actually respect the Janitor though, I'd never treat them equally
We should make a public holiday, "guillotine a CEO day", and each year, the public chooses their least favorite CEO, and they get guillotined.
Had me thinking hypotheticals, that (even before jumping to executions) if there was just an ancient Greek style 10-year ostracism and/or seizure of property that people vote on, it might compel CEOs to start behaving more in the public interest.
But the cynic in me can't help but feel that it would more likely lead to the CEOs who control the media getting to collectively determine who gets to be that year's fall guy, running non-stop hit pieces on them while covering up their own misdeeds.
Need a full March Madness style bracket. Musk is a clear front runner, but Zuck could give him a run for his money. Any of the Ellisons could be a dark horse.
The entire Ellison family is made up of wildcards. The Sackler family is full of heavyweights too
Everyone looks at the CEO. People should be looking at the board of directors.
What is the difference?
TLDR: The CEO is the captain but the board is the admiralty.
The CEO is the face of the company. The board of directors is the what actually sets company policy and usually has the power to remove the CEO if they aren't managing the company the way they want.
CEOs may agree with the board's vision but if you want to know who's pushing anti-human policy you should look first at the board. They choose the CEO and they can remove them with a vote.
There are many people that we don't see in the news everyday that sit on multiple boards and direct policy across industries. When a firm or bank buys out a controlling interest in a company's public stock they usually put someone on the company's board. Why do you think a United CEO getting killed didn't slow UHC down all that much? The CEO is a face, a captain, but the board are the admirals. CEOs aren't without blame. They usually have freedom of implementation but they are always acting with oversight of some kind from the board.
It's easy to point at the CEO because it's one person, but really if you want to make any kind of lasting change you need to target the people who are sitting on multiple boards and pushing the anti-human policy.
The board of directors is also chosen by the shareholders and typically the entities with the most stock to vote aren't people (or at least aren't good people.) Think of anyone who could have the money to buy a controlling share of a major publicly traded company.
Circling back, The CEO is the company face, The board is the interface between the company and the rich unknowns. Usually those unknowns are other organizations that have controlling stock. It gets incestuous pretty fast.
The board employs the CEO to execute their direction. The e CEO answers to the board. The board represents shareholders/owners.
They are all members of the same club though.
They would never guillotine the CEO either.
why not?
Because they are weak, and also they probably don’t own a guillotine.
they are weak
You have no basis to make this claim.
they probably don’t own a guillotine
Speculation isn't a good reason.
Do you think I’m wrong?
