4 ms·

>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 lay

>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 ago
Do 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Why 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 ago
      It'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.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        Nothing wrong with free association of people though. Unionization is also an example of free association: people coming together to maximize leverage and minimize power imbalances.
        arolihas 4y ago
        There's nothing wrong with the principle itself. I'm obviously not a fan of slavery etc. Just when people narrow in on it and act like it's the only priority/thing worth talking about. I was trying to criticize the myopic focus on that.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        Then I agree with you. Rational employees should not want to associate with unreliable employers. This ought to drive up the prices corporations are forced to pay. It should cost them actual money to disregard people like this. If employees feel pressured to associate with them despite their behavior, then it is not free association at all, it is forced association and its causes must be identified and remedied. Usually it's a lack of leverage leading to worse negotiating positions.
        piva00 4y ago
        Yeah, what bugs me is this reduction into a model to then derive all their worldview of reality, it's backwards. Like the spherical cow, free association is a pretty fucking good model and principle but when applied to reality you really ought to add the details to the model to make it realistic and actually work when applied into reality. Free association in labour is not possible when there's so much leverage from one of the sides of the negotiation. In a perfect idealised model, labour will increase in price due to people not accepting jobs they would, ideally, not think it's worth it, companies will then raise salaries, market equilibrium! In reality people are mothers, fathers, or just basically anyone who needs something to eat, and for food they'll accept any trade to keep some part of their dignity. A fucking spherical cow-ish principle doesn't take into account human dignity into their pricing models... And so these people work backwards by adapting that if it's not accounted for it's irrelevant, rather than the opposite reality that we experience.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tkfu 4y ago
This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them.", but why should that be my course of action instead of working collectively to make sure that companies' decisions are driven by all stakeholders--owners (shareholders), employees, customers, and regulators to the extent that the company's actions generate negative externalities. Why should that be my course of action instead of advocating for change, and expressing my displeasure and outrage when large companies act in ways that I would never accept from a human being with empathy? Yes it's my business, because I live in the world, in a society, and everyone who lives in a society is affected by everyone else. I was really fascinated to learn that most North Americans never even encounter the concept of ordocapitalism/ordoliberalism in their basic economics courses. Somehow, a concept of capitalist economic organization that has been the recipe for success for the creation of most successful economic turnaround in modern times is just...ignored?
- melagonster 4y ago
  I am not American. I never read one of two words before. yes, guess I think this in my whole life...
- mshake2 4y ago
  >This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them." The beauty of America is you can do my suggestion (make your own startup, run it without firing people), but in other places where layoffs are illegal, you can't do the opposite suggestion (make your own startup, fire people). Let the best idea win! But you seem to be endorsing a world where you don't want the best idea to win, you want the state to enforce a particular idea that makes you feel good. If you are free to run a company however you want within the bounds of the law, but only one type of company emerges, maybe there is a reason for that.
doctor_eval 4y ago
> The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? I think a more relevant question is: should the layoffs be illegal? Just because todays law says “tough luck” doesn’t mean it has always been, or will always be, that way, or that we can’t argue for something better.
- capitalsigma 4y ago
  Obviously no, they shouldn't. You're not going to be able to keep that 6+ figure salary in a world where layoffs are illegal.
- ericd 4y ago
  I'd keep in mind that if you make it risky to hire you, you're less likely to get hired.
rightbyte 4y ago
> were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If the layoffs were uneccesary you know to treat the company and its executives as worse to work for than they would be if they did necessary layoffs only. I.e. increase the cost of hiring you. The "none of your business" trope is silly. Why not warm each other of shitty things, be it a bad restaurant or MS as an employer.
lxgr 4y ago
Is discussing the layoffs illegal, and if it isn‘t, why is it any of your business?
danaris 4y ago
The law should be the absolute lower bound on our ethics, not where the conversation starts and ends.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
How is it not everyone's business? People should be aware of how flaky these corporations are and demand higher pay to compensate for the added instability due to the risk of getting fired out of nowhere associated with working for them.
IX-103 4y ago
Why would it not be any of our business? Corporations only exist because they received the explicit blessing of the government. This gives them and their owners extra rights (limited liability for example) and tax benefits. Originally corporate charters were hard to get because they were only issued by the Crown. Nowadays you can get one for a few dollars. We need to ask ourselves if they are still serving the public purpose we intend, and if not how we need to adjust things.

arrrg 4y ago

Do 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
    It'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.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Nothing wrong with free association of people though. Unionization is also an example of free association: people coming together to maximize leverage and minimize power imbalances.
      - arolihas 4y ago
        There's nothing wrong with the principle itself. I'm obviously not a fan of slavery etc. Just when people narrow in on it and act like it's the only priority/thing worth talking about. I was trying to criticize the myopic focus on that.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        Then I agree with you. Rational employees should not want to associate with unreliable employers. This ought to drive up the prices corporations are forced to pay. It should cost them actual money to disregard people like this. If employees feel pressured to associate with them despite their behavior, then it is not free association at all, it is forced association and its causes must be identified and remedied. Usually it's a lack of leverage leading to worse negotiating positions.
        piva00 4y ago
        Yeah, what bugs me is this reduction into a model to then derive all their worldview of reality, it's backwards. Like the spherical cow, free association is a pretty fucking good model and principle but when applied to reality you really ought to add the details to the model to make it realistic and actually work when applied into reality. Free association in labour is not possible when there's so much leverage from one of the sides of the negotiation. In a perfect idealised model, labour will increase in price due to people not accepting jobs they would, ideally, not think it's worth it, companies will then raise salaries, market equilibrium! In reality people are mothers, fathers, or just basically anyone who needs something to eat, and for food they'll accept any trade to keep some part of their dignity. A fucking spherical cow-ish principle doesn't take into account human dignity into their pricing models... And so these people work backwards by adapting that if it's not accounted for it's irrelevant, rather than the opposite reality that we experience.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tkfu 4y ago

This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them.", but why should that be my course of action instead of working collectively to make sure that companies' decisions are driven by all stakeholders--owners (shareholders), employees, customers, and regulators to the extent that the company's actions generate negative externalities. Why should that be my course of action instead of advocating for change, and expressing my displeasure and outrage when large companies act in ways that I would never accept from a human being with empathy? Yes it's my business, because I live in the world, in a society, and everyone who lives in a society is affected by everyone else. I was really fascinated to learn that most North Americans never even encounter the concept of ordocapitalism/ordoliberalism in their basic economics courses. Somehow, a concept of capitalist economic organization that has been the recipe for success for the creation of most successful economic turnaround in modern times is just...ignored?

melagonster 4y ago
I am not American. I never read one of two words before. yes, guess I think this in my whole life...
mshake2 4y ago
>This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them." The beauty of America is you can do my suggestion (make your own startup, run it without firing people), but in other places where layoffs are illegal, you can't do the opposite suggestion (make your own startup, fire people). Let the best idea win! But you seem to be endorsing a world where you don't want the best idea to win, you want the state to enforce a particular idea that makes you feel good. If you are free to run a company however you want within the bounds of the law, but only one type of company emerges, maybe there is a reason for that.

doctor_eval 4y ago

> The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? I think a more relevant question is: should the layoffs be illegal? Just because todays law says “tough luck” doesn’t mean it has always been, or will always be, that way, or that we can’t argue for something better.

capitalsigma 4y ago
Obviously no, they shouldn't. You're not going to be able to keep that 6+ figure salary in a world where layoffs are illegal.
ericd 4y ago
I'd keep in mind that if you make it risky to hire you, you're less likely to get hired.

rightbyte 4y ago

> were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If the layoffs were uneccesary you know to treat the company and its executives as worse to work for than they would be if they did necessary layoffs only. I.e. increase the cost of hiring you. The "none of your business" trope is silly. Why not warm each other of shitty things, be it a bad restaurant or MS as an employer.

lxgr 4y ago

Is discussing the layoffs illegal, and if it isn‘t, why is it any of your business?

danaris 4y ago

The law should be the absolute lower bound on our ethics, not where the conversation starts and ends.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

How is it not everyone's business? People should be aware of how flaky these corporations are and demand higher pay to compensate for the added instability due to the risk of getting fired out of nowhere associated with working for them.

IX-103 4y ago

Why would it not be any of our business? Corporations only exist because they received the explicit blessing of the government. This gives them and their owners extra rights (limited liability for example) and tax benefits. Originally corporate charters were hard to get because they were only issued by the Crown. Nowadays you can get one for a few dollars. We need to ask ourselves if they are still serving the public purpose we intend, and if not how we need to adjust things.