5 ms·

In the case of zoom, they had an explosion in users and demand due to their product being a good solution to some of the problems imposed by the pandemic. What

by creato 4y ago

In the case of zoom, they had an explosion in users and demand due to their product being a good solution to some of the problems imposed by the pandemic. What is your suggestion? Companies hire when they have a lot of demand, the fire when they don’t. Just like basically any other organism’s response to its situation.

b112 4y ago
I wonder. Where were all these detractors, when all the hiring was happening, at record salaries, over the last 2 years? Did they heap praise on this same CEO, when he hired, provided jobs, record salaries, and more? Even now, after these layoffs, this same CEO resides over a company worth immensely more, with more employees than 2+ years ago, and at excellent salaries. So where were the praises before the layoffs? Because that's the logical inverse of the current behaviour. If not, then all these complaints are just immensely hypocritical.
- viceroyalbean 4y ago
  That's assuming that hiring a person is the exact inverse of firing someone, which is often not the case. Firing someone has more negative effect than hiring's positive effect when e.g people move, leave previous jobs (possibly), have children, buy houses.
  - b112 4y ago
    So your assertion is that the employer is responsible for your well being? Not just in a transitory fashion, but beyond? Yet responsibility is a two way street. And it embues more than one stance. So you will work with dilligence to help the company, take pay cuts, work overtime when times are tough, work for free, struggle and strive and sacrifice, for just as (in your world) the company should maintain your employment through thick and thin, you should do the inverse, yes? And by this logic, jumping ship for greater pay is questionable too, for what of your obligations? And leaving if given a pay cut in bad times, is wrong as well? You see, the transaction you envision is framed by a transactional nature. Most feel little obligation other than the metric; I work, you pay. (This does not discount joy in work, nor happiness at a job done well. It is merely that this is the exchangeful nature I speak of) And that is the metric all employer/employee relationships are legally, primarily construed. If you move for a job, negotiate a moving allowance. Thus, you will not be harmed by that loss and cost. If you take a job, ensure severance is a clear and unencumbered thing, and so on and so forth, so you do not lose in this equation. And if you are at the start of your career, and incapable of such negotiations, due to lack of clout, then you are fortunate for that hire, and in a sense, continuing your education, as your first job teaches much, and thus should expect such things at the first. But all said, this is merely how things work. Few hearts bleed for the janitor in such situations, or a construction worker, or an employee at mcdonalds. Yet for the tech worker, replete with 10x these salaries, with perks, with jobs considered cushy by many, the blood of bleeding hearts flows freely, along with the bleating of complaint filling the air. I have little sympathy.

by creato 4y ago

b112 4y ago

I wonder. Where were all these detractors, when all the hiring was happening, at record salaries, over the last 2 years? Did they heap praise on this same CEO, when he hired, provided jobs, record salaries, and more? Even now, after these layoffs, this same CEO resides over a company worth immensely more, with more employees than 2+ years ago, and at excellent salaries. So where were the praises before the layoffs? Because that's the logical inverse of the current behaviour. If not, then all these complaints are just immensely hypocritical.

viceroyalbean 4y ago
That's assuming that hiring a person is the exact inverse of firing someone, which is often not the case. Firing someone has more negative effect than hiring's positive effect when e.g people move, leave previous jobs (possibly), have children, buy houses.
- b112 4y ago
  So your assertion is that the employer is responsible for your well being? Not just in a transitory fashion, but beyond? Yet responsibility is a two way street. And it embues more than one stance. So you will work with dilligence to help the company, take pay cuts, work overtime when times are tough, work for free, struggle and strive and sacrifice, for just as (in your world) the company should maintain your employment through thick and thin, you should do the inverse, yes? And by this logic, jumping ship for greater pay is questionable too, for what of your obligations? And leaving if given a pay cut in bad times, is wrong as well? You see, the transaction you envision is framed by a transactional nature. Most feel little obligation other than the metric; I work, you pay. (This does not discount joy in work, nor happiness at a job done well. It is merely that this is the exchangeful nature I speak of) And that is the metric all employer/employee relationships are legally, primarily construed. If you move for a job, negotiate a moving allowance. Thus, you will not be harmed by that loss and cost. If you take a job, ensure severance is a clear and unencumbered thing, and so on and so forth, so you do not lose in this equation. And if you are at the start of your career, and incapable of such negotiations, due to lack of clout, then you are fortunate for that hire, and in a sense, continuing your education, as your first job teaches much, and thus should expect such things at the first. But all said, this is merely how things work. Few hearts bleed for the janitor in such situations, or a construction worker, or an employee at mcdonalds. Yet for the tech worker, replete with 10x these salaries, with perks, with jobs considered cushy by many, the blood of bleeding hearts flows freely, along with the bleating of complaint filling the air. I have little sympathy.