4 ms·
> would they just let the company continue to perform mediocrely and continue to bloat its burn just for the sake of not laying off people? Who's more importan
by throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
> would they just let the company continue to perform mediocrely and continue to bloat its burn just for the sake of not laying off people?
Who's more important the workers or the company? I bet the answer to that question will align with people's views on the layoffs.
- dmak 4y agoIt's not that black and white. It's nuanced, it is situational, and it is conditional.
- menacingly 4y agothis makes the common mistake that there will always continue to be a company with resources for the workers, regardless of how it performs. The company as a concept exists as a going concern, _then_ it can support workers. If the company ceased to exist, the workers could continue to report to work and produce output, but they would be unhappy with the compensation.
- WalterBright 4y ago> Who's more important the workers or the company? The workers all lose when the company goes bust.
- Godel_unicode 4y agoThe company goes bust without the workers. There’s more to it than just the extremes.
- WalterBright 4y agoTrue. It's also true that the best thing a company can do for its workers is make a decent profit.
- Godel_unicode 4y agoAmazon went over a decade minting millionaire employees while not making a profit. Ditto Uber, and half of the other cheap-money unicorns.