3 ms·

I'm not saying CEO's and management shouldn't have their traditional responsibilities. What's wrong with a windfall to make sure employees are protected. If a

I'm not saying CEO's and management shouldn't have their traditional responsibilities. What's wrong with a windfall to make sure employees are protected. If a layoff is needed, clearly the CEO's leadership had issues - so something needs to done proportionally as severance. A large change in the lives of employees needs a large annuity fund for the laid off workers. The company can file a loan and pay it out over the next few years. Which will improve the credit score of the company. Here's another idea, for the sake of a thought experiment: the CEO may need to be fired for not assuring rising salaries and benefits for the workforce. A two-tiered performance system. Employees share voting rights along with the board, and it's by statute so all businesses must comply with it. Why not consider factoring in laborer's collective time and personal life circumstances as human beings into the equation?

erulabs 6y ago
> Why not consider factoring in ... human beings into the equation? You'd get much further in your arguments if you didn't often insinuate that others are vicious for not agreeing with you. You'd be hard pressed to find the leader who doesn't care or pretend to care about the human beings in the equation. If you choose not to believe them, OK, but it's extremely easy to dismiss someone who says "don't be evil" when you don't believe yourself to be evil.
- ColonelSanders 6y ago
  I don't see it that way. I only gave ideas. My first word was, "Idea". And even for the ideas I gave, the replies were vague and didn't cite examples of why the hypothetical was a no go. If I were to guess, the thought experiment was so different - it brought unease. Which in itself is valuable to me. People are willing to accept extreme unfairness - even if it is harmful to people (layoffs) - if they can ease their anxiety and socially conform.

erulabs 6y ago

> Why not consider factoring in ... human beings into the equation? You'd get much further in your arguments if you didn't often insinuate that others are vicious for not agreeing with you. You'd be hard pressed to find the leader who doesn't care or pretend to care about the human beings in the equation. If you choose not to believe them, OK, but it's extremely easy to dismiss someone who says "don't be evil" when you don't believe yourself to be evil.

ColonelSanders 6y ago
I don't see it that way. I only gave ideas. My first word was, "Idea". And even for the ideas I gave, the replies were vague and didn't cite examples of why the hypothetical was a no go. If I were to guess, the thought experiment was so different - it brought unease. Which in itself is valuable to me. People are willing to accept extreme unfairness - even if it is harmful to people (layoffs) - if they can ease their anxiety and socially conform.