3 ms·

While this is true, it is utterly infeasible for a company with tens of thousands of employees to consider the individual employee in their decisions. They can

by z9znz 4y ago

While this is true, it is utterly infeasible for a company with tens of thousands of employees to consider the individual employee in their decisions. They can perhaps consider actions which will result in large impacts to large numbers of employees (such as regulating the inflow a bit more to protect against sudden needs to dump 11,000 people). Hire fewer, more slowly, and they can then slowly and with more consideration lay off fewer people.

alxlaz 4y ago
> While this is true, it is utterly infeasible for a company with tens of thousands of employees to consider the individual employee in their decisions. This isn't collectively decided by a company with tens of thousands of employees, it's decided by one or two people in HR and approved by groups rarely larger than five people. It's not only perfectly feasible to "consider the individual employee" in this decision, but a handful of people are literally paid to do exactly that, and miserably failed to do their job. Lots of people here understandably focus on the part where those guys failed at just being decent human beings. But what I find truly disheartening is the part where those guys really sucked at doing their job: the people in that hiring chain made a decision that cost several departments thousands of dollars in covering relocation paperwork and legal fees, even though that turned out to be entirely unnecessary, and then literally caused an employer branding and PR dumpster fire. This is the equivalent of committing a bunch of performance fixes that turn out to be unnecessary, then attempting to revert them only to cause a massive crash in production -- tl;dr it's just incompetence. And it's really hilarious to see the same people who advocate for ruthlessly firing people for incompetence defend this gross incompetence under the guise of pseudo-philosophical talk about corporate morality.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by z9znz 4y ago

alxlaz 4y ago

> While this is true, it is utterly infeasible for a company with tens of thousands of employees to consider the individual employee in their decisions. This isn't collectively decided by a company with tens of thousands of employees, it's decided by one or two people in HR and approved by groups rarely larger than five people. It's not only perfectly feasible to "consider the individual employee" in this decision, but a handful of people are literally paid to do exactly that, and miserably failed to do their job. Lots of people here understandably focus on the part where those guys failed at just being decent human beings. But what I find truly disheartening is the part where those guys really sucked at doing their job: the people in that hiring chain made a decision that cost several departments thousands of dollars in covering relocation paperwork and legal fees, even though that turned out to be entirely unnecessary, and then literally caused an employer branding and PR dumpster fire. This is the equivalent of committing a bunch of performance fixes that turn out to be unnecessary, then attempting to revert them only to cause a massive crash in production -- tl;dr it's just incompetence. And it's really hilarious to see the same people who advocate for ruthlessly firing people for incompetence defend this gross incompetence under the guise of pseudo-philosophical talk about corporate morality.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]