3 ms·
Because the more information a company communicates about such a decision, the more likely they are to be liable, or sued, or litigated, or arbitrated based on
by NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
Because the more information a company communicates about such a decision, the more likely they are to be liable, or sued, or litigated, or arbitrated based on some part of the decision that could be illegal, discriminatory, exculpating, etc.
Many employees are at-will, and that means that they can quit any time, for any reason, and their employer can terminate them at any time, for any reason. That means the company is not required to give context or information about their reasons; they don't need a reason and they don't need to tell anyone, so they won't.
- anigbrowl 4y agoI...don't care. Economic transactions between peers can and probably should proceed on a no harm/no foul/no reason basis; simplicity is the lubricant of economic activity and where and how you choose to spend your money is a sufficient signal. But once you have such large asymmetries that the possibility of dependence arises (eg a rideshare driver or a small online marketplace vendor), the great economic power comes with great responsibility. The approach you describe is like a major league baseball player crushing little league kids. Sure, the major league player is winning through superior ability, but it's also a shitty way to behave.