snipvoid

I don’t think I’ve ever worked at a job that felt morally right.

I worked at a housing association that I thought would be useful in helping the unhoused with a type of co-operative housing, especially as they’re regulated. But no, it was all ‘pass on the poor folk to other associations’ and ‘try to grab property for cheap’ with the pooled rent money while skimping on repairs and improvements.

I worked in renewables for a while, and profit is always king there too. Safety was never the priority.

I worked at a crisis centre for victims of SA, which was also run to the bare minimum and largely existed as a flex for the person in charge to get write-ups in the Guardian. I can’t remember actually being able to successfully connect anyone with the therapists due to the length of the waitlist. We gave the bare minimum of advice. It existed on the lowest wages possible because everyone working there was supposed to feel good that they were essentially doing charity.

I did some advocacy work where I was connected with people that were unhoused, and where the job was to help them navigate the system in order to get assigned a home with a local housing association. Each case took months and nobody in the relevant council departments and housing associations gave a single shit. The clients were distressed (naturally), but were still given false information from every angle, and then it was all consistently used against them or leveraged to try and make them accept a lower standard of housing and/or care. They were treated like criminals for simply not having access to shelter. I worked hard and felt sad constantly. There were some successes, but a few people just quit trying to get housed because living on the street and sofa surfing were somehow less humiliating.

Those are the most ‘moral on paper’ roles I’ve held, and even they were a disgrace.

Like a verse you might find in the Yoga Vasistha:

Imagination, life is your creation

We are all one Barbie girl, and this Barbie world is inherently unreal.

Sounds like someone’s previous policies led to a brain drain in their business and now he’s hoping other employers will blindly follow this rhetoric (and shoot themselves in the foot) so he can poach their employees for his company gain.

I’m fine with billionaires eating each other so we don’t have to.

IMO bosses get what they pay for, in time and in effort. It sounds like they’ve neglected you, the business, and your co-workers.

I’m hearing that you care about your efforts, and that you take the time to notice what isn’t working. Could you have spoken up? Sure, probably. Should they have actively checked in with you? Absolutely. This is on them.

Employers act like they have no duty of care, but they forget that we have no obligation to keep picking up their slack. No one is entitled to be a business owner.

Good luck with the new offer.

There must be 50 ways to leave employers.

Maybe everything really does eventually become Second Life

You seem confused. Let me be clear:

• I have no criticism for the Finnish Parliament or their choice of soft drink selection.

• I have no belief that a government office cafeteria is equally as complex as a pension fund.

Now if you’ve made it this far, why are Finland choosing not to support Pepsi? Let’s look to the article:

The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country

So, from the article, the Finnish Parliament have taken a stand against Pepsi because Pepsi won’t cease operating in Russia. And Pepsi Co failing to stop their operations in Russia is bad. Right?

Still with me? Great.

Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund also isn’t ceasing their operations (by way of their investments) in Russia.

Again: where is the equivalent outrage? Why isn’t anyone taking a stand against Norway for not divesting? They said they would, but haven’t. The amount is pennies when compared to their other investments. So why are they hanging on to them? Why don’t they do what they said they would? And why isn’t anyone speaking out against them for failing to divest, especially while their former PM is leading NATO?

Hope that helps!

I did not. Happy to help!

My original comment (to which you responded) regarding the obligations of Pepsi Co were highlighting a critical comparison between a corporate drinks manufacturer and the pension fund. The Finnish Parliament can do what they like. If they’re doing it because Pepsi Co hasn’t fully pulled out of Russia, and thus Pepsi deserves to be shunned, what does Norway deserve?

If action is mandated for entities that don’t divest from Russia, then it must equally be applicable to all entities where this is true. Otherwise, hypocrisy.

Sure, but now tell me how the richest pension fund in the world, currently valued in the trillions, has such fiduciary obligation that it can’t divest ~$300 million of Russian investments.

Make it make sense.

How would the richest sovereign wealth fund in the world pulling out their investments from Russia bring about living in the freezing cold?

It isn’t as if Norway’s fund haven’t already said they would divest. It’s just that they haven’t taken any concrete action on what they promised for more than a year.

Why?

Who would collapse?