4 ms·

We're splitting hairs. I agree with what you're saying, and I think you agree with what I am saying. We're just focusing on a different argument. One thing we c

We're splitting hairs. I agree with what you're saying, and I think you agree with what I am saying. We're just focusing on a different argument. One thing we completely agree on is this statement: > so that HMs have more options of who to fire Totally true, I don't deny that. But that's not the same as hire to fire, in the context of how it's commonly understood and criticized: that the person that was hired will also be the same person who is going to get fired. My point is that while it's unfortunate that someone will get fired, it's not necessarily the same person who was last hired.

thereare5lights 5y ago
Right. People are not using the phrase "hire to fire" uniformly. One way to interpret that is that you are literally hiring someone just to fire them. Another way, the way I and some others are using it, is that they're hiring people *so that* they *have* people to fire. As in, they're not necessarily firing the people they hire, but that they need to hire so that they have options when they need to fire. I don't think the latter is any better than the former because they're still going about hiring with the explicit intention of firing people. Maybe it's not the hire specifically, but when they have that intention, it still creates the same kind of toxic environment.