Ownership is not employment.
If the owner had died, and his son was his heir, he would inherit the company. Not nepotism.
The owner of a private company has no obligation to increase the value of his company.
I had a Cocksucker State worker come into the place I worked, actively encourage me to apply for a position he had open. Just a coincidence that I was perfectly qualified for the job, in a field that I was experienced in and also would have simply loved to have.
So, I jump through a bunch of hoops to fill out a mountain of forms and shit to get to an interview, that I fucking killed!
[spoiler]Despite my college education, heap of experience and generally perfect for the position, Cocksucker hires his fucking daughter, straight outta fucking High School, for a choice State job! Only reason I got an interview was because he needed it to appear “competitive”. Never had a fucking chance and Cocksucker wasted a shit-ton of my time and sanity.
I’m still mad. :mad:[/spoiler]
I can’t judge the rule based on the scant information. In some case employees relatives are good choices, they may be motivated to perform well to represent their families, they exhibit desirable qualities of the employee they are related to, the circumstances will change with business environment.
As for capitalism, I’m not clear what you are responding to. Capitalism is as you say, the market works out the results but it is also blind to the quality of decision before the results come in, if a company succeeds they have made good decisions, however those decisions may have been considered when they were made.
But that’s not what I’m saying, the decision to maintain ownership through nepotism may have nothing at all to do with company performance. Part of capitalism is ownership, and that gives owners the freedom to do with their property as they please. The owner knows his own family, well thought out or not he may decide his children are more trustworthy than any employee, they certainly may be more motivated than an employee to make the business succeed. There may be reasons that some employees should not be related because of the work they do, and although that may not apply to all employees the owners could reasonably decide that a single rule for all employees should apply, and it’s not unusual for different rules to apply to owners and employees, or to have different rules apply to different classes of employees either.
If you’re asking for a logical reason to have different employee and owner rules in the general case here than I don’t have one, I don’t think there’s a problem with nepotism per se, only in hiring unqualified relatives.
In what state is this legal?
It doesn’t have to be good. The owners can make decisions about their company as they see fit, as long as they don’t violate the law. So if they want to have a nepotism rule which they exempt themselves from, then that’s their choice, it’s their company.
And if the employees don’t like it, then they can go work somewhere else, that’s called freedom. And if all or most of their employees leave because of this policy, then the owners might change their policy in order to have a full staff to operate the company.
The main problem with nepotism is employee morale. If you want to piss off your employees, allow managers to hire relatives and schedule them the best shifts. There are lots of problems with nepotism, that’s why it’s prohibited in government and often in the private sector.
I can’t believe that anyone would question this.
Sometimes when employers say “no nepotism,” it’s because they don’t want to deal with headaches like employees shamelessly begging for jobs for spouses or other family members, or touchy situations where an employee’s relative applies for a job but doesn’t get it for entirely legitimate reasons (or does get the job, and everyone gossips about it), or having the lazy, entitled child of a powerful administrative officer working in your department.
I dealt with all of these situations in my career; none of them met the literal definition of nepotism, but they were massive pains in the ass anyway. It would have made life much easier if I had been able to say, “sorry, our policy prohibits that.”
I have no problem with that. I wasn’t the person who raised the “protect the value of the company argument” or the “it’s a good rule” argument.
If somebody owns a company and wants to say “I’ll do things my way because it’s my business and I’m free to run it into the ground if I want to” then that’s a legitimate argument.
There are lots of things I would do for my family that I wouldn’t do for anybody else. There are lots of ways in which I would treat my family differently than I would treat anybody else.
Why the fuck would that be any different just because it related to a company I owned?
Just a thought…
Maybe he was just going through the motions, so it would appear legit.
Pre-selection. You already know who will get the job, but you go through the pretense (while wasting everyone else’s time). It’s purely for CYA.
None that I know of, but I can tell where Cocksucker got away with it.
That’s what he did. Wasted my fucking time. Asshole. I don’t wish bad shit on folks much, but I hope this prick steps on a nail and gets lockjaw.
In every state if you aren’t willing to file a suit about it or aren’t able to actually conclusively prove it in court. Are you really going to spring for a lawyer in a situation like that, and is your lawyer going to be able to show that the guy didn’t have an apparently legitimate reason to hire the other person instead of you? There’s a huge difference between what’s legal in theory and in practice.
I’m only familiar with the situation in Kentucky, and here’s it’s unlawful for a state worker to hire (or recommend the hiring of, interview, or approve the hiring of) a family member to work in their agency. So, here, it wouldn’t be a matter of suing, just notifying the ethics commission that this guy hired his daughter, and that’d be that.
Since Kentucky tends to be slow to adopt the standards of other states, and is very conservative in general, I assumed that other states had as good or better anti-nepotism laws for their state governments. Could be that’s not the case.
When your goal is to climb the corporate ladder it’s always helpful to know who owns the ladder.
You didn’t answer my question. Would you feel obligated to do the remodel on your house? If not, how is that any different from this situation?
“Wrong” doesn’t apply here. They own the company, so they get to do what they want, depending on what their goals are. Maybe their goals are: Family is more important than the company. We’re not trying to be the absolute best company in the world.
A lawyer handling a case like this would likely work on contingency, and assuming the facts are as stated, proving that the hiring was motivated by noncompetitive factors seems trivially easy.
Maybe.
But their interest isn’t necessarily to do the best possible thing for the company, it’s to do the best possible thing for themselves.
There’s a lot to be said for learning how the company you own actually works. Maybe the company is sub-optimally managed for a while, but the scion learns how to manage a company along the way. Someday, he is going to own the company, and it’s probably a good idea if he knows how to manage a company, if only so he can hire an effective manager to do it for him if he wants.
I thought I had answered your question. I pointed out I wasn’t the person who made that argument and I posted in opposition to it.
No, I would not feel obligated to remodel my house. It’s my house and I can paint it neon purple if I want, knowing that this would lower its value. I am under no obligation to maintain the value of my property.
Again, let me remind you it was iamthewalrus who said that the owner of the company should protect its value.
I’m self-employed. I’ve got a nice little business going, and right now it’s just me. I pretty much set my own hours and choose the clients I want to work with. The economy here is booming, so I end up turning down work because if I were to take on all the possible work there is, I’d have to hire some people and I don’t want to do that anymore. Am I doing a bad job managing my operation?
You could always make it worse by hiring a family member 