Poland is now having another nepotism scandal, with friends and family of politicians getting well paid jobs in the government bureaucracy and stuff controlled by the state and municipalities (e.g. hospitals, schools, state owned companies etc.)
So I wanted to ask whether nepotism is ubiquitous in your countries and if not, how do you prevent it?
In Portugal, it is the norm - you *cannot* reach certain levels in our society unless you're born into the 'right' families. If you're not a highborn, forget about the top spots. Personal merit is irrelevant.
The highborns, of course, are appointed regardless of merit - they regard those places as rightfully theirs/of their families.
Our current PM, for example, only had a real job at age 37 - before that, when he left the univerity he was appointed city councillor by his family's friends at the Social Democratic Party for 4 years (and he never bothered to show up at city hall), and then he spent the next 10 years as VP in his Fathers' company (where he never did anything except get a huge paycheck at the end of the month). Only at 37 did he took a high position at one of his daddy's friends' company.
Government people giving their friends and relatives jobs isn't a huge problem in Sweden. Sure it happens but it's not the traditional Swedish way of being corrupt.
And of course generally speaking Sweden has only minor problems with corruption compared with the world average.
Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2012, 10:48:18 AM
So I wanted to ask whether nepotism is ubiquitous in your countries...
Yes.
Hardly ubiquitous, but it does happen. It can be a particular problem in the rather nebulous world of political appointments.
Your run of the mill public service opening has a large, professional process for hiring people which is supposed to weed out any such thing. And by and large it does a good job of it. But you have a number of positions, which in overall proportion are small, but still constitute a fair number, which are appointed directly by cabinet. Heads of various tribbunals, judges, that kind of thing. And the temptation to make a nepotism appointment is high.
That being said... there is some merit to nepotism. If I'm hiring for my company, I know that my nephew is likely to be more loyal to the company than a stranger. I know that if I hire my trusted employee's wife, that means they are both more likely to stay.
As long as the potential nepotee (is that a word?) is qualified. Trouble is when you hire an unqualified family member...
Can't fight it short of guillotines.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 11:42:52 AM
Can't fight it short of guillotines.
and even then, as the executioner will most likely be someone who got the position thanks to his uncle.
Here sons of politicians seem to think they should also be politicians. But at least the electorate has to agree.
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
I know that if I hire my trusted employee's wife, that means they are both more likely to stay.
Danger! If you lose one (such as if you have to terminate one, have a disagreement leading to a resignation, general job dissatisfaction, etc.) you will probably lose both.
But you have a point.
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
I know that if I hire my trusted employee's wife, that means they are both more likely to stay.
What you know for sure is that your trusted employee now has divided loyalty. That sort of thing always has problems.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 27, 2012, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
I know that if I hire my trusted employee's wife, that means they are both more likely to stay.
Danger! If you lose one (such as if you have to terminate one, have a disagreement leading to a resignation, general job dissatisfaction, etc.) you will probably lose both.
Also, if they divorce, one of them's probably moving on.
In my company there are firewall rules about this. It's a big no-no to have family members working with you. We did however, hire one gay guy's boyfriend. They've been living together for like ten years so I guess they'd be married if they could. Lucky for them they can't or the second guy couldn't work there. He just got promoted actually.
Quote from: ulmont on July 27, 2012, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 27, 2012, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 11:41:02 AM
I know that if I hire my trusted employee's wife, that means they are both more likely to stay.
Danger! If you lose one (such as if you have to terminate one, have a disagreement leading to a resignation, general job dissatisfaction, etc.) you will probably lose both.
Also, if they divorce, one of them's probably moving on.
Or worse, both stay put. :ph34r:
I don't see nepotism in private businesses as being a problem. I mean, it might be a problem in an individual company if the family members being hired are incompetant or trouble-makers or somesuch, but it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
Nepotism in government hiring is a different story.
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
I don't see nepotism in private businesses as being a problem.
Maybe not "family" nepotism, but certainly "friends" nepotism.
Quotebut it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
The fuck it isn't.
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
I don't see nepotism in private businesses as being a problem. I mean, it might be a problem in an individual company if the family members being hired are incompetant or trouble-makers or somesuch, but it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
To some extent, I think it is a problem. Corporate nepotism technically embezzles from the shareholders. I don't think that embezzlement by corporate officers is one of those inefficiencies we trust the free market to solve.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
I don't see nepotism in private businesses as being a problem.
Maybe not "family" nepotism, but certainly "friends" nepotism.
Quotebut it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
The fuck it isn't.
Why?
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:42:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
but it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
The fuck it isn't.
Why?
"Friends" nepotism is just as damaging as "family" nepotism; it possesses the potential to cloud judgment and blur loyalty.
And why is it appropriate for society to attempt to fight it? Because it was fighting that exact kind of bullshit that was the bedrock of the fucking American Revolution, that's why.
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
I don't see nepotism in private businesses as being a problem. I mean, it might be a problem in an individual company if the family members being hired are incompetant or trouble-makers or somesuch, but it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
Nepotism in government hiring is a different story.
You would take a different view if you were the owner or shareholder of said company and the people you hire to run the company engage in nepotism.
I don't think nepotism's limited to the government, though it's a problem there. I think it's far more widespread and maybe even more damaging outside of government :mellow:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2012, 07:07:38 PM
You would take a different view if you were the owner or shareholder of said company and the people you hire to run the company engage in nepotism.
And if nepotism becomes so widespread that it starts to hinder social mobility then it's a problem for everyone, private sector or not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2012, 07:51:40 PM
And if nepotism becomes so widespread that it starts to hinder social mobility then it's a problem for everyone, private sector or not.
This. Meritocracy, not birth right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 08:07:19 PM
This. Meritocracy, not birth right.
Indeed. I also think that this is absolutely essential if you've got high social inequality (like the UK and US). If the meritocracy bit stops working then there inequality becomes intolerable.
The Romans believed in nepotism, in large part because most Roman (political) positions were only good for a year, and you couldn't run for them again until at least a decade had passed. So if the asshole and his asshole cousins, kids, and grandkids fucked everything up for a year, you likely would never have to deal with their shit again, but definitely for at least 10 years.
Perhaps it's a question of transparency - to what extent is there a requirement in your countries for public employees to e.g. disclose their family ties with e.g. politicians who have a say in their appointment? Or to disclose their salaries?
Here a problem is stuff like a niece of a minister getting a useless "consultancy" job created for her in a state owned company and being paid good money for it (at least by average Pole's standards).
Of course it cuts the other way too - if you have a powerful dad, you might be the most qualified person but everyone thinks you are a useless tit who got his job thanks to family connections.
Swedish government is very open with information because of the Principle of Public Access, which was introduced by the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2012, 02:23:04 AM
Swedish government is very open with information because of the Principle of Public Access, which was introduced by the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.
Yeah but then (or is it Norway?) everyone can view everyone's tax statement, too, so Swedes are weird that way. Catholic and post-communist countries are much more awkward about making a lot of stuff publicly known.
Trying to stop nepotism? Poland can't even do 1%ers right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2012, 07:07:38 PM
Quote from: dps on July 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
I don't see nepotism in private businesses as being a problem. I mean, it might be a problem in an individual company if the family members being hired are incompetant or trouble-makers or somesuch, but it's not a problem for society as a whole, and it's not something that's appropriate for society to attempt to fight.
Nepotism in government hiring is a different story.
You would take a different view if you were the owner or shareholder of said company and the people you hire to run the company engage in nepotism.
No, then it's time for the shareholders to either make the board curtail the nepotism or to replace the board members.
And yes, I know that shareholder's revolts rarely accomplish much, but if the people who own the company don't give a shit about how it's doing, why should the rest of us? This sounds like something along the lines of the "too big to fail bullshit" to me
When I become liege lord of Europe, I'll make sure my vassals eliminate corruption in their domains.
My liege lord would likely require this of me anyway.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2012, 07:51:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2012, 07:07:38 PM
You would take a different view if you were the owner or shareholder of said company and the people you hire to run the company engage in nepotism.
And if nepotism becomes so widespread that it starts to hinder social mobility then it's a problem for everyone, private sector or not.
I agree Sheilbh.
Strikes me as odd that people would consider private nepotism different the public nepotism.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 10:17:17 PM
Strikes me as odd that people would consider private nepotism different the public nepotism.
Why is that? Don't you see a difference between me hiring my brother to help me run my small business and my appointing him to a publically funded political position?
Raz is a retard.
News at eleven.
Quote from: sbr on July 28, 2012, 10:47:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 10:17:17 PM
Strikes me as odd that people would consider private nepotism different the public nepotism.
Why is that? Don't you see a difference between me hiring my brother to help me run my small business and my appointing him to a publically funded political position?
Corruption is corruption.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 11:25:55 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 28, 2012, 10:47:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 10:17:17 PM
Strikes me as odd that people would consider private nepotism different the public nepotism.
Why is that? Don't you see a difference between me hiring my brother to help me run my small business and my appointing him to a publically funded political position?
Corruption is corruption.
Looks like we have different definitions of corruption.
If something is considered corruption in one organization for one person why should it be different then another in another?
Because I don't think it is corruption to hire who I want to help me run my privately owned business.
Quote from: sbr on July 28, 2012, 11:35:48 PM
Because I don't think it is corruption to hire who I want to help me run my privately owned business.
What if someone in the lower ranks in your company hires his best buddy?
Quote from: sbr on July 28, 2012, 11:35:48 PM
Because I don't think it is corruption to hire who I want to help me run my privately owned business.
Yet presumably you would think it corruption for someone to do so in a public capacity? Is there some sort of purify that expunges any hint of corruption when you go from public to private?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 28, 2012, 11:35:48 PM
Because I don't think it is corruption to hire who I want to help me run my privately owned business.
Yet presumably you would think it corruption for someone to do so in a public capacity? Is there some sort of purify that expunges any hint of corruption when you go from public to private?
In one case he's using his own money, in another someone else's (the taxpayers').
Who pays them
See syt's answer
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?
Public nepotism is bad because of the diminished service we recieve for our tax dolar. Potentially. It is of course possible that the police chief's nephew is a crime fighting machine without equal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2012, 11:45:59 PM
Public nepotism is bad because of the diminished service we recieve for our tax dolar. Potentially. It is of course possible that the police chief's nephew is a crime fighting machine without equal.
And I thought you were going to come in and warn Sbr not to answer the question.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 11:48:59 PM
And I thought you were going to come in and warn Sbr not to answer the question.
Maybe you should consider adjusting your thinking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2012, 11:51:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 11:48:59 PM
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?
He's all yours sbr.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 11:43:29 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on July 29, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2012, 12:28:17 AM
Quote from: dps on July 29, 2012, 12:05:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2012, 12:52:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 29, 2012, 12:20:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 11:43:29 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 01:31:03 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on July 29, 2012, 01:37:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 01:31:03 AM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 01:40:24 AM
Quote from: dps on July 29, 2012, 01:37:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 01:31:03 AM
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).
My guess is Marty is thinking of tax holidays for greenfield investments or relocations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 12:00:54 AM
He's all yours sbr.
Hell no. I hit eject with my agree to disagree post.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fimages_blogs%2Fdangerroom%2F2009%2F07%2Feject8.jpg&hash=aadb551ca7966bc8164d91d7b7797d8d57a68aec)
dps, I'm not convinced. While these companies get this aid as a part of a broader program, they still benefit from public funds (whether by getting them or by paying less taxes). So if, in the case of public entities, one would be misusing public funds by hiring relatives, one would be doing the same when benefiting from a public program (to use your example about tax breaks for hiring vets - if everyone was only hiring vets from one's family, but refusing to hire more qualified vets who are strangers, one would be perverting the public interest of this program).
I guess the broader point is this: can any business in this day and age really say it is entirely private and does not benefit from public funds one way or another.
I guess Raz convinced me. :wacko:
That's actually a pretty bad example. The purpose of that program is to get vets hired. They don't care if they're highly qualified or not.
Besides that - doesn't there need to be some proof that hiring the relative/friend was an example of picking a less qualified candidate?
Timmay has a son who's about to start posting on the forum in his absence ?
<_<
I give up. :(
A lot of people in my company are related to one another. Most (but not all of them) are qualified to do the jobs they're hired for so no one complains much. There is one dumbass - he looks like a football player + caveman who is a payment specialist in our accounting department. He doesn't capitalize or punctuate his sentences at all and that makes me really sad. :(
u mad bro
I've seen the creeping internetization of memos. Instead of 'more', I've seen Moar.
I just wish flogging was still allowed.
Dps and Yi, I'm curious, are your opinions of public nepotism and private nepotism informed by the fact you have a "stake" in government run organizations but don't have much of one in the majority of private concerns? Would you be less amendable to private nepotism if it was was a company you were heavily invested in or perhaps employed at where the CEO was hiring his inbred witless cousins to management positions?
I took from dps' comments that he was referring to a privately owned company. Of course if we're talking about a publicly traded company nepotism can be a betrayal of fiduciary duty--to shareholders, not the public at large.
I've hired family. Done it in the past, will do it in the future. Don't really see how it can be stopped, unless we are DG's magic gumball world of neutral hiring practices.
Tend to be more leery of hiring friends.
And in gub'mit, local gub'mit is full of of the nephews and nieces. Local gub'mit is usually shit anyways. Fuck it.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 02:56:00 AM
dps, I'm not convinced. While these companies get this aid as a part of a broader program, they still benefit from public funds (whether by getting them or by paying less taxes). So if, in the case of public entities, one would be misusing public funds by hiring relatives, one would be doing the same when benefiting from a public program (to use your example about tax breaks for hiring vets - if everyone was only hiring vets from one's family, but refusing to hire more qualified vets who are strangers, one would be perverting the public interest of this program).
I guess the broader point is this: can any business in this day and age really say it is entirely private and does not benefit from public funds one way or another.
I guess Raz convinced me. :wacko:
As long as the funds supplied by the public treasury are being used for the purpose they are intended for, I don't see any reason that society at large should be concerned about what funds from other sources are being used for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 03:26:42 PM
I took from dps' comments that he was referring to a privately owned company. Of course if we're talking about a publicly traded company nepotism can be a betrayal of fiduciary duty--to shareholders, not the public at large.
And if you were an employee of a privately owned company that where management was all from the same inbred family blocking further advancement and possibly putting your job at risk, would that cause you to bear ill will towards their nepotism?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2012, 08:07:18 PM
And if you were an employee of a privately owned company that where management was all from the same inbred family blocking further advancement and possibly putting your job at risk, would that cause you to bear ill will towards their nepotism?
Probably. But if it were you instead of me I wouldn't have a dog in the fight.
That's what I thought.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 29, 2012, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 03:26:42 PM
I took from dps' comments that he was referring to a privately owned company. Of course if we're talking about a publicly traded company nepotism can be a betrayal of fiduciary duty--to shareholders, not the public at large.
And if you were an employee of a privately owned company that where management was all from the same inbred family blocking further advancement and possibly putting your job at risk, would that cause you to bear ill will towards their nepotism?
Sure, but I don't think it's society's job to solve all of my problems for me.
Yeah, it's the old "It's only corruption cause it affects me". I understand.
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Shame we are talking about nepotism and not you trying to get in a chicks pants.
:lol:
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that you're particularly hopeless at night.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:53:14 AM
:lol:
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that you're particularly hopeless at night.
I figured you saw this coming yesterday. I'm a bit shocked you walked into that one. :D
And yes, I am conceding I'm dicking around.
Nepotism is the devil and needs stamping out.
One problem is though...how can you tell when its nepotism at work (i.e. I hired him because he is my friend) and when its just a fact of knowing that person better (i.e. I was at uni at him and from that know he is clever and a good team player).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me
That would be pretty cool, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. :lol:
No. You're apparently forgetting that you've had some doozies.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:57:45 AM
Yeah, it's the old "It's only corruption cause it affects me". I understand.
That might, if you really twist what he said, fit Yi's answer to your question, but not mine.
Unwise nepotism in privately-held companies is self-correcting; these businesses are in a competitive environment, and incompetence is punished (properly) by their competitors, not some mythical omniscient government bureaucrat. There are plenty of examples of junior taking over the company just because he is dad's son, and driving the company out of business. The employees "suffer" just like they do in all cases of companies going bankrupt, in that they then go to work for the competitor (or, at least the good ones do, and who wants the government to protect incompetent workers).
The people who unwisely engage in nepotism are the types who unwisely engage in other business decision-making. Let 'em bankrupt themselves; saving them from themselves isn't the government's business.
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. :lol:
Your handful of functioning neurons have given up out of loneliness. The analogy is flawless. It demonstrates perfectly that not every frustrated wish is an injustice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 10:20:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. :lol:
Your handful of functioning neurons have given up out of loneliness. The analogy is flawless. It demonstrates perfectly that not every frustrated wish is an injustice.
Well we were talking about things that are illegal. Which part of your analogy is comparable to a crime being committed?
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
Unwise nepotism in privately-held companies is self-correcting; these businesses are in a competitive environment, and incompetence is punished (properly) by their competitors, not some mythical omniscient government bureaucrat. There are plenty of examples of junior taking over the company just because he is dad's son, and driving the company out of business. The employees "suffer" just like they do in all cases of companies going bankrupt, in that they then go to work for the competitor (or, at least the good ones do, and who wants the government to protect incompetent workers).
The people who unwisely engage in nepotism are the types who unwisely engage in other business decision-making. Let 'em bankrupt themselves; saving them from themselves isn't the government's business.
Article of faith.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 11:43:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 10:20:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. :lol:
Your handful of functioning neurons have given up out of loneliness. The analogy is flawless. It demonstrates perfectly that not every frustrated wish is an injustice.
Well we were talking about things that are illegal. Which part of your analogy is comparable to a crime being committed?
Nepotism in private businesses isn't illegal.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
Unwise nepotism in privately-held companies is self-correcting; these businesses are in a competitive environment, and incompetence is punished (properly) by their competitors, not some mythical omniscient government bureaucrat. There are plenty of examples of junior taking over the company just because he is dad's son, and driving the company out of business. The employees "suffer" just like they do in all cases of companies going bankrupt, in that they then go to work for the competitor (or, at least the good ones do, and who wants the government to protect incompetent workers).
The people who unwisely engage in nepotism are the types who unwisely engage in other business decision-making. Let 'em bankrupt themselves; saving them from themselves isn't the government's business.
Yeah, and companies who form cartels lose their competitive edge and get outcompeted by mavericks; restaurants that serve filthy food with rats running everywhere go out of business replaced by those with sanitary conditions; businesses that refuse to serve black people get boycotted and die; just as factories who discharge toxic waste to rivers; and banks which peddle mortgages to people with no credible credit rating and then bundle them together as A-rating securities simply go bankrupt, replaced by more sound businesses. :homestar:
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
Unwise nepotism in privately-held companies is self-correcting; these businesses are in a competitive environment, and incompetence is punished (properly) by their competitors, not some mythical omniscient government bureaucrat. There are plenty of examples of junior taking over the company just because he is dad's son, and driving the company out of business. The employees "suffer" just like they do in all cases of companies going bankrupt, in that they then go to work for the competitor (or, at least the good ones do, and who wants the government to protect incompetent workers).
The people who unwisely engage in nepotism are the types who unwisely engage in other business decision-making. Let 'em bankrupt themselves; saving them from themselves isn't the government's business.
Yeah, and companies who form cartels lose their competitive edge and get outcompeted by mavericks; restaurants that serve filthy food with rats running everywhere go out of business replaced by those with sanitary conditions; businesses that refuse to serve black people get boycotted and die; just as factories who discharge toxic waste to rivers; and banks which peddle mortgages to people with no credible credit rating and then bundle them together as A-rating securities simply go bankrupt, replaced by more sound businesses. :homestar:
Fair enough.
Now show us why private sector nepotism is anywhere near as bad as any of the problems you have mentioned.
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 11:43:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 10:20:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 01:49:22 AM
:lol: No you don't.
If I'm trying to bang some chick and she picks another guy, I'm disappointed. But I don't think it's reasonable that the government pass a law that says she has to bang me and not the other guy and it's stupid to describe the chick as corrupt. Similarly if two random dudes are competing for a chick I don't particularly care who wins out.
Worst. Analogy. Ever. :lol:
Your handful of functioning neurons have given up out of loneliness. The analogy is flawless. It demonstrates perfectly that not every frustrated wish is an injustice.
Well we were talking about things that are illegal. Which part of your analogy is comparable to a crime being committed?
Nepotism in private businesses isn't illegal.
But it is in government, so there needs to be something illegal in Yi's analogy for it to comparable.
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 12:03:50 PM
Yeah, and companies who form cartels lose their competitive edge and get outcompeted by mavericks; restaurants that serve filthy food with rats running everywhere go out of business replaced by those with sanitary conditions; businesses that refuse to serve black people get boycotted and die; just as factories who discharge toxic waste to rivers; and banks which peddle mortgages to people with no credible credit rating and then bundle them together as A-rating securities simply go bankrupt, replaced by more sound businesses. :homestar:
:huh: Okay, if you say so.
But I have no idea why you quoted me before engaging in your absurd screed, unless this was just another strawman argument.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 12:05:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 30, 2012, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
Unwise nepotism in privately-held companies is self-correcting; these businesses are in a competitive environment, and incompetence is punished (properly) by their competitors, not some mythical omniscient government bureaucrat. There are plenty of examples of junior taking over the company just because he is dad's son, and driving the company out of business. The employees "suffer" just like they do in all cases of companies going bankrupt, in that they then go to work for the competitor (or, at least the good ones do, and who wants the government to protect incompetent workers).
The people who unwisely engage in nepotism are the types who unwisely engage in other business decision-making. Let 'em bankrupt themselves; saving them from themselves isn't the government's business.
Yeah, and companies who form cartels lose their competitive edge and get outcompeted by mavericks; restaurants that serve filthy food with rats running everywhere go out of business replaced by those with sanitary conditions; businesses that refuse to serve black people get boycotted and die; just as factories who discharge toxic waste to rivers; and banks which peddle mortgages to people with no credible credit rating and then bundle them together as A-rating securities simply go bankrupt, replaced by more sound businesses. :homestar:
Fair enough.
Now show us why private sector nepotism is anywhere near as bad as any of the problems you have mentioned.
Shouldn't you take that up with Grumbler? He's the one that said "unwise nepotism" would rightfully destroy companies. Marty seems to be listing other unsound business practices with the implication that these, often worse practices, aren't being destroyed by the market.
The problem with Marti's argument is that if companies rife with nepotism are not destroyed then why should anyone care? They are still employing people and producing tax revenue.
Grumbler's argument assumes that creative destruction will take place and everyone will be better for it. That is the assumption that should be the area of debate. The assumption may well be correct. Certainly there are a lot of economists that would agree with it. There are others who disagree.
But Marti has completely missed the point and gone off in a rather awkward analogy - shocking I know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 12:23:21 PM
The problem with Marti's argument is that if companies rife with nepotism are not destroyed then why should anyone care? They are still employing people and producing tax revenue.
Grumbler's argument assumes that creative destruction will take place and everyone will be better for it. That is the assumption that should be the area of debate. The assumption may well be correct. Certainly there are a lot of economists that would agree with it. There are others who disagree.
But Marti has completely missed the point and gone off in a rather awkward analogy - shocking I know.
:huh: Marti's post was supposed to be making
analogies to a company doing something to reduce its competitive advantage?
Didn't see that one at all. The analogies aren't just awkward, they are non sequiturs. Except maybe the one about the restaurant with the rats running around. Those don't stay in business any longer than companies who put bonehead friends or relatives in charge of important business interests.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
But it is in government, so there needs to be something illegal in Yi's analogy for it to comparable.
:huh:
The three of you have been discussing nepotism in private businesses. I don't recall anyway saying they were in favor of nepotism in government.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 12:45:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
But it is in government, so there needs to be something illegal in Yi's analogy for it to comparable.
:huh:
The three of you have been discussing nepotism in private businesses. I don't recall anyway saying they were in favor of nepotism in government.
I was questioning why nepotism is okay in one and bad for the other other.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 12:45:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
But it is in government, so there needs to be something illegal in Yi's analogy for it to comparable.
:huh:
The three of you have been discussing nepotism in private businesses. I don't recall anyway saying they were in favor of nepotism in government.
I was questioning why nepotism is okay in one and bad for the other other.
Yi answered that before the analogy.
Before his awesome analogy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 04:02:08 PM
Before his awesome analogy.
Your analogy was awesome.
:weep:
Yi must feel like that guy at the end of It's a Wonderful Life, when the whole town offers charitable donations to him.
As to the subject at hand:
Public sector and political nepotism is generally pretty bad and should be avoided as much as possible. If it can't be avoided due to the political process, nepotism appointments should be limited as much as possible to harmless ceremonial positions (like the Canadian Senate) rather than to positions of real responsibility (like being the head of disaster relief or regulatory agencies or whatever). Technocrats should be subject to review by politicians and the public will, but let them do their technocratic duties in peace.
In private companies... well, I've worked in companies where nepotism and cliques carried the day and it sucked. I don't think it's a particularly efficient way to do business. But I don't see why it should be the business of any kind of law unless it gets to the point where it significantly hinders social mobility. Has it gotten to that point?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2012, 05:30:06 PM
:weep:
:huh:
I liked your analogy. It was a perfectly fine analogy, made awesome by the fact that involved getting into chicks pants.
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2012, 05:34:25 PM
:huh:
I liked your analogy. It was a perfectly fine analogy, made awesome by the fact that involved getting into chicks pants.
Tears of joy. :secret:
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2012, 05:34:25 PM
made awesome by the fact that involved getting into chicks pants.
Getting into chicks pant
by federal law, no less. HAWT
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2012, 12:05:42 PM
Fair enough.
Now show us why private sector nepotism is anywhere near as bad as any of the problems you have mentioned.
As I say, if it becomes so systemic as to undermine social mobility. Then it becomes a public problem.
I am working for a huge multinational company and nepotism happens. The company is so big that individual cases of nepotism don't matter as virtually no employee is important enough to singlehandedly change the fortune of the company. Despite it being a privately-owned company, I consider that a problem for two reasons:
1) The actual owners of the company, the shareholders, have zero influence on these decisions so even if they harm their interests, they have no way to realistically stop it. The shareholders elect the supervisory board and thus have indirect influence on the CEO and other corporate officers. But the management level below that is beyond their reach.
2) It is not good for employee satisfaction if promotions are based on nepotism and that harms the company as a whole.
Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2012, 11:46:55 AM
I am working for a huge multinational company and nepotism happens. The company is so big that individual cases of nepotism don't matter as virtually no employee is important enough to singlehandedly change the fortune of the company. Despite it being a privately-owned company, I consider that a problem for two reasons:
1) The actual owners of the company, the shareholders, have zero influence on these decisions so even if they harm their interests, they have no way to realistically stop it. The shareholders elect the supervisory board and thus have indirect influence on the CEO and other corporate officers. But the management level below that is beyond their reach.
2) It is not good for employee satisfaction if promotions are based on nepotism and that harms the company as a whole.
That's a far cry from making it illegal though.
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
In private companies... well, I've worked in companies where nepotism and cliques carried the day and it sucked. I don't think it's a particularly efficient way to do business. But I don't see why it should be the business of any kind of law unless it gets to the point where it significantly hinders social mobility. Has it gotten to that point?
I think it should not be regulated by law. However, it could be part of the private regulations a corporation gives itself (not sure how these are called in English? Articles of association? Operating Agreement?) as it is in the interests of the shareholders.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 11:54:52 AM
That's a far cry from making it illegal though.
Yes. See my answer to Jacob which I wrote before I saw your post.
Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2012, 11:56:00 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 30, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
In private companies... well, I've worked in companies where nepotism and cliques carried the day and it sucked. I don't think it's a particularly efficient way to do business. But I don't see why it should be the business of any kind of law unless it gets to the point where it significantly hinders social mobility. Has it gotten to that point?
I think it should not be regulated by law. However, it could be part of the private regulations a corporation gives itself (not sure how these are called in English? Articles of association? Operating Agreement?) as it is in the interests of the shareholders.
It is definitely a part of the wider problem of corporate governance.
But in this jurisdiction and IIRC others as well there are regulations against nepotism. They are contained within Human Rights Codes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of family status. If someone does not get a job/promotion because of nepotism a complaint of discrimination is a viable option. Of course the defence will always be the other person was the better candidate but it at least provides a remedy where there is proof to the contrary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2012, 12:13:20 PM
But in this jurisdiction and IIRC others as well there are regulations against nepotism. They are contained within Human Rights Codes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of family status. If someone does not get a job/promotion because of nepotism a complaint of discrimination is a viable option. Of course the defence will always be the other person was the better candidate but it at least provides a remedy where there is proof to the contrary.
There's probably one hundred ways you can game the system.
Government jobs are all supposed to be open competitions - you can not create a position with one specific person in mind (no matter how well qualified that person may be). But when you see a job posting that has some weird super-specific requirements and an absurdly short closing date...
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2012, 12:13:20 PM
But in this jurisdiction and IIRC others as well there are regulations against nepotism. They are contained within Human Rights Codes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of family status. If someone does not get a job/promotion because of nepotism a complaint of discrimination is a viable option. Of course the defence will always be the other person was the better candidate but it at least provides a remedy where there is proof to the contrary.
Okay. As far as I can tell the relevant EU directive on job discrimination does not prohibit discrimination based on family status. Only disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion and age are excluded. However it does stipulate that the burden of proof is with the party sued for discrimination.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2012, 12:22:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2012, 12:13:20 PM
But in this jurisdiction and IIRC others as well there are regulations against nepotism. They are contained within Human Rights Codes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of family status. If someone does not get a job/promotion because of nepotism a complaint of discrimination is a viable option. Of course the defence will always be the other person was the better candidate but it at least provides a remedy where there is proof to the contrary.
There's probably one hundred ways you can game the system.
Government jobs are all supposed to be open competitions - you can not create a position with one specific person in mind (no matter how well qualified that person may be). But when you see a job posting that has some weird super-specific requirements and an absurdly short closing date...
There is always potential for rules to be abused. But that doesnt diminish the need for the rule nor is that a good argument for not creating the rule.
That's what that means? I would have thought family status has to do with whether you are married and/or have children. Not if you are related to someone at the company.
Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2012, 12:13:20 PM
But in this jurisdiction and IIRC others as well there are regulations against nepotism. They are contained within Human Rights Codes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of family status. If someone does not get a job/promotion because of nepotism a complaint of discrimination is a viable option. Of course the defence will always be the other person was the better candidate but it at least provides a remedy where there is proof to the contrary.
Okay. As far as I can tell the relevant EU directive on job discrimination does not prohibit discrimination based on family status. Only disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion and age are excluded. However it does stipulate that the burden of proof is with the party sued for discrimination.
Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union seems to cover it.
QuoteNon-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
Indeed these provisions are wider than merely family status.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 01:11:31 PM
That's what that means? I would have thought family status has to do with whether you are married and/or have children. Not if you are related to someone at the company.
Family status has been interpreted to mean not having such family status - ie nepotism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2012, 01:14:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 01:11:31 PM
That's what that means? I would have thought family status has to do with whether you are married and/or have children. Not if you are related to someone at the company.
Family status has been interpreted to mean not having such family status - ie nepotism.
Gotcha.