3 ms·

Start a company. Hire some people. Run it for, say, ten years. Come back and review what you just said. Mark Twain: Someone holding a cat by the tail learns so

Start a company. Hire some people. Run it for, say, ten years. Come back and review what you just said. Mark Twain: Someone holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.

someone13 15y ago
Hah, I'll freely admit that I'm not experienced with the "other end of the cat", as it were. But I do stand by my personal principles, even thought they might be inconvenient. And as I mention in my reply to InclinedPlane, I'm not saying that I'm completely opposed to the concept - but rather that at-will should be a contractual option, rather than a default.
- algoshift 15y ago
  I am simply saying, in a very simple way, that opinion on certain topics is only valid when it comes from the right perspective. This has nothing to do with personal principles or morality. It's business (and reality) 101. BTW, I say this from the perspective of having lived on both sides of that equation. I've even done things like not taking home a paycheck during bad times in order to make payroll and keep people employed. Business isn't black-and-white and it is usually far harder than it looks from the outside.
  - Joeri 15y ago
    Who has the "right" perspective, the employer or the employee? This is what contract negotiation is about. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and the contract is the compromise.
    - intour779 15y ago
      http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-han-quoc.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-han-quoc.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bali.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bali.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bac-kinh.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bac-kinh.html
dextorious 15y ago
"""Start a company. Hire some people. Run it for, say, ten years. Come back and review what you just said.""" Even if he disagrees then, so what? Company owners/directors vs employees is a 1:x ratio, where x can get to 100,000 and more. The law should protect the general population (employees) more than the few directors. And if you are worried about other companies having an unfair advantage make this mandatory in all states. And penalty-tax international goods imported from countries without something similar. Else, you are competing with the lower common denominator, ie. with what people are willing to do in a poverty stricken country somewhere on the world, where even kids are allowed to be put to work, etc. Which is unfair to both you and to them (because it makes it possible to perpetuate their relative misery as a "strategic advantage").
- mseebach 15y ago
  The counter argument isn't that directors should have more power at the expense of employees, it's that the harder it is to fire someone, the less likely a company is to take on employees they don't absolutely know they will need for a very long period. This slows down the entire economy severely which hurts employees much more than directors (harder to get a job in the first place, less options for switching jobs if you don't like your current). This feeds into the political system: When most people are in employments for life, and has never had to justify their own contributions and have no pressure to keep their skills up to date, they will not (broadly speaking) support politicians who will diminish their rights, leading to further entrenchment. The current state of the Spanish economy, particularly the crippling high youth employment is the primary case study for this situation.

Start a company. Hire some people. Run it for, say, ten years. Come back and review what you just said. Mark Twain: Someone holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.

someone13 15y ago

Hah, I'll freely admit that I'm not experienced with the "other end of the cat", as it were. But I do stand by my personal principles, even thought they might be inconvenient. And as I mention in my reply to InclinedPlane, I'm not saying that I'm completely opposed to the concept - but rather that at-will should be a contractual option, rather than a default.

algoshift 15y ago
I am simply saying, in a very simple way, that opinion on certain topics is only valid when it comes from the right perspective. This has nothing to do with personal principles or morality. It's business (and reality) 101. BTW, I say this from the perspective of having lived on both sides of that equation. I've even done things like not taking home a paycheck during bad times in order to make payroll and keep people employed. Business isn't black-and-white and it is usually far harder than it looks from the outside.
- Joeri 15y ago
  Who has the "right" perspective, the employer or the employee? This is what contract negotiation is about. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and the contract is the compromise.
  - intour779 15y ago
    http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-han-quoc.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-han-quoc.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bali.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bali.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bac-kinh.html http://www.intour.com.vn/tour-du-lich-bac-kinh.html

dextorious 15y ago

"""Start a company. Hire some people. Run it for, say, ten years. Come back and review what you just said.""" Even if he disagrees then, so what? Company owners/directors vs employees is a 1:x ratio, where x can get to 100,000 and more. The law should protect the general population (employees) more than the few directors. And if you are worried about other companies having an unfair advantage make this mandatory in all states. And penalty-tax international goods imported from countries without something similar. Else, you are competing with the lower common denominator, ie. with what people are willing to do in a poverty stricken country somewhere on the world, where even kids are allowed to be put to work, etc. Which is unfair to both you and to them (because it makes it possible to perpetuate their relative misery as a "strategic advantage").

mseebach 15y ago
The counter argument isn't that directors should have more power at the expense of employees, it's that the harder it is to fire someone, the less likely a company is to take on employees they don't absolutely know they will need for a very long period. This slows down the entire economy severely which hurts employees much more than directors (harder to get a job in the first place, less options for switching jobs if you don't like your current). This feeds into the political system: When most people are in employments for life, and has never had to justify their own contributions and have no pressure to keep their skills up to date, they will not (broadly speaking) support politicians who will diminish their rights, leading to further entrenchment. The current state of the Spanish economy, particularly the crippling high youth employment is the primary case study for this situation.