5 ms·
>So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary? Honestly? Because 1) you are very replaceable and 2) yo
by mshake2 4y ago
>So why is their exit equivalent to several mansions and mine is around about a year’s worth of salary?
Honestly? Because 1) you are very replaceable and 2) you have a very low chance in succeeding at organizing any kind of group/union action. If either of those two facts were different, you would have more leverage. But they aren't so you don't.
- gunnihinn 4y agoHonestly every single one of those execs is very replaceable too.
- mshake2 4y agoSays the person who lacks the ability to fire them. The reason why you don't have that ability is the same reason why you are seen as more replaceable.
- arrrg 4y agoIs it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves. A hiring freeze and marking obsolete positions as obsolete (meaning if someone switches teams or quits that specific position will not be replaced) should be a workable model for all profitable companies with some cash reserves. Sure, it takes a bit longer and probably costs a bit more (though probably not tons and lay offs also have other traumatic effects concerning knowledge loss, morale and motivation that can negatively affect the business) but it's a workable model. Embed that into overall more cautious hiring in good times (yeah, we can't time travel, so that's not an option - but to me that's the thing that should be learned from this) and you should never have to do any layoffs if your business is basically sound. I would be shocked, for example, if Apple were to do any lay offs. They seem to follow that approach (well, probably not in the retail context which I also think is unfortunate). To me it seems like those lay offs are primarily a tool to communicate and that just sucks. It sucks that something that should clearly be seen as a management failure (if you need to do lay offs it seems to me obvious that management is to blame, not those laid off) can in this weird upside down world be used as a communication tool towards the wider world that they are doing something useful. Even if it wouldn't be needed. Also, I just don't think people should be treated like that, especially if it's not needed. It seems so pointlessly cruel and inhuman. This is not the world I want to live in. And I know that's hard to pull off in capitalism. Maybe that's the issue. Though it's not as if you cannot modify capitalism to at least not allow for stuff like this.
- mshake2 4y ago>Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves. That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them. Nobody is stopping you.
- arrrg 4y agoDo you think it‘s pointless to talk about the ethics of decisions of other people, especially if those decisions affect several thousand people? Do you think anything that is legal is also ethical? Also, in general I don’t live in that world. It‘s much harder for sound companies to just lay off people in Germany (though not impossible).
- mshake2 4y agoI don't think it's productive or wise to speculate on decisions that restrict the free association of people. Outside of narrow circumstances, an employer should not be legally required to employ someone any more than an employee should be legally required to work at the company.
- piva00 4y agoWhy is it so easy for you to disregard any kind of power/leverage relationship about labour and employment? Reality isn't that simple nor that reductionist.
- arolihas 4y agoIt's easier to not care about anything if you decide your only principle is "the free association of people". It's one of the easiest ways to do whatever you want in your life and not give a damn about the impact it has on others without having to feel any guilt or cognitive dissonance.
- wildrhythms 4y ago> The reason why you don't have that ability And why is that?
- polygamous_bat 4y agoMore often than not, it's because GP is not part of the old boy's club that went to country club/business school/frat parties together. Probably less true for Tech, but largely true for everywhere else in the world. Power is not vested through merit but through connections.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoA well formed technology union would enable workers to fire executives and hold feet to the fire.
- Aeolun 4y agoThe important thing is to always be the one doing the replacing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- manmal 4y agoEveryone is replaceable, in some way. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates seem to have been replaceable, at least from a stock owner perspective. I'd like to offer a different explanation: Entrenched in-groups and institutions control access to the highest paid jobs. You need to become a part of those to be allowed to participate.
- ZiiS 4y agoBeing able to run a megacorp is very different then being able to build one.
- Kon-Peki 4y agoGood news for them! They don't need to build a megacorp - they already have one. And it needs running.
- mshake2 4y ago>Entrenched in-groups and institutions control access to the highest paid jobs. You need to become a part of those to be allowed to participate. That's the same thing as being difficult to replace. You gain "access" by being perceived as difficult to replace. The more difficult you are to replace, the higher your access.
- devnullbrain 4y agoThis illustrates the difference between 'explanation' and 'justification'.
- manmal 4y agoSure, it’s not easy to replace anyone. It’s often not even easy to replace cleaning personnel. But nobody is irreplaceable.
- mshake2 4y agoGood thing I didn't say that then