5 ms·

By that logic, you wouldn't fire an underperforming employee, because it could negatively affect their family and kids? I'm not saying getting fired and going

By that logic, you wouldn't fire an underperforming employee, because it could negatively affect their family and kids? I'm not saying getting fired and going to prison have equivalent effects, but expecting that no person should be punished because it can detrimentally affect people close to them doesn't seem like a reasonable argument.

cbanek 9y ago
That's an interesting point. The big difference between prison and business are that the business is out to make a profit from you being there. If that's not happening, then sure, you should be let go. You could say the same thing about downsizing employees, since they are not even underperforming, but you don't need them anymore. It's not a business place to take up the slack for society. That's government's job. Do I think there's a place for government to provide unemployment and welfare benefits for families? Yes, and they do. The point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between being punished because it's good for society, and punished to provide a sense of vengeance or justice for the victim. We should isolate people that are a danger to society, like murderers. But as soon as it's about the "feeling of justice" for the victim, emotions get complicated and are hard to measure and be fair about. What we really need is all this in balance and to look at the macro level, as well as the micro, and try to find something that works.
jononor 9y ago
If the employee didn't have any other good options, and the company could survive it, then certainly. Of course this is easy for me to say.. In Norway unemployment benefits are good an unemployment rate low, so it's quite likely that the person would be fine. But even so, it is less likely that someone would be fired for 'underperforming' compared to say the US.

5 ms·

By that logic, you wouldn't fire an underperforming employee, because it could negatively affect their family and kids? I'm not saying getting fired and going

by smallnamespace 9y ago

cbanek 9y ago
That's an interesting point. The big difference between prison and business are that the business is out to make a profit from you being there. If that's not happening, then sure, you should be let go. You could say the same thing about downsizing employees, since they are not even underperforming, but you don't need them anymore. It's not a business place to take up the slack for society. That's government's job. Do I think there's a place for government to provide unemployment and welfare benefits for families? Yes, and they do. The point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between being punished because it's good for society, and punished to provide a sense of vengeance or justice for the victim. We should isolate people that are a danger to society, like murderers. But as soon as it's about the "feeling of justice" for the victim, emotions get complicated and are hard to measure and be fair about. What we really need is all this in balance and to look at the macro level, as well as the micro, and try to find something that works.
jononor 9y ago
If the employee didn't have any other good options, and the company could survive it, then certainly. Of course this is easy for me to say.. In Norway unemployment benefits are good an unemployment rate low, so it's quite likely that the person would be fine. But even so, it is less likely that someone would be fired for 'underperforming' compared to say the US.