4 ms·

> You were used, they got what they needed and now it is time to go. Both sides got what they needed. The company got work done, and the employee got paid. Ca

> You were used, they got what they needed and now it is time to go. Both sides got what they needed. The company got work done, and the employee got paid. Calling either side "used" makes no sense to me. Employment is always a temporary relationship that can be ended by either side at will.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think "used" is fine, but it doesn't imply any gross injustice. I use a worker to build my house, but that doesn't mean I am abusing them. They are using me too. no hard feelings.
- haswell 4y ago
  > I think "used" is fine, but it doesn't imply any gross injustice. One of the primary definitions of that word describes a scenario where one person exploits another person for their own gain. Any time the word is used to describe the nature of one’s relationship with another person, that definition is going to come to mind. I can’t agree that there is no implication of injustice.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    That is one definition, but not the only. I think it is interesting how people chose which definition to go with. It all comes down to social expectations of if the nature of the transaction. "I used Bob the contractor to build my house" has no implication of injustice. "My ex-wife used me for money" has significant implications. Used has no negative implication if used to describe a honest and mutually beneficial transaction.
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      "90+ percent of all internet arguments are over semantics." I honestly wish HN would adopt a "no semantics arguments" rule. These debates over what one person thinks a word means vs what another person thinks they mean are just uninteresting and really never lead anywhere, especially when all sides pretty much agree on the underlying issue. A couple days ago I made a comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 , where I even started off by saying "well, perhaps word X isn't exactly the right word", and still the original commenter felt compelled to reply in 6 different comments why he was so sure his definition of that word was the right one and it was important that everyone else agree with him. :shrug:
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Words and language are how humans communicate information so I think it is worthwhile to talk about. That said, I think everyone would benefit from being more Curious and less dogmatic. It is ultimately subjective. I can choose to use the word up to refer to down. It would certainly cause some confusion, but at the end of the day nobody can force me to change. The best that they can do is point out that they use a different definition and why that makes sense to them. That's all I was trying to do here, and in this other more interesting thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        I sometimes wonder if Americans are uniquely prone to focusing on words rather than the underlying concepts that the words, somewhat imperfectly, attempt to describe. Once you learn a second language, you have to confront this reality. But many Americans only ever use English, and it's maybe easier to never have to think about this then?
        noirbot 4y ago
        But isn't this discussion literally about the idiomatic concepts involved? The whole argument of semantics is a "literally vs. figuratively" discussion. Workers were "used" in the way I use a tool to do a job, but potentially not "used" in a colloquial English way that someone tricks someone into doing something for them. If anything, this is because Americans on HN think too much about the concepts underlying words and don't just take everything literally as defined.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think you are both right to a certain extent. As the comment thread demonstrates, some people think the literal definition of used is exploitative. This begs the question of why people thank the literal definition is different. I think a reasonable hypothesis is that American English speakers communicate less with non-native speakers who have learned a textbook definition.
SilverBirch 4y ago
And in fact almost certainly what happened was the employees got paid to work on a bunch of new exploratory, speculative work that now all needs to get canned.
- xtracto 4y ago
  There's an AMAZING managing podcast that I never get tired of recommending called Managers Tools [1], where in one of their episodes they talk about hiring/firing: They correctly mention that, as a manager, you should be able/willing to FIRE people when you are asking to HIRE. If you say you need more headcount and thus more money for it, be ready to shrink it when you don't need it anymore. Nothing is forever. That's what a lot of people fail to internalize: If a company is able to grow, then it must equally be able to shrink. Otherwise, you hire contractors or third parties. [1] https://www.manager-tools.com/podcasts https://www.manager-tools.com/podcasts
time_to_smile 4y ago
Just because it can be terminated at will doesn't mean people wake up every morning going to work thinking "hmm... wonder if I'll be let go today, or hey maybe I'll quit!" Similarly most non-marriage romantic relationship can be trivially ended "at will", but people get plenty upset when those end early than one party had anticipated. More important though is the inherent asymmetry: it hurts employees much more to be terminated from an employer than the employer hurts when employees leave. You know, unless those employees organize and all leave at the same time. And we know well that companies put a fair bit of energy keeping that from happening. Historically the way to resolve this asymmetry was an implicit understanding that you won't arbitrarily get terminated unless the employer has no other choice. This implicit assumption has been weakening over time.
- noirbot 4y ago
  I mean, I definitely end a fair number of days thinking "I may quit" at various points in my career. I'm happy for the ability to do that. I'm not arguing that layoffs don't suck for those involved, but if offered a contract where I couldn't be laid off or quit for N years, I probably wouldn't take it. Layoffs already have some legal protection in most places that require severance and other things that quitting or firing for cause don't.
BoorishBears 4y ago
I feel like this is a pretty naive take. For all the companies like Zoom and Shopify claiming they thought the COVID gravy train would never end, there was never a chance of that. But they hired as if that was the reality because because of the asymmetry: Your output is .000001% of what the company needs to function. Meanwhile even if you're saving 50% of your pay and living on the other 50%, that's many orders of magnitude more need - So yes, either side can walk away tomorrow morning, but who's more likely to be hurt? Definitely not the company, so there's no real punishment for overhiring knowing you'll need to fire. If anything you get rewarded by the market: If company A hires in a sustainable way that can weather headwinds (believe it or not, this used to be somewhat common) and company B goes full "feast or famine", the market rewards B for their growth, then rewards B when they lay off a bunch of people. Meanwhile A is punished for limiting growth, and not really rewarded for not having fired people, since valuations are bad at capturing nuanced ideas like "B just fired their best minds, while A has cultivated an effective workforce" (just check out Zoom's ticker today)
kerkeslager 4y ago
> Employment is always a temporary relationship that can be ended by either side at will. No one is confused about this. The disagreement is whether this is how it should be.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think "used" is fine, but it doesn't imply any gross injustice. I use a worker to build my house, but that doesn't mean I am abusing them. They are using me too. no hard feelings.

haswell 4y ago
> I think "used" is fine, but it doesn't imply any gross injustice. One of the primary definitions of that word describes a scenario where one person exploits another person for their own gain. Any time the word is used to describe the nature of one’s relationship with another person, that definition is going to come to mind. I can’t agree that there is no implication of injustice.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That is one definition, but not the only. I think it is interesting how people chose which definition to go with. It all comes down to social expectations of if the nature of the transaction. "I used Bob the contractor to build my house" has no implication of injustice. "My ex-wife used me for money" has significant implications. Used has no negative implication if used to describe a honest and mutually beneficial transaction.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    "90+ percent of all internet arguments are over semantics." I honestly wish HN would adopt a "no semantics arguments" rule. These debates over what one person thinks a word means vs what another person thinks they mean are just uninteresting and really never lead anywhere, especially when all sides pretty much agree on the underlying issue. A couple days ago I made a comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 , where I even started off by saying "well, perhaps word X isn't exactly the right word", and still the original commenter felt compelled to reply in 6 different comments why he was so sure his definition of that word was the right one and it was important that everyone else agree with him. :shrug:
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Words and language are how humans communicate information so I think it is worthwhile to talk about. That said, I think everyone would benefit from being more Curious and less dogmatic. It is ultimately subjective. I can choose to use the word up to refer to down. It would certainly cause some confusion, but at the end of the day nobody can force me to change. The best that they can do is point out that they use a different definition and why that makes sense to them. That's all I was trying to do here, and in this other more interesting thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      I sometimes wonder if Americans are uniquely prone to focusing on words rather than the underlying concepts that the words, somewhat imperfectly, attempt to describe. Once you learn a second language, you have to confront this reality. But many Americans only ever use English, and it's maybe easier to never have to think about this then?
      - noirbot 4y ago
        But isn't this discussion literally about the idiomatic concepts involved? The whole argument of semantics is a "literally vs. figuratively" discussion. Workers were "used" in the way I use a tool to do a job, but potentially not "used" in a colloquial English way that someone tricks someone into doing something for them. If anything, this is because Americans on HN think too much about the concepts underlying words and don't just take everything literally as defined.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think you are both right to a certain extent. As the comment thread demonstrates, some people think the literal definition of used is exploitative. This begs the question of why people thank the literal definition is different. I think a reasonable hypothesis is that American English speakers communicate less with non-native speakers who have learned a textbook definition.

SilverBirch 4y ago

And in fact almost certainly what happened was the employees got paid to work on a bunch of new exploratory, speculative work that now all needs to get canned.

xtracto 4y ago
There's an AMAZING managing podcast that I never get tired of recommending called Managers Tools [1], where in one of their episodes they talk about hiring/firing: They correctly mention that, as a manager, you should be able/willing to FIRE people when you are asking to HIRE. If you say you need more headcount and thus more money for it, be ready to shrink it when you don't need it anymore. Nothing is forever. That's what a lot of people fail to internalize: If a company is able to grow, then it must equally be able to shrink. Otherwise, you hire contractors or third parties. [1] https://www.manager-tools.com/podcasts https://www.manager-tools.com/podcasts

time_to_smile 4y ago

Just because it can be terminated at will doesn't mean people wake up every morning going to work thinking "hmm... wonder if I'll be let go today, or hey maybe I'll quit!" Similarly most non-marriage romantic relationship can be trivially ended "at will", but people get plenty upset when those end early than one party had anticipated. More important though is the inherent asymmetry: it hurts employees much more to be terminated from an employer than the employer hurts when employees leave. You know, unless those employees organize and all leave at the same time. And we know well that companies put a fair bit of energy keeping that from happening. Historically the way to resolve this asymmetry was an implicit understanding that you won't arbitrarily get terminated unless the employer has no other choice. This implicit assumption has been weakening over time.

noirbot 4y ago
I mean, I definitely end a fair number of days thinking "I may quit" at various points in my career. I'm happy for the ability to do that. I'm not arguing that layoffs don't suck for those involved, but if offered a contract where I couldn't be laid off or quit for N years, I probably wouldn't take it. Layoffs already have some legal protection in most places that require severance and other things that quitting or firing for cause don't.

BoorishBears 4y ago

I feel like this is a pretty naive take. For all the companies like Zoom and Shopify claiming they thought the COVID gravy train would never end, there was never a chance of that. But they hired as if that was the reality because because of the asymmetry: Your output is .000001% of what the company needs to function. Meanwhile even if you're saving 50% of your pay and living on the other 50%, that's many orders of magnitude more need - So yes, either side can walk away tomorrow morning, but who's more likely to be hurt? Definitely not the company, so there's no real punishment for overhiring knowing you'll need to fire. If anything you get rewarded by the market: If company A hires in a sustainable way that can weather headwinds (believe it or not, this used to be somewhat common) and company B goes full "feast or famine", the market rewards B for their growth, then rewards B when they lay off a bunch of people. Meanwhile A is punished for limiting growth, and not really rewarded for not having fired people, since valuations are bad at capturing nuanced ideas like "B just fired their best minds, while A has cultivated an effective workforce" (just check out Zoom's ticker today)

kerkeslager 4y ago

> Employment is always a temporary relationship that can be ended by either side at will. No one is confused about this. The disagreement is whether this is how it should be.