5 ms·
Seems more like the layoffs were about laying off the union members. Some CEOs perceive unions as cancer that has to be stopped from metastasis. In countries wi
by siva7 3y ago
Seems more like the layoffs were about laying off the union members. Some CEOs perceive unions as cancer that has to be stopped from metastasis. In countries with stronger union protection laws this move would have been illegal
- qwery 3y ago> Some CEOs The executive class exploit the labour of the working class to benefit themselves. CEOs are in general opposed to collective action among the workers beneath them as any shift of power to the workers necessarily represents a loss of power for the executive.
- Draiken 3y agoIt's probably illegal even in this case, as the US does have some union protection laws. But AFAICT enforcement is very lacking. The typical theory versus practice scenario where in practice they are not really effective.
- axus 3y agoI wonder if a compromise between "French-style" and "American-style" would be the government taking over the layoff business. Need to cut headcount? Send the Department of Labor your payroll, and they'll tell you who to lay-off.
- gruez 3y agoI can't wait for the next layoff where my newly hired star performers get laid off because some bureaucrat thought tenure was more important than job performance or whether they were working on an important project or not.
- silenced_trope 3y ago[flagged]
- banannaise 3y agoYou posted that yourself. You're spamming the same comment over and over while trying to create the illusion that it's a popular opinion.
- silenced_trope 3y agoI'm not at all "spamming" it, I posted it where it was relevant as an example of a problem I had with recent union activity? I don't understand the issue with that? It's just as relevant to this thread's conversation. I might be "double dipping" by using the same example? But I hardly consider a second post about the same topic to be spamming. So...sorry for not leaving to find a different example that I found relevant to the conversation? But it was pretty much the same conversation about the same issues people may have with unions.
- mardifoufs 3y agoFrench style would be to hire most of your employees as contractors to avoid stricter labor laws lol.
- axus 3y agoI have seen exactly what you are talking about. Some court cases in the US have said contractors with no autonomy get the same rights as employees, has anyone made that argument in France?
- lost_tourist 3y agoI guess that's a great thought experiment and would be interesting, but given the current stranglehold that corporate special interests have in washington I have my doubts about anything like that ever happening in our life times.
- NoGravitas 3y agoIt is theoretically illegal in the US. It's just plausible that Rentseekr have managed to either stay within the letter of the law while violating its spirit, or have produced enough plausible deniability to deter a legal challenge.
- ilyt 3y agoIf by "some" you mean "every single one", sure.