3 ms·

Five years from now, I think we will not see "remote only" for a large company and think "ooh, they value their employees I guess", but rather, "uh oh, they lik

Five years from now, I think we will not see "remote only" for a large company and think "ooh, they value their employees I guess", but rather, "uh oh, they like to think of their employees as being like virtual servers, easy to spin up and easy to shut down the moment you don't need to pay for that capacity". Good. Because that's the reality we live in. Acting personally surprised or offended or hurt when a business makes a business decision is not good for you. The sooner people accept and realise this the better. (This message was bought to you by a contractor).

Ancalagon 4y ago
This makes it easier for them to fire you and everyone else. Why, even as a contractor, would you be ok with that? Niceties or no you are weakening your own position and the value of you labor.
- Idk__Throwaway 4y ago
  Why should a company be forced to continue to pay for employees they aren't in need of?
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    Because other countries have decided that "we need to make our quarterly earnings look good" isn't a good enough reason to can half your staff over. If you fire an employee at anytime it's just unpredictable (and inefficient) contract work.
  - Ancalagon 4y ago
    Where did I say companies should be forced to pay for employees they don't need? I didn't say that. What I did say is that this is yet another move by business to pay you less and offer you less security for your labor - because let's be honest, that's what this is. Companies will go with the lowest bidder they think can get the job done. Do you really want to have a race to the bottom for the price of your labor? And for that matter, how do you think unions, tenure, weekends, 40 hr workweeks, PTO, sick leave, health benefits, and a whole other myriad of benefits for your labor came about? I guarantee you its certainly NOT because people in the past viewed their labor value as purely transactional to themselves and their employers. You as an employee have far more to lose.
- hello_moto 4y ago
  He's hurt he didn't get the same benefits as full-time. That's why.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  To take the lucrative job someone less skilled was holding.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  I'm not proposing any changes in legislation to make it easier to fire anyone. What I am advocating for is for people here to see reality more clearly.
  - hello_moto 4y ago
    What you're doing is playing Devil's advocate? C'mon now: "to see reality", "not proposing to make it easier to fire people". Why can't the working class demand changes and influence the reality? Coming from a contractor... yeah, really...?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I want to work for a company that’s financially strong (or at least profitable). If that means they sometimes fire people, that’s ok. I want my “don’t fire them” to be based on a premise that I’m creating much more value for them than I cost. That’s a stable situation for all parties, short and long term.
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    I guess you never worked for a company that got record earnings after laying off 10000 employees. I don't want my company in the red, but I also don't want to feel like I'm dangling on a cliff. There's a reason most companies stopped doing stack rankings.
  - malandrew 4y ago
    It doesn’t work like that though for publicly traded companies. Even if you bring in more revenue that they be are paying you, it can be attractive to fire you to juice the stock price on Wall Street.
palata 4y ago
Actually, if you accept to work for free, a good business decision would be to stop paying you. Would you act personally surprised or offended or hurt if your company made that business decision?
- JenrHywy 4y ago
  That would be a terrible business decision, because the company would have no employees.
  - palata 4y ago
    You missed part of the idea: "if you accept to work for free". The parent was saying (if I understood correctly): "stop complaining, you should accept the business decision, because that's what a company does: optimize the profit without caring about how the employees feel". I was just saying that as an employee, you have the right to negotiate your working conditions. If you accept all the "business decisions" because they help the company make more profit, then they will stop paying you. That would be completely rational as a business decision.
    - JenrHywy 4y ago
      If I accepted to work for free, I would be absolutely fine with the company taking me up on the offer. I'd be shocked if they didn't.
BizarreByte 4y ago
> Acting personally surprised or offended or hurt when a business makes a business decision is not good for you. The sooner people accept and realise this the better. Exactly, which is why labour of all classes and types should organize and gain power against businesses. Too bad the labour movement was killed decades ago.

Ancalagon 4y ago

This makes it easier for them to fire you and everyone else. Why, even as a contractor, would you be ok with that? Niceties or no you are weakening your own position and the value of you labor.

Idk__Throwaway 4y ago
Why should a company be forced to continue to pay for employees they aren't in need of?
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  Because other countries have decided that "we need to make our quarterly earnings look good" isn't a good enough reason to can half your staff over. If you fire an employee at anytime it's just unpredictable (and inefficient) contract work.
- Ancalagon 4y ago
  Where did I say companies should be forced to pay for employees they don't need? I didn't say that. What I did say is that this is yet another move by business to pay you less and offer you less security for your labor - because let's be honest, that's what this is. Companies will go with the lowest bidder they think can get the job done. Do you really want to have a race to the bottom for the price of your labor? And for that matter, how do you think unions, tenure, weekends, 40 hr workweeks, PTO, sick leave, health benefits, and a whole other myriad of benefits for your labor came about? I guarantee you its certainly NOT because people in the past viewed their labor value as purely transactional to themselves and their employers. You as an employee have far more to lose.
hello_moto 4y ago
He's hurt he didn't get the same benefits as full-time. That's why.
hot_gril 4y ago
To take the lucrative job someone less skilled was holding.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
I'm not proposing any changes in legislation to make it easier to fire anyone. What I am advocating for is for people here to see reality more clearly.
- hello_moto 4y ago
  What you're doing is playing Devil's advocate? C'mon now: "to see reality", "not proposing to make it easier to fire people". Why can't the working class demand changes and influence the reality? Coming from a contractor... yeah, really...?
sokoloff 4y ago
I want to work for a company that’s financially strong (or at least profitable). If that means they sometimes fire people, that’s ok. I want my “don’t fire them” to be based on a premise that I’m creating much more value for them than I cost. That’s a stable situation for all parties, short and long term.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  I guess you never worked for a company that got record earnings after laying off 10000 employees. I don't want my company in the red, but I also don't want to feel like I'm dangling on a cliff. There's a reason most companies stopped doing stack rankings.
- malandrew 4y ago
  It doesn’t work like that though for publicly traded companies. Even if you bring in more revenue that they be are paying you, it can be attractive to fire you to juice the stock price on Wall Street.

palata 4y ago

Actually, if you accept to work for free, a good business decision would be to stop paying you. Would you act personally surprised or offended or hurt if your company made that business decision?

JenrHywy 4y ago
That would be a terrible business decision, because the company would have no employees.
- palata 4y ago
  You missed part of the idea: "if you accept to work for free". The parent was saying (if I understood correctly): "stop complaining, you should accept the business decision, because that's what a company does: optimize the profit without caring about how the employees feel". I was just saying that as an employee, you have the right to negotiate your working conditions. If you accept all the "business decisions" because they help the company make more profit, then they will stop paying you. That would be completely rational as a business decision.
  - JenrHywy 4y ago
    If I accepted to work for free, I would be absolutely fine with the company taking me up on the offer. I'd be shocked if they didn't.

BizarreByte 4y ago

> Acting personally surprised or offended or hurt when a business makes a business decision is not good for you. The sooner people accept and realise this the better. Exactly, which is why labour of all classes and types should organize and gain power against businesses. Too bad the labour movement was killed decades ago.