18 ms·

> So- in addition to losing their jobs, which Twitter assured employees would not happen I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least

> So- in addition to losing their jobs, which Twitter assured employees would not happen I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). Today, we have this: - Companies using the barest of excuses, or none at all, to lay off employees. Because it makes good business sense. - Companies lying, deliberately and freely, to employees about upcoming layoffs, in order to "stave off panic". Because it makes good business sense. - Companies laying employees off in the most impersonal fashions possible (large Zoom meetings, automated email, SMS). Because business sense, etc. - Companies literally escorting laid-off employees out of the building like criminals, on the premise that a suddenly-former employee is an incipient criminal. - Companies stiffing people on severance, based on a cost-benefit analysis which concludes that the potential legal bills will cost less than a fair and reasonable severance. Because, again, it makes good business sense. In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). Has there ever been really any difference? I know rose colored glasses make people think times past were better in many cases, but I find no evidence that things in this regard are really any different for the majority of people. For example, this [1] FRED historical data series shows layoff rate to be extremely flat for 20 years. BLS used to track some series also that were flat for as far as I can find data. Here's [2] a slightly different dataset that is flat back to 1967. Any solid evidence that things have ever been any different? > In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization. Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. EDIT: 2 more datasets [3,4], back to 1919, still pretty flat. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654 [3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR [5] https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-unions https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-...
- manyfriends 4y ago
  > Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced: “The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant effects on the relative unemployment of these groups). In contrast, a larger role for unions has little impact on male-female employment rate differentials but raises female unemployment relative to male unemployment.” Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state —- and certainly is overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    > Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state… Exactly, I can’t think of any country who has had problems with the majority of the 18-24 year olds not being able to find meaningful employment. Well…except for every single country where this has been the case. It’s not like they will be sitting around with no job prospects looking at the immigrant groups getting jobs (because they have no other choice but to work) and become susceptible to some right/left wing extremist groups or anything like that.
    - manyfriends 4y ago
      Seems like speculation / projection. If your argument about unions and extremism was supported, you’d expect to see a correlation between high union membership and “extremism”. If anything, countries with high union density (Sweden, Iceland, Finland) seem to have fewer extremist parties than low union countries like the United States, The Philippines, and Poland. In the United States, the long-term decline in industrial union power, as also seen in Great Britain during the Thatcher “union-busting” era, has presided over an increase in extremism. So whatever effect union has in employment, it’s not the kind that is shown to lead to extremism. Again, you cited a paper claiming that it supported that “unions == unemployment” when all it said was that unions are correlated with small increases in unemployment among the very young and very old. What we know is that union membership is shown definitively to result in better working conditions and safety, higher job satisfaction, and higher wages across entire industries.
cecilpl2 4y ago
In the past there were companies that treated their employees well, and also companies that didn't. I am pretty sure that all the points you mentioned are not new developments of the last 20 years. In the present there are also both kinds of companies. Are you sure you aren't comparing the worst of today's companies to the best of the past's?
WalterBright 4y ago
> Companies literally escorting laid-off employees out of the building like criminals, on the premise that a suddenly-former employee is an incipient criminal. It doesn't take many incipient criminals to ruin things for everyone. You'd do it to if you've ever had an employee steal or embezzle from you, and it's a lot more common than you might think.
- wink 4y ago
  I've still never heard of this here in Germany. Maybe it's because you usually can't fire people valid TODAY, so they still have some runway of around 3 months and then they don't feel like they need to grab stuff and run?
- oblio 4y ago
  This is almost strictly a US perspective. At some point you'd figure out Americans would look around the world and start asking: "are we sure we're doing this right?". In every place in Europe I know of, you're not escorted outside of the building by anyone. You just go at a leisurely pace and drop off your badge and stuff, put your stuff in a bag, etc.
jonathankoren 4y ago
> I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). So I'm in my mid 40s, and my earliest memories of company-labor relationship, has always been one of union crushing, layoffs, and pitting towns against each other to see which factory or mine was going to close first, before offshoring. But then again, I grew up in the deindustrializing midwest. I'm not saying this rosey world never existed (I believe lifetime quality employment still existed in the 1960s), but it's been like this for more than half a century.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand) Well I am old, and I don't remember the time you claim to recall. I've never championed a company brand and I just threw up in my mouth a little even typing that.
- mceachen 4y ago
  I'm old too. I don't think we're old _enough_. According to my grandparents, back in the late 1940s through early 60s, I guess it wasn't rare for people to work at a _single_ company _for the entirety of their career_, fostering bi-directional loyalty.
  - akaij 4y ago
    This is still the case in Japan.
  - 6510 4y ago
    For many generations was even a thing.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  My dad worked at a single company for his whole career (45 years). Nonetheless, when I left my first job, he was supportive. He said "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?"
  - kamaal 4y ago
    >>They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them? This always comes up in such discussions, but who exactly is They here. Company isn't a conscious entity, its the people. And those people are likely saying the same things about They as you/we are. The real deal here is we have 100% ownership of any situation in life, and we are not loyal to ourselves, given this obvious fact. If you have an opportunity significantly better than your current job, you must make the jump. But people often change jobs for petty reasons, which don't give anything much in the longer run. On the other hand, your perfectly good growth at your current place gets interrupted. Heck stability in itself is worth a lot. It helps one focus on relationships, fitness/health, consistent savings and investments, and debt raising for some investments(like buying homes etc). People keep talking about compounding growth, and yet keep changing their process. In fact its sticking to one thing and doing it right is what causes compounding growth.
assttoasstmgr 4y ago
> I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees I remember that time too, back before we had armies of employees with nebulous job titles like "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Advocate". Maybe someone realized some of these positions don't actually create any value, product, or service. Or as you put it, "Because business sense, etc." My impression is Twitter has extremely high overhead costs, and the gravy train has run out of steam.
mhio 4y ago
#4 "escorting out" is usually a result of applying #1, #2, #3 and #5 to a person and realising the affect those actions might have on them, just more good business sense!
throwaway292939 4y ago
I think that there is a cost to companies operating this way, but the cost is largely unseen or harder to account for. Arguably doing everything opposite of those points can be "good business sense" too. For example, going with the mindset of investing in your employees.. two of the points below: > Companies using the barest of excuses, or none at all, to lay off employees The intention is to streamline everything and cut costs and improve efficiency for the business. However, doing the opposite here helps preserve tribal knowledge (possibly leading to better business outcomes). It helps improve retention because it creates an environment where employee isn't constantly optimizing for the best compensation and looking to jump ship at the first better opportunity. > Companies lying, deliberately and freely, to employees about upcoming layoffs, in order to "stave off panic". Because it makes good business sense. Doing the opposite leads to employees being more focused at work. Instead of prepping for the next interview, they can focus their energies on company initiatives.
catchnear4321 4y ago
I’m not that old either. At least I tell myself that. It might even be true. One doesn’t recognize a well packaged lie overnight. Or at least I didn’t. Took burnout to realize the company I was willing to give it all for never really meant all of those sweet things it told all of us. And that was true long before I worked there. The wrapping was nicer. Have you heard of a “pension?” Some of the older employees, by tenure, would talk about them. They sounded just magical. Wonder where those went. Not the only perk that has vanished with time, but perhaps one of the most notable. But it took too long to see it. I didn’t really want to. It hurts getting your heart broken.
6510 4y ago
People can stop buying products that don't agree with them. It might not be in your financial cards but if it is a free product there is no excuse - it makes good business sense.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

>even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). Has there ever been really any difference? I know rose colored glasses make people think times past were better in many cases, but I find no evidence that things in this regard are really any different for the majority of people. For example, this [1] FRED historical data series shows layoff rate to be extremely flat for 20 years. BLS used to track some series also that were flat for as far as I can find data. Here's [2] a slightly different dataset that is flat back to 1967. Any solid evidence that things have ever been any different? > In spite of the downsides of unions, this turn of affairs is really an argument in favor of universal unionization. Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. EDIT: 2 more datasets [3,4], back to 1919, still pretty flat. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDR [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13023654 [3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08291USM175NNBR [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0852AUSM497NNBR [5] https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-unions https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-...

manyfriends 4y ago
> Unions often drive out workers at the benefit of those getting union jobs, lowering employment. For example, see [5] and similar papers. This seems a bit misleading from the article you referenced: “The researchers find that, for both men and women, more union involvement in wage setting significantly decreases the employment rate of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged group (with no significant effects on the relative unemployment of these groups). In contrast, a larger role for unions has little impact on male-female employment rate differentials but raises female unemployment relative to male unemployment.” Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state —- and certainly is overshadowed by the positives of unions, such as the lower rates of poverty, lower mortality and accident rates, and higher job satisfaction and overall wages as a percentage of productivity across many industries.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > Lower employment for the very young and very old is generally a good thing in places with a robust welfare state… Exactly, I can’t think of any country who has had problems with the majority of the 18-24 year olds not being able to find meaningful employment. Well…except for every single country where this has been the case. It’s not like they will be sitting around with no job prospects looking at the immigrant groups getting jobs (because they have no other choice but to work) and become susceptible to some right/left wing extremist groups or anything like that.
  - manyfriends 4y ago
    Seems like speculation / projection. If your argument about unions and extremism was supported, you’d expect to see a correlation between high union membership and “extremism”. If anything, countries with high union density (Sweden, Iceland, Finland) seem to have fewer extremist parties than low union countries like the United States, The Philippines, and Poland. In the United States, the long-term decline in industrial union power, as also seen in Great Britain during the Thatcher “union-busting” era, has presided over an increase in extremism. So whatever effect union has in employment, it’s not the kind that is shown to lead to extremism. Again, you cited a paper claiming that it supported that “unions == unemployment” when all it said was that unions are correlated with small increases in unemployment among the very young and very old. What we know is that union membership is shown definitively to result in better working conditions and safety, higher job satisfaction, and higher wages across entire industries.

cecilpl2 4y ago

In the past there were companies that treated their employees well, and also companies that didn't. I am pretty sure that all the points you mentioned are not new developments of the last 20 years. In the present there are also both kinds of companies. Are you sure you aren't comparing the worst of today's companies to the best of the past's?

WalterBright 4y ago

> Companies literally escorting laid-off employees out of the building like criminals, on the premise that a suddenly-former employee is an incipient criminal. It doesn't take many incipient criminals to ruin things for everyone. You'd do it to if you've ever had an employee steal or embezzle from you, and it's a lot more common than you might think.

wink 4y ago
I've still never heard of this here in Germany. Maybe it's because you usually can't fire people valid TODAY, so they still have some runway of around 3 months and then they don't feel like they need to grab stuff and run?
oblio 4y ago
This is almost strictly a US perspective. At some point you'd figure out Americans would look around the world and start asking: "are we sure we're doing this right?". In every place in Europe I know of, you're not escorted outside of the building by anyone. You just go at a leisurely pace and drop off your badge and stuff, put your stuff in a bag, etc.

jonathankoren 4y ago

> I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand). So I'm in my mid 40s, and my earliest memories of company-labor relationship, has always been one of union crushing, layoffs, and pitting towns against each other to see which factory or mine was going to close first, before offshoring. But then again, I grew up in the deindustrializing midwest. I'm not saying this rosey world never existed (I believe lifetime quality employment still existed in the 1960s), but it's been like this for more than half a century.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> I'm not that old, but even I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees (via stable employment, regular raises, mutual trust) in return for employees investing in the companies (innovation, extra effort, dedication, championing the company brand) Well I am old, and I don't remember the time you claim to recall. I've never championed a company brand and I just threw up in my mouth a little even typing that.

mceachen 4y ago
I'm old too. I don't think we're old _enough_. According to my grandparents, back in the late 1940s through early 60s, I guess it wasn't rare for people to work at a _single_ company _for the entirety of their career_, fostering bi-directional loyalty.
- akaij 4y ago
  This is still the case in Japan.
- 6510 4y ago
  For many generations was even a thing.
AlbertCory 4y ago
My dad worked at a single company for his whole career (45 years). Nonetheless, when I left my first job, he was supportive. He said "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?"
- kamaal 4y ago
  >>They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them? This always comes up in such discussions, but who exactly is They here. Company isn't a conscious entity, its the people. And those people are likely saying the same things about They as you/we are. The real deal here is we have 100% ownership of any situation in life, and we are not loyal to ourselves, given this obvious fact. If you have an opportunity significantly better than your current job, you must make the jump. But people often change jobs for petty reasons, which don't give anything much in the longer run. On the other hand, your perfectly good growth at your current place gets interrupted. Heck stability in itself is worth a lot. It helps one focus on relationships, fitness/health, consistent savings and investments, and debt raising for some investments(like buying homes etc). People keep talking about compounding growth, and yet keep changing their process. In fact its sticking to one thing and doing it right is what causes compounding growth.

assttoasstmgr 4y ago

> I remember a time when companies, at least in principle, would invest in their employees I remember that time too, back before we had armies of employees with nebulous job titles like "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Advocate". Maybe someone realized some of these positions don't actually create any value, product, or service. Or as you put it, "Because business sense, etc." My impression is Twitter has extremely high overhead costs, and the gravy train has run out of steam.

mhio 4y ago

#4 "escorting out" is usually a result of applying #1, #2, #3 and #5 to a person and realising the affect those actions might have on them, just more good business sense!

throwaway292939 4y ago

I think that there is a cost to companies operating this way, but the cost is largely unseen or harder to account for. Arguably doing everything opposite of those points can be "good business sense" too. For example, going with the mindset of investing in your employees.. two of the points below: > Companies using the barest of excuses, or none at all, to lay off employees The intention is to streamline everything and cut costs and improve efficiency for the business. However, doing the opposite here helps preserve tribal knowledge (possibly leading to better business outcomes). It helps improve retention because it creates an environment where employee isn't constantly optimizing for the best compensation and looking to jump ship at the first better opportunity. > Companies lying, deliberately and freely, to employees about upcoming layoffs, in order to "stave off panic". Because it makes good business sense. Doing the opposite leads to employees being more focused at work. Instead of prepping for the next interview, they can focus their energies on company initiatives.

catchnear4321 4y ago

I’m not that old either. At least I tell myself that. It might even be true. One doesn’t recognize a well packaged lie overnight. Or at least I didn’t. Took burnout to realize the company I was willing to give it all for never really meant all of those sweet things it told all of us. And that was true long before I worked there. The wrapping was nicer. Have you heard of a “pension?” Some of the older employees, by tenure, would talk about them. They sounded just magical. Wonder where those went. Not the only perk that has vanished with time, but perhaps one of the most notable. But it took too long to see it. I didn’t really want to. It hurts getting your heart broken.

6510 4y ago

People can stop buying products that don't agree with them. It might not be in your financial cards but if it is a free product there is no excuse - it makes good business sense.