How to fight nepotism?

[Admiral Yi]

And I thought you were going to come in and warn Sbr not to answer the question.

Maybe you should consider adjusting your thinking.

[Razgovory]

And I thought you were going to come in and warn Sbr not to answer the question.

Maybe you should consider adjusting your thinking.

Something wrong, Yi?

[Admiral Yi]

He's all yours sbr.

[dps]

Public office is a public trust.  The power of the office is supposed to be used for the public good, not the personal good of the officeholder.  Hiring family members to fill public sector jobs is a violation of the public trust, and hence corrupt.

OTOH, private businesses are supposed to be run for the private benefit of their owners. So the owners or their agents hiring family members violates no public trust.

[Barrister]

Okay, then.  Let's back up.  Why is public nepotism bad?  Not why is it bad compared to private, but why is it bad at all?  What makes it wrong?

I'll stand up for nepotism.

Nepotism isn't inherently bad.  It can have it's benefits.  We're all social creatures - there are benefits to working with people we have connections with, rather than complete strangers.

Where nepotism can be bad is if it leads to unqualified people being hired merely because of their social connections.

[Razgovory]

Public office is a public trust.  The power of the office is supposed to be used for the public good, not the personal good of the officeholder.  Hiring family members to fill public sector jobs is a violation of the public trust, and hence corrupt.

OTOH, private businesses are supposed to be run for the private benefit of their owners. So the owners or their agents hiring family members violates no public trust.

Private business aren't run entirely for the private benefit of their owners.  After all, there lots of laws prohibiting the doing of certain things, right?  Are those laws okay?

[dps]

Public office is a public trust.  The power of the office is supposed to be used for the public good, not the personal good of the officeholder.  Hiring family members to fill public sector jobs is a violation of the public trust, and hence corrupt.

OTOH, private businesses are supposed to be run for the private benefit of their owners. So the owners or their agents hiring family members violates no public trust.

Private business aren't run entirely for the private benefit of their owners.  After all, there lots of laws prohibiting the doing of certain things, right?  Are those laws okay?

Sure, if those laws serve a public purpose, and/or protect society in general against abuses by private businesses while staying within constitutional and societal norms (of course, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not a particular law meets those standards).  The thing with nepotism (and the main reason it's improper in public jobs) is because it tends to be inefficient because people obtaining their position throught connections rather than merit are often not the best qualified for those jobs.  If unqualified people are hurting the efficiency of government, that's a public concern.  On the other hand, if unqualified people are hurting the efficiency (which boils down to profitabilty for a company) of a private business, that's not a proper matter for public concern, because there isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) any public interest in the profitibility of any particular individual business.

[Razgovory]

What about denying people the chance to get a job.  After all discrimination is illegal in hiring.  Nepotism can be seen as a form of discrimination in hiring.

[Barrister]

What about denying people the chance to get a job.  After all discrimination is illegal in hiring.  Nepotism can be seen as a form of discrimination in hiring.

Discrimination, per se, is far from illegal in hiring.  Hiring is all about discrimination.  You discriminate against those you think would do a worse job.

Discrimination is only illegal if you do it on prohibited grounds.  You are free to discriminate based on education, experience, skills, etc.  But there are several criteria you can not discriminate on - race, age, sex, religion, etc.

[Martinus]

Okay, then.  Let's back up.  Why is public nepotism bad?  Not why is it bad compared to private, but why is it bad at all?  What makes it wrong?

I'll stand up for nepotism.

Nepotism isn't inherently bad.  It can have it's benefits.  We're all social creatures - there are benefits to working with people we have connections with, rather than complete strangers.

Where nepotism can be bad is if it leads to unqualified people being hired merely because of their social connections.

Well, ultimately, yes. The purpose of transparency measures and stuff like concourses for jobs is to ensure that the most qualified person gets in.

[Martinus]

Although on second thought, Raz may be on to something - if nepotism is widespread enough for it to become systemic, it may actually be harmful to the public interest to let it continue, even when private companies are concerned. Plus, there is a question whether private businesses which receive public subsidy or tax relief are not in fact, to a degree, utilizing public money, and as such, should they not be subject to the same rules as public entities?

[dps]

Although on second thought, Raz may be on to something - if nepotism is widespread enough for it to become systemic, it may actually be harmful to the public interest to let it continue, even when private companies are concerned. Plus, there is a question whether private businesses which receive public subsidy or tax relief are not in fact, to a degree, utilizing public money, and as such, should they not be subject to the same rules as public entities?

IMO, no public company should be getting subsidies or special tax breaks in the first place.

However, given that there are some that do, yes, I think it's appropriate that they be subject, not necessarily to the same rules as public entities, but to more rules than other private companies.  But I was speaking of private companies in general terms, and most of the aren't getting subsidies or special tax breaks.

[Martinus]

Although on second thought, Raz may be on to something - if nepotism is widespread enough for it to become systemic, it may actually be harmful to the public interest to let it continue, even when private companies are concerned. Plus, there is a question whether private businesses which receive public subsidy or tax relief are not in fact, to a degree, utilizing public money, and as such, should they not be subject to the same rules as public entities?

But I was speaking of private companies in general terms, and most of the aren't getting subsidies or special tax breaks.

Are you sure about it? Don't you have tax relief for start-ups in the US? Or stuff like ethanol subsidy? Or other forms of government aid to sectors or companies employing disabled people and whatnot?

[dps]

Although on second thought, Raz may be on to something - if nepotism is widespread enough for it to become systemic, it may actually be harmful to the public interest to let it continue, even when private companies are concerned. Plus, there is a question whether private businesses which receive public subsidy or tax relief are not in fact, to a degree, utilizing public money, and as such, should they not be subject to the same rules as public entities?

But I was speaking of private companies in general terms, and most of the aren't getting subsidies or special tax breaks.

Are you sure about it? Don't you have tax relief for start-ups in the US? Or stuff like ethanol subsidy? Or other forms of government aid to sectors or companies employing disabled people and whatnot?

Actually, I don't think we have tax relief for start-ups. 

I suppose that I should clarify that when I said "special tax breaks" I meant situations where a company gets, well, special treatment, tax breaks that wouldn't generally be available to others in their industry.  That's pretty rare.  Most tax breaks are targetted stuff--for example, tax credits for hiring veterans.  The idea there, of course, is to encourage companies to hire veterans.  If a company hires a vet, and gets a tax credit for that, then I still don't see any great social interest in the overall efficiency or profitablitiy of the company, so if, in addition to hiring the vet, the owner also hires his idiot nephew, I don't see that society has any reason to prohibit that.

Subsidies are a different matter, because while most tax breaks are intended to encourage or discourage certain behaviour, not bolster the profitability of individual companies or industries, most subsidies pretty much are intended to protect the profiitibility of companies (though the government generally won't admit that, and there are exceptions).

[Admiral Yi]

My guess is Marty is thinking of tax holidays for greenfield investments or relocations.