6 ms·

> hire quickly and fire quickly This kind of mentality is not conducive to a well-functioning nation with people who have dependents and need stability.

plank_time 6y ago
Saying that it isn’t conducive to an entire nation is a bit of an over-dramatization, don’t you think? I think a generous severance makes up for that. Plus people would know what they are getting into, just like Netflix. If you don’t want the risk/return you don’t have to apply or accept a job there.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > Saying that it isn’t conducive to an entire nation is a bit of an over-dramatization, don’t you think? I don't think so. > I think a generous severance makes up for that. That's your opinion. But what you think is generous isn't necessarily what others think is generous. > Plus people would know what they are getting into, just like Netflix. I disagree. > If you don’t want the risk/return you don’t have to apply or accept a job there. The risk/return needs to be clear though and hirefast/firefast isn't always clear.
namdnay 6y ago
If the nation is well-functioning, getting fired isn’t the end of the world. If your job is independant of your healthcare and you have several years of allowance to seek another one it’s fine to try out a few jobs before finding what sticks
dillondoyle 6y ago
I would reverse it. The nation is not conducive to business if it can't provide healthcare and safety nets for those without work or in between jobs. In the US we are held hostage with healthcare based on our employers - if you're even lucky enough to have a stable job with benefits.
- splithalf 6y ago
  To say nothing of the universities.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  Show me one coutry who pays unemployed benefit at the level of the job you need to leave because of that insane hire fast fire fast.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    In France your jobseeker's allowance is 80% of the average salary of your last 12 working months. Whether your last employer was for 10 years or 10 days. It starts slowly ramping down after the second year of searching I think
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      French unemployment has been well above US unemployment since the 70s. This isn’t a free lunch. If the state makes employing people more expensive employers will employ fewer people.
      - paledot 6y ago
        Given sufficiently generous unemployment benefits (ie. mincome), I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
        barry-cotter 6y ago
        Because most people who do work are being productive, doing useful things, serving their fellows. And being unemployed if you’re of working age and without some other productive role is awful. Unemployment is bad for society generally and for the unemployed. Maybe one day we’ll get to fully automated luxury gay space communism but France is not there. Those extra unemployed people are having their talents and productivity wasted by economic mismanagement.
- 6y ago
ravi-delia 6y ago
I definitely think that if every employer used Netflix's strategy there would be issues, but if the job market had more churn stability would take on a different meaning. Imagine that it was expected to change jobs frequently if you or your employer was unhappy; I'd bet lots of people would be way happier. The problem is of course that even if you have every reason to think that some other place would hire you, you need a degree of slack to begin with. There aren't any easy answers there, but that's where I'd say an expanded social safety net should come in.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
These arguments are silly. If you’re competent you’ve got nothing to worry about. If not, then something to work on. Incredible hiring risk aversion is what makes finding a job for everyone a shitshow. Definitely not an efficient market as it stands. If it weren’t for an easy to hire organization that gave me a chance, I’d likely be homeless.
gnopgnip 6y ago
In the SF bay area for these roles the job market is much more fluid than most places
m0llusk 6y ago
Past patterns can be an interesting contrast. During WWII generals were hired and fired quickly. Because the practice was pervasive there was no big stigma to being fired and there were always alternative positions to try. It also helped that there was a general structure which was not explicit or required but was broadly exhibited. That is, new hires were expected to show basic proficiency within two weeks and to make a significant contribution with in six weeks. Since a relatively quick test of skills was built in to the management structure there was less pressure on initial evaluation.
tofuahdude 6y ago
It isn't a company's responsibility to create a well-functioning nation.
- omginternets 6y ago
  Says who, Milton Friedman? Surely companies have some minimal responsibility to act ethically, and surely behaving in a way that causes social dysfunction is not ethical.
  - heartbeats 6y ago
    It's the responsibility of the government to create a well-functioning nation, and to use corporations to this end. But to suggest that people or the corporations have a direct responsibility, is to shift the responsibility away from those who are on 'our side', and to those who are either neutral or its primary victims.
    - omginternets 6y ago
      Surely every stakeholder has some degree of responsibility in the proper functioning of any system. By your reasoning, I am free to degrade public infrastructure such as roads because it is not my responsibility to build them. Equivalently: I am morally justified in committing crimes since I am not a police officer.
      - heartbeats 6y ago
        I have a responsibility not to violate the law or vandalize the roads, but I don't think I have a responsibility to drive extra carefully or patch up potholes as I see them. To me, this seems like a very cynical scheme. We tell "normal people" that they, personally, ought to BUY AMERICAN to prevent jobs from moving abroad. When they eventually do, we can tell them they should've done more and that it was their fault. It shifts the liability on to the victims, rather than the perpetrators. But the responsibility of ensuring that a country has a good trade deficit is upon the government, if anyone! There's no serious way I can prevent it, so the only real point of saying it's my responsibility is to diminish the government's responsibility for failing to prevent it. To suggest that the companies have a moral obligation, is to suggest that an abstract body corporate can have a conscience. If it could, there would be no need to ban slavery - just expect that the honest businessmen of America cease to traffic in them.
r00fus 6y ago
It would absolutely work -- assuming everyone has access to healthcare (preferably universal coverage). Unfortunately this cuts at the moat that big corporations have set up not to mention health insurance industry and big pharma. Which is why it hasn't happened yet here (though it has in many other countries).
- lupire 6y ago
  Everyone has access to healthcare in the US, under ACA and Medicare.
darth_avocado 6y ago
Only when the pay doesn't compensate for the instability, which in Netflix's case, is a lot. You could work two months and have enough saved to last you an year.
lupire 6y ago
Why? COBRA covers 3months of health insurance; ACA covers more, and unemployment insurance and severance pay gives you months to look for another. The only major problem would be relocation, so I'd suggest working a few months at a new job before relocating for it.
- beckingz 6y ago
  You have to pay the employer's share for COBRA, which is usually thousands of dollars per person per month. Right when you've lost income from the job.

plank_time 6y ago

Saying that it isn’t conducive to an entire nation is a bit of an over-dramatization, don’t you think? I think a generous severance makes up for that. Plus people would know what they are getting into, just like Netflix. If you don’t want the risk/return you don’t have to apply or accept a job there.

inetknght 6y ago
> Saying that it isn’t conducive to an entire nation is a bit of an over-dramatization, don’t you think? I don't think so. > I think a generous severance makes up for that. That's your opinion. But what you think is generous isn't necessarily what others think is generous. > Plus people would know what they are getting into, just like Netflix. I disagree. > If you don’t want the risk/return you don’t have to apply or accept a job there. The risk/return needs to be clear though and hirefast/firefast isn't always clear.

namdnay 6y ago

If the nation is well-functioning, getting fired isn’t the end of the world. If your job is independant of your healthcare and you have several years of allowance to seek another one it’s fine to try out a few jobs before finding what sticks

dillondoyle 6y ago

I would reverse it. The nation is not conducive to business if it can't provide healthcare and safety nets for those without work or in between jobs. In the US we are held hostage with healthcare based on our employers - if you're even lucky enough to have a stable job with benefits.

splithalf 6y ago
To say nothing of the universities.
pmlnr 6y ago
Show me one coutry who pays unemployed benefit at the level of the job you need to leave because of that insane hire fast fire fast.
- namdnay 6y ago
  In France your jobseeker's allowance is 80% of the average salary of your last 12 working months. Whether your last employer was for 10 years or 10 days. It starts slowly ramping down after the second year of searching I think
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    French unemployment has been well above US unemployment since the 70s. This isn’t a free lunch. If the state makes employing people more expensive employers will employ fewer people.
    - paledot 6y ago
      Given sufficiently generous unemployment benefits (ie. mincome), I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
      - barry-cotter 6y ago
        Because most people who do work are being productive, doing useful things, serving their fellows. And being unemployed if you’re of working age and without some other productive role is awful. Unemployment is bad for society generally and for the unemployed. Maybe one day we’ll get to fully automated luxury gay space communism but France is not there. Those extra unemployed people are having their talents and productivity wasted by economic mismanagement.
6y ago

ravi-delia 6y ago

I definitely think that if every employer used Netflix's strategy there would be issues, but if the job market had more churn stability would take on a different meaning. Imagine that it was expected to change jobs frequently if you or your employer was unhappy; I'd bet lots of people would be way happier. The problem is of course that even if you have every reason to think that some other place would hire you, you need a degree of slack to begin with. There aren't any easy answers there, but that's where I'd say an expanded social safety net should come in.

mixmastamyk 6y ago

These arguments are silly. If you’re competent you’ve got nothing to worry about. If not, then something to work on. Incredible hiring risk aversion is what makes finding a job for everyone a shitshow. Definitely not an efficient market as it stands. If it weren’t for an easy to hire organization that gave me a chance, I’d likely be homeless.

gnopgnip 6y ago

In the SF bay area for these roles the job market is much more fluid than most places

m0llusk 6y ago

Past patterns can be an interesting contrast. During WWII generals were hired and fired quickly. Because the practice was pervasive there was no big stigma to being fired and there were always alternative positions to try. It also helped that there was a general structure which was not explicit or required but was broadly exhibited. That is, new hires were expected to show basic proficiency within two weeks and to make a significant contribution with in six weeks. Since a relatively quick test of skills was built in to the management structure there was less pressure on initial evaluation.

tofuahdude 6y ago

It isn't a company's responsibility to create a well-functioning nation.

omginternets 6y ago
Says who, Milton Friedman? Surely companies have some minimal responsibility to act ethically, and surely behaving in a way that causes social dysfunction is not ethical.
- heartbeats 6y ago
  It's the responsibility of the government to create a well-functioning nation, and to use corporations to this end. But to suggest that people or the corporations have a direct responsibility, is to shift the responsibility away from those who are on 'our side', and to those who are either neutral or its primary victims.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    Surely every stakeholder has some degree of responsibility in the proper functioning of any system. By your reasoning, I am free to degrade public infrastructure such as roads because it is not my responsibility to build them. Equivalently: I am morally justified in committing crimes since I am not a police officer.
    - heartbeats 6y ago
      I have a responsibility not to violate the law or vandalize the roads, but I don't think I have a responsibility to drive extra carefully or patch up potholes as I see them. To me, this seems like a very cynical scheme. We tell "normal people" that they, personally, ought to BUY AMERICAN to prevent jobs from moving abroad. When they eventually do, we can tell them they should've done more and that it was their fault. It shifts the liability on to the victims, rather than the perpetrators. But the responsibility of ensuring that a country has a good trade deficit is upon the government, if anyone! There's no serious way I can prevent it, so the only real point of saying it's my responsibility is to diminish the government's responsibility for failing to prevent it. To suggest that the companies have a moral obligation, is to suggest that an abstract body corporate can have a conscience. If it could, there would be no need to ban slavery - just expect that the honest businessmen of America cease to traffic in them.

r00fus 6y ago

It would absolutely work -- assuming everyone has access to healthcare (preferably universal coverage). Unfortunately this cuts at the moat that big corporations have set up not to mention health insurance industry and big pharma. Which is why it hasn't happened yet here (though it has in many other countries).

lupire 6y ago
Everyone has access to healthcare in the US, under ACA and Medicare.

darth_avocado 6y ago

Only when the pay doesn't compensate for the instability, which in Netflix's case, is a lot. You could work two months and have enough saved to last you an year.

lupire 6y ago

Why? COBRA covers 3months of health insurance; ACA covers more, and unemployment insurance and severance pay gives you months to look for another. The only major problem would be relocation, so I'd suggest working a few months at a new job before relocating for it.

beckingz 6y ago
You have to pay the employer's share for COBRA, which is usually thousands of dollars per person per month. Right when you've lost income from the job.