4 ms·

> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which wil

> For at least some time. E.g. a few month of salary seems reasonable because a person has planned his future with you, now he needs to find a new job which will take some time. I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. My plan was always to use where I worked as a stepping stone for my next job. I spent my first two years saving money and building my resume. I have spent most of my career “with my running shoes on”. Meaning I’m always prepared for a layoff or to leave when the pay/bullshit ratio is going in the wrong direction. My employer owes me nothing besides to pay me for the hours I worked. When that arrangement isn’t working for either of us, we both have agency and the ability to terminate that arrangement. > Unless it is another economical crisis and nobody is hiring? I lived through both the 2000 crash and 2008-2011. The 2000 crash wasn’t bad if you had both skills and was working in many major cities in the US as just a regular old enterprise developer working for profitable non tech companies. 2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network.

matsemann 4y ago
> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else". So yes, I disagree that they don't owe you anything more than pay for the hours worked. You have an ongoing deal, if that is changed you should get ample time to re-adjust.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active. > In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. > Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else" Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.
  - sebazzz 4y ago
    > I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. Taxes are not (only) because of that. In fact, the employer needs to pay those 3 months often.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    You're speaking from a position of privilege. I'd like everyone to have this safety. Not just people like me having a well-paid job.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      That safety net is a societal issue and should be handled by the government - not private industry
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        You’ve just argued against higher taxes. How should this safety net be funded?
        scarface74 4y ago
        Unemployment is funded on the state level via corporate taxes. I have no issue with getting rid of loopholes on corporate taxes.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        I think you’ve perfectly covered why such a protection is lacking. Schemes someone else pays for sound great, but until people agree to pay them, they don’t happen.
        scarface74 4y ago
        How is that whole depending on your employer for health care working out in the US? Why would you want to depend on them for your long term financial stability?
Jochim 4y ago
> I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances? > 2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network. The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances? If society thinks there should be a safety net, and I agree, then society should take responsibility in the form of insuring that safety net is available. I have no problem with company funded, state run unemployment insurance, I think that the idea of your health insurance being tied to your job is asinine, etc. But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day? But why should it be on the company? > The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired. And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day? It depends on what you mean by a rainy day. I don't think I'd judge most people too harshly in our current system. Circumstances can change in ways that an individual probably won't or can't foresee. Housing and other living expenses have grown to the point that a low wage worker can barely support themselves in many cities. Personally I'd like to reach a point where society provides enough for a comfortable existence e.g. shelter, food, safety, healthcare, and a small disposable income for hobbies/leisure. At that point I think most people would be in a position where walking away from abusive employer is an actual option and not a punishing risk. > But why should it be on the company? It wouldn't need to be if social safety nets were strong enough. As it stands, losing your job has a much bigger impact on an employee than the employer. Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially. > And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company? I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated. The employer/employee relationship is nominally one where the employee accepts a reduction in risk in exchange for giving up some of the value of your labour. Bankruptcy law in many places doesn't seem to respect this.

matsemann 4y ago

> But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. You're missing the point. It's that you're planning your future on having income from the company you currently work for. In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else". So yes, I disagree that they don't owe you anything more than pay for the hours worked. You have an ongoing deal, if that is changed you should get ample time to re-adjust.

scarface74 4y ago
I am planning my future based on having marketable skills, an up to date resume, an up to date “career document”, and a strong network that I keep active. > In Europe they can't pull the rug from under you and say "good luck with your mortgage, you're fired today". I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. > Instead they have to say "you are fired, but will receive 3 months of pay while you find something else" Alternatively, I can save three to six months living expenses so that I’m not at the mercy of my current employer for my food and shelter.
- sebazzz 4y ago
  > I’ll take the tradeoff of much lower taxes and much higher pay any day. Taxes are not (only) because of that. In fact, the employer needs to pay those 3 months often.
- matsemann 4y ago
  You're speaking from a position of privilege. I'd like everyone to have this safety. Not just people like me having a well-paid job.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    That safety net is a societal issue and should be handled by the government - not private industry
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      You’ve just argued against higher taxes. How should this safety net be funded?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Unemployment is funded on the state level via corporate taxes. I have no issue with getting rid of loopholes on corporate taxes.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        I think you’ve perfectly covered why such a protection is lacking. Schemes someone else pays for sound great, but until people agree to pay them, they don’t happen.
        scarface74 4y ago
        How is that whole depending on your employer for health care working out in the US? Why would you want to depend on them for your long term financial stability?

Jochim 4y ago

> I realize I speak from a privileged position as a software developer. But never since the first day that I stepped into an office as a professional software developer in June of 1996 did I “plan a future” with a company. If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances? > 2008 was worse. But as a developer, you could find a contract somewhere if you had a network. The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired.

scarface74 4y ago
> If you can acknowledge that you're in a more secure position, why then argue for the treatment of those less fortunate based on the security that's been afforded to you by your particular set of circumstances? If society thinks there should be a safety net, and I agree, then society should take responsibility in the form of insuring that safety net is available. I have no problem with company funded, state run unemployment insurance, I think that the idea of your health insurance being tied to your job is asinine, etc. But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day? But why should it be on the company? > The economy consists of more than just developers. Unemployment spiked in 2008 and many people were unable to find work after having been fired. And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?
- Jochim 4y ago
  > But at what point is it the individuals responsibility to save money for a rainy day? It depends on what you mean by a rainy day. I don't think I'd judge most people too harshly in our current system. Circumstances can change in ways that an individual probably won't or can't foresee. Housing and other living expenses have grown to the point that a low wage worker can barely support themselves in many cities. Personally I'd like to reach a point where society provides enough for a comfortable existence e.g. shelter, food, safety, healthcare, and a small disposable income for hobbies/leisure. At that point I think most people would be in a position where walking away from abusive employer is an actual option and not a punishing risk. > But why should it be on the company? It wouldn't need to be if social safety nets were strong enough. As it stands, losing your job has a much bigger impact on an employee than the employer. Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially. > And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company? I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated. The employer/employee relationship is nominally one where the employee accepts a reduction in risk in exchange for giving up some of the value of your labour. Bankruptcy law in many places doesn't seem to respect this.