3 ms·

> In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships

by Jochim 4y ago

> In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. > The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them. Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors. If there were unpaid wages, then at some point the people running that company continued requiring their employees' labour despite knowing they couldn't keep their end of the contract. Some exceptions might be justifiable for smaller companies but I think we're far too lenient on people who knowingly steal from employees. Most tech workers can deal with unpaid wages but I've seen it happen to bar and restaurant workers that aren't in as secure a position. The owners wind down the company and leave wages unpaid while immediately creating a new one in the same unit.

scarface74 4y ago
> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? > Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers. Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason. If there was a good social safety net then I'd be open to that being relaxed a bit. > A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers. There's also IP but I think that's missing the point. Getting paid something is better than nothing and many companies do have assets that would cover some/all of their outstanding payroll. At the moment, as far as I'm aware, employee payroll is fairly far down the list of creditors. I believe it should be first. > Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise. I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason It’s not a good reason that “we don’t have the money” or “we decided that our horse and buggy manufacturing division is no longer the direction we are going”? A company is not a charity. The purpose of a company is to sell things at profit and they hire you with an understanding of exchanging labor for money. > I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity. So are you going to force investors to keep funding companies when they run out of money?

by Jochim 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

> Sorry, I could have been more clear here. I meant the loss of social relationships either at the company or by potentially having to move neighbourhood/city. Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? > Most companies have at least some assets when they wind down. Putting employee obligations first simply means that any value derived from the liquidation is first used to settle that debt rather than other creditors A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers. Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise.

Jochim 4y ago
> Are you really going to put the onus on private companies to ensure that no one ever has to move from their hometown? Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason. If there was a good social safety net then I'd be open to that being relaxed a bit. > A software companies only assets are the software and maybe a few laptops. These days many don’t even have servers. There's also IP but I think that's missing the point. Getting paid something is better than nothing and many companies do have assets that would cover some/all of their outstanding payroll. At the moment, as far as I'm aware, employee payroll is fairly far down the list of creditors. I believe it should be first. > Don’t get me wrong, we were guaranteed by our backers that we would be paid for every hour we worked and they kept their promise. I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Not at all. I do think companies should be prevented from firing people without generous severance and/or good reason It’s not a good reason that “we don’t have the money” or “we decided that our horse and buggy manufacturing division is no longer the direction we are going”? A company is not a charity. The purpose of a company is to sell things at profit and they hire you with an understanding of exchanging labor for money. > I'm glad your backers treated you and your colleagues generously. My preference is usually to bake in desired outcomes like this rather than relying on individual generosity. So are you going to force investors to keep funding companies when they run out of money?