3 ms·
> 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
by 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?