4 ms·

They're not 'forcing' you to do anything, they're offering to pay you to do it. Unless you think every time I buy some bread from my baker I'm stealing it from

They're not 'forcing' you to do anything, they're offering to pay you to do it. Unless you think every time I buy some bread from my baker I'm stealing it from him?

idop 4y ago
What? If anything, this is more akin to the baker calling their employees to say "you'll be baking from home today, I'm firing a lot of people today and need to protect the bakery."
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > What? They aren't 'forcing' you to do something - they're offering you money in return for doing it. If you don't like the money they're offering you don't have to accept the deal. "Really dystopian that they're offering me $300k a year + benefits to be able to ask me to work in one of two locations" doesn't really work does it? "Really dystopian that I can walk up to a baker and force him to give me a loaf of bread by offering him the agreed price in money."
alxlaz 4y ago
Did you read the article, or at least the quote that the parent offered? This isn't about Twitter changing work site expectations/status. It's about blocking physical access for employees who were expected to show up at the office, without prior notice or any change in contract terms -- i.e. without their work site actually having formally changed. This isn't even dystopian, it's just a management clusterfuck. Whoever thought this is the right way to handle this kind of a situation should be the first to go in these layoffs. Wow.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > without prior notice or any change in contract terms Pretty sure it's within their contractual rights to deny people access to the office for any reason or no reason at all? Did you put a contractual clause in about the right to office access when you signed? > This isn't even dystopian Well yeah my comment agrees.
  - alxlaz 4y ago
    > Pretty sure it's within their contractual rights to deny people access to the office for any reason or no reason at all? Of course it is. The point I am making is that it's extremely bad management to handle layoffs and firing like that. You have the team leads schedule an appointment with the people who have to be let go. They tell them they are being let go, effective from X, with such and such terms (including access rights if they're in any way more specific than "you can't come to the office after X"). You have them thank them for their work and offer them a recommendation if they need it. This isn't some advanced HR management guru advice, it's common sense that should be standard adult behaviour. Telling people who you have not yet fired that they can't come to the office anymore, possibly minutes before they come in to work, but also insisting that they go home so they can get the email that they've been fired is just about the worst way to handle it. There's a potentially infinite set of actions that are within a company's contractual rights to do. Not all of them are okay.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Well, they did a “lockout go away” back in the 90’s when my company died. Fear of ‘rm -rf’ or some other act of digital vandalism or theft. Doesn’t say much about the business I guess,
  - parkersweb 4y ago
    Had a similar experience back in the early 00’s. Kinda back-fired though - one of the developers had happened to notice that a .com domain name they’d been desperate to buy for some time (because it was the name of their licensed IP) had become available a few days beforehand. He’d bought it immediately planning to hand it over to the business… wasn’t quite so keen once they laid him off!
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
    What are the chances that someone motivated to do something like that has put in dead man's switch code somewhere?
    - jleyank 4y ago
      I would say less as that requires a bit more skill and risks being found upon code review. Acting in the heat of the moment seems far more expected. Although perhaps this situation points out up that “planning against all eventualities” is a good skill to have?
- dasil003 4y ago
  What do you mean “whoever decided should be the first to go”? Musk decided. He’s pissed he overpaid and he thinks the whole company is a clusterfuck. This isn’t a “management failure”, it’s by design. Elon is cleaning house. Speed, not collateral damage, is his priority.
  - chess_buster 4y ago
    Firing the employees to be able to pay interest. Like he did with the marketing team at Tesla when it was nearly bankrupt.
  - alxlaz 4y ago
    I mean whoever decided that the proper way to handle a layoff is to tell someone who has not yet been fired that they can no longer access company premises while they're on their way to work, or possibly wondering why their badge doesn't work, and should instead go home and wait to be fired from there. This breaks just about every management rule about how to handle a layoff, not to mention common sense.
    - dasil003 4y ago
      What makes you think the person “responsible” did not make that point and Elon overruled them?
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  > It's about blocking physical access for employees who were expected to show up at the office, without prior notice or any change in contract terms For 1 day, maybe a week or so by the sounds of it. It's not like they're suddenly closing all the offices permanently
  - yebyen 4y ago
    So Twitter employees can work at home "forever", but they should work 80 hours a week while under explicit threat of layoffs, and return to the office for 12 hours a day, meanwhile the office is closed, go home if you are in the office now! This is really what has happened inside of just the last 8 weeks. I can't blame anyone who just can't keep up, especially while that 12 hour a day death march was going on. This is really not how you should treat people, even for a day.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      I mean, if you don't like it then quit. I think that's the point. Elon is going to run Twitter like his other companies which means he only wants people who actually want to be there and want to put in the hours to make the business work. Anyone not willing to do so should leave. It's a private company so he can set whatever expectations he wants, if the former employees don't like it they can start their own business.
      - yebyen 4y ago
        I can't quit working at Twitter because I already don't, but I am downloading an archive of all my tweets as we speak and I'll be having my finger on the trigger to delete my whole account, which I'm totally sure coming from me, a nobody you never heard of, is, like, an equally serious threat – I mean seriously though, have some solidarity with the workers. Do you want to work under those conditions?
        throwaway4aday 4y ago
        If it paid well then yes I would work under those conditions. I don't have to stay at a job for life, I can put in extra work to earn extra money and then quit when the schedule or environment no longer suits me. I'd much rather have that option than be stuck in some crappy unionized shop where everything moves at a glacial pace, get underpaid, and have it be nearly impossible to find another job because all other workplaces are the same and no one is hiring, firing or growing.
goodpoint 4y ago
> They're not 'forcing' you to do anything, they're offering to pay you to do it. And if you refuse to work you are not 'forced' to become homeless and have no healthcare?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  If that's how you think then we can say all kinds of stuff that clearly doesn't make sense: 'Professional footballer forced to play football game!' 'Teacher forced to speak to children!'
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  If you go from earning $250k+ at a highly recognizable company to homeless then you fucked up severely somewhere along the way. You'd have to have 0 savings, massive debt, and completely fail at every job interview afterwards.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Missing the point huh?
- chii 4y ago
  so does nature force the lions to hunt or face starvation?
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Ever heard of social contract?

They're not 'forcing' you to do anything, they're offering to pay you to do it. Unless you think every time I buy some bread from my baker I'm stealing it from him?

idop 4y ago

What? If anything, this is more akin to the baker calling their employees to say "you'll be baking from home today, I'm firing a lot of people today and need to protect the bakery."

chrisseaton 4y ago
> What? They aren't 'forcing' you to do something - they're offering you money in return for doing it. If you don't like the money they're offering you don't have to accept the deal. "Really dystopian that they're offering me $300k a year + benefits to be able to ask me to work in one of two locations" doesn't really work does it? "Really dystopian that I can walk up to a baker and force him to give me a loaf of bread by offering him the agreed price in money."

alxlaz 4y ago

Did you read the article, or at least the quote that the parent offered? This isn't about Twitter changing work site expectations/status. It's about blocking physical access for employees who were expected to show up at the office, without prior notice or any change in contract terms -- i.e. without their work site actually having formally changed. This isn't even dystopian, it's just a management clusterfuck. Whoever thought this is the right way to handle this kind of a situation should be the first to go in these layoffs. Wow.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> without prior notice or any change in contract terms Pretty sure it's within their contractual rights to deny people access to the office for any reason or no reason at all? Did you put a contractual clause in about the right to office access when you signed? > This isn't even dystopian Well yeah my comment agrees.
- alxlaz 4y ago
  > Pretty sure it's within their contractual rights to deny people access to the office for any reason or no reason at all? Of course it is. The point I am making is that it's extremely bad management to handle layoffs and firing like that. You have the team leads schedule an appointment with the people who have to be let go. They tell them they are being let go, effective from X, with such and such terms (including access rights if they're in any way more specific than "you can't come to the office after X"). You have them thank them for their work and offer them a recommendation if they need it. This isn't some advanced HR management guru advice, it's common sense that should be standard adult behaviour. Telling people who you have not yet fired that they can't come to the office anymore, possibly minutes before they come in to work, but also insisting that they go home so they can get the email that they've been fired is just about the worst way to handle it. There's a potentially infinite set of actions that are within a company's contractual rights to do. Not all of them are okay.
jleyank 4y ago
Well, they did a “lockout go away” back in the 90’s when my company died. Fear of ‘rm -rf’ or some other act of digital vandalism or theft. Doesn’t say much about the business I guess,
- parkersweb 4y ago
  Had a similar experience back in the early 00’s. Kinda back-fired though - one of the developers had happened to notice that a .com domain name they’d been desperate to buy for some time (because it was the name of their licensed IP) had become available a few days beforehand. He’d bought it immediately planning to hand it over to the business… wasn’t quite so keen once they laid him off!
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  What are the chances that someone motivated to do something like that has put in dead man's switch code somewhere?
  - jleyank 4y ago
    I would say less as that requires a bit more skill and risks being found upon code review. Acting in the heat of the moment seems far more expected. Although perhaps this situation points out up that “planning against all eventualities” is a good skill to have?
dasil003 4y ago
What do you mean “whoever decided should be the first to go”? Musk decided. He’s pissed he overpaid and he thinks the whole company is a clusterfuck. This isn’t a “management failure”, it’s by design. Elon is cleaning house. Speed, not collateral damage, is his priority.
- chess_buster 4y ago
  Firing the employees to be able to pay interest. Like he did with the marketing team at Tesla when it was nearly bankrupt.
- alxlaz 4y ago
  I mean whoever decided that the proper way to handle a layoff is to tell someone who has not yet been fired that they can no longer access company premises while they're on their way to work, or possibly wondering why their badge doesn't work, and should instead go home and wait to be fired from there. This breaks just about every management rule about how to handle a layoff, not to mention common sense.
  - dasil003 4y ago
    What makes you think the person “responsible” did not make that point and Elon overruled them?
shawabawa3 4y ago
> It's about blocking physical access for employees who were expected to show up at the office, without prior notice or any change in contract terms For 1 day, maybe a week or so by the sounds of it. It's not like they're suddenly closing all the offices permanently
- yebyen 4y ago
  So Twitter employees can work at home "forever", but they should work 80 hours a week while under explicit threat of layoffs, and return to the office for 12 hours a day, meanwhile the office is closed, go home if you are in the office now! This is really what has happened inside of just the last 8 weeks. I can't blame anyone who just can't keep up, especially while that 12 hour a day death march was going on. This is really not how you should treat people, even for a day.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    I mean, if you don't like it then quit. I think that's the point. Elon is going to run Twitter like his other companies which means he only wants people who actually want to be there and want to put in the hours to make the business work. Anyone not willing to do so should leave. It's a private company so he can set whatever expectations he wants, if the former employees don't like it they can start their own business.
    - yebyen 4y ago
      I can't quit working at Twitter because I already don't, but I am downloading an archive of all my tweets as we speak and I'll be having my finger on the trigger to delete my whole account, which I'm totally sure coming from me, a nobody you never heard of, is, like, an equally serious threat – I mean seriously though, have some solidarity with the workers. Do you want to work under those conditions?
      - throwaway4aday 4y ago
        If it paid well then yes I would work under those conditions. I don't have to stay at a job for life, I can put in extra work to earn extra money and then quit when the schedule or environment no longer suits me. I'd much rather have that option than be stuck in some crappy unionized shop where everything moves at a glacial pace, get underpaid, and have it be nearly impossible to find another job because all other workplaces are the same and no one is hiring, firing or growing.

goodpoint 4y ago

> They're not 'forcing' you to do anything, they're offering to pay you to do it. And if you refuse to work you are not 'forced' to become homeless and have no healthcare?

chrisseaton 4y ago
If that's how you think then we can say all kinds of stuff that clearly doesn't make sense: 'Professional footballer forced to play football game!' 'Teacher forced to speak to children!'
throwaway4aday 4y ago
If you go from earning $250k+ at a highly recognizable company to homeless then you fucked up severely somewhere along the way. You'd have to have 0 savings, massive debt, and completely fail at every job interview afterwards.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Missing the point huh?
chii 4y ago
so does nature force the lions to hunt or face starvation?
- goodpoint 4y ago
  Ever heard of social contract?