7 ms·
I don't think its quite that simple without knowing who specifically was laid off, tenure, specialty, for what reason, etc. I cant imagine anyone would hire pe
by baby-yoda 4y ago
I don't think its quite that simple without knowing who specifically was laid off, tenure, specialty, for what reason, etc.
I cant imagine anyone would hire people with the intention of laying them off, so I can't agree with that conclusion.
I'd guess they hired with the intention of growing the company and for a myriad of reasons that didn't happen. Expansion and contraction are normal cycles in a company.
- kodah 4y agoYou said it yourself. They're not profitable and they lack cash flow. If they hired under those circumstances without telling employees what kind of risk they were taking, that is unethical. I don't need to know who got laid off or how long they were there to know that. Before I give empathy to rich CEOs and execs, they can explain themselves transparently. This never happens though.
- baby-yoda 4y agoSo you're suggesting a company can't hire employees unless they have positive income/cash flow? Like, a legal requirement? How do you even suggest a company tells employees of "the risk they are taking"? No job is guaranteed, risk is inherit no matter the company. They've been public since 2019, anyone can look at their financials and decide for themselves. If someone was hired in 2019 and laid off today, was that "unethical"? What about 2015? This isn't about empathy for CEOs and execs, the business will attempt to sustain itself and there are harsh realities that come along with that.
- kodah 4y agoThis is a pretty terrible take, but you don't really seem like someone that can be reasoned to see the human side of an equation. Good luck!
- landemva 4y ago> I cant imagine anyone would hire people with the intention of laying them off Some groups in companies which require forced ranking and culling slyly do this.