3 ms·
> short of giving shares away to laid off employees there isn't much a founder can do is it realistic to ask a company not to hire if they think they're just g
by MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> short of giving shares away to laid off employees there isn't much a founder can do
is it realistic to ask a company not to hire if they think they're just going to lay people off 12-18 months later or is that too perfect of a science?
obviously you don't want to ask companies not to try to grow/be conservative because then we'll have too much unemployment... i think?
it's just so "convenient" the timing of all of these layoffs. it's like because one company did it, the climate is "ok, it's acceptable, let's do it now while we can squeeze it in with everybody else doing it so we don't look so bad/get singled out"
i get it, monetary rates/fiscal policy changed. but the fed has been signaling this change for months, going slow. how long has zoom known they need to layoff 15% of people? they've probably been carrying this "weight"/burden for a while?
- ethbr0 4y agoThe most ethical way to do it would have been to tell your candidates "We're hiring for excess capacity, so this would be a contract to hire position." Then candidates might have made different decisions, like "Maybe this job isn't worth relocating my family internationally for." It's pretty Machiavellian to present the role as otherwise, when HR had strong suspicions it'd be first on the chopping block. Does a company have to telegraph the nature of the position this? No. Of course not! And it's not even in their best interest to do it. But does it make them ethically shitty to optimize their offer attractiveness at the expense of people's lives? In my book, yes.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThis assumes that things are all known and planned out in advance. It also ignores that contract positions are a huge liability in California.