5 ms·
I mean, it’s a funny joke. But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional. Kind of reminds me of stories by people who paid for se
by f6v 4y ago
I mean, it’s a funny joke. But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional. Kind of reminds me of stories by people who paid for sex and found out the sex worker didn’t want to cuddle afterwards.
- lanternfish 4y agoSomeone could have an entirely transactional understanding of their job but assume that - alongside many implicit elements of that transaction - there's a component of through-line longevity.
- toxican 4y agoI mean it's not like the sex worker spends the entire session talking about how they're all in it together and they're a team and then at the end releases a public statement about how difficult the decision not to cuddle was for them.
- poszlem 4y agoExcept the sex workers often literally offer the girlfriend experience, which is, arguably, exactly that, a "make believe" relationship for some agreed time.
- maerF0x0 4y agoThank God they don't use the 'We're family" angle like companies do ... xD NB: I'm just playing along for fun, never been involved in any way with sex work or sex workers.
- triceratops 4y ago> But this attitude only upsets people who thought jobs were not transactional It's entirely possible to believe your job is transactional while expecting accountability for all underperforming colleagues, at all levels. Rather than just the rank-and-file.
- renewiltord 4y agoThis is why it is important to fire people who push regressions to production. Accountability is important!
- triceratops 4y agoMaybe? Depends on the severity of the regression, how much it cost, whether there was negligence or carelessness involved etc. And arguably you'd first fire the person who set up a process that allows regressions to be pushed to prod so easily. Underperformance is not a single mistake. It's a pattern of behaviors that compound.
- bagacrap 4y agoA CEO looking at the economic climate of 2020-2021 and thinking they needed to hire to support the growth in demand for their products is not being negligent, they simply lacked the crystal ball that would have told them the Fed was going to slam the brakes on the economy last year. Even the Fed said they wouldn't be doing that. In light of what's happened, companies need to get leaner to survive. Now if these CEOs don't manage to turn the ship around in the next couple years it probably is in fact time to look for a replacement.
- triceratops 4y agoWhat's the point in paying people tens or hundreds of millions of dollars if they make the same predictions and bad decisions as everyone else? And have exactly one contingency plan if things go sideways? Which is also everyone else's plan btw and not even a very good one. They hired in a seller's market for talent, and are now firing in a buyer's market.
- bagacrap 4y agoYou could hypothetically have a CEO that was good in a period of economic expansion but poor in a period of economic contraction. By the time you figure out you have one of these CEOs at the helm, it's probably too late to do much about it. And any replacement CEO you bring in is all the more likely to make drastic cuts to cost centers (headcount).
- folkrav 4y agoThe very idea of separating humanity from the system we live in will never sit right with me. Jobs are purely transactional on paper, sure, but in the end, we're not _just_ dealing with jobs, but people and their livelihoods. We're simply lucky enough to be in a field where saving up and building a financial security cushion is doable. In practice, accountability only seems to go up so far. I shortly did consulting for a company that did large layoffs in early COVID days. The board played the "we take responsibility" card, cut in their own salaries, but scratch a little bit under the fresh coat of paint and most of the board's income isn't that mostly symbolic salary. The ones effectively paying the price were the file and rank, as usual.
- chipgap98 4y agoI think it could be a bit easier to think of things this way if there were a stronger social safety net, especially in the USA. Also I think the scale of the company you work at has an impact on this. The larger the company, the less personal treatment I would expect.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- surement 4y agowhat about accountability to the people who took a risk investing in the company? maybe the CEO didn't predict the future however many months or years ago to get to a point where no layoffs would've been necessary, but maybe this would've been at the cost of less growth, possibly having worse consequences the idea of "humanity" is completely opaque, it's not that hard to look at the reality instead
- folkrav 4y ago"The reality" is jobs = people. We don't live in a vacuum. It's seriously not that hard either. Between the hundreds of thousands of regular people losing their livelihoods and some investors losing money ("don't invest what you can't afford to lose" something something), doesn't sound too complicated for me. Humanity is not opaque unless you make it so, like this particular system does. It's just people.
- halgir 4y agoThe problem isn't that CEOs don't get punished. The problem is when they virtue signal with "I'm sowwy " and claim responsibility without accepting accountability.
- aliqot 4y agoThat's the defined procedure though, without that, you draw more attention. There is a clearly defined playbook at this point, and it WORKS, so why go making up your own words when they just wanna hear the song?