3 ms·

You seem to forget why companies hire people in the first place: for the sake of making more money and growing while paying those employees for services rendere

You seem to forget why companies hire people in the first place: for the sake of making more money and growing while paying those employees for services rendered as long as those services are needed. A business, particularly one that isn't some state-subsidized, leeching megacorp, doesn't have an obligation (nor should it) to operate as a make-work office. Its most fundamental purpose is to benefit itself. There's nothing morally wrong with this. I'm sure you've hired people in the past for temporary work and then stopped hiring them when you don't need it. To call the guy the scum of the earth is absurd and smugly hypocritical. He did what he felt necessary for his company and was rather fair in helping the laid-off staff transition. Dynamic economies work with these kinds of rights for companies. Countries that forbid it also tend to suffer stagnant employment numbers in which business are very careful about hiring in the first place. I'd prefer the former, it certainly helps younger people find jobs more easily than we see in some of the 50% youth unemployment countries where "workers are always protected". I'd suggest getting off your high horse.

i67vw3 3y ago
It has gone so bad in many countries that companies cannot even fire people (due to headache that comes with it) and have to ask employees to rather resign via some way (WFO)
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Badly for who?
  - Auracle 3y ago
    Anyone who cares about efficiency. Imagine a world where every business was saddled with useless workers. How hard would it be to get a new job? They’d have to be ridiculously sure about you. Progress would severely slow down across the board.
    - iancmceachern 3y ago
      Is efficiency the most important metric here? Is bothering people who care about efficiency more important than the basic rights of those that dont?
      - southernplaces7 3y ago
        It's not efficiency itself that's the sole metric, it's the ability to find a job in the first place, easily, fluidly, in a dynamic economy that lets business owners and workers both experiment fairly smoothly. You cannot have this without foregoing heavy handed worker protection laws. It's such an obvious bloody thing but apparently some people get so emotionally blind-sided by the notion of "companies firing = bad" and immediately assume that such a right always boils down to "greedy businesses". It does not. Put yourself into the other shoes: You want to start a business, you have limited resources, you want to hire people who can help you in exchange for compensation and these people want that compensation, but the laws where you live make it nearly impossible to fire anyone you hire. What will you do? Be realistic, looking at your actual finances and human self.interest as objectively as you can. Businesses are the private organizational expression of private people (or groups) using their personal resources to try to earn something more, improve their economic well-being. Saddling them with the ideological notion of being make-work resources just because they started something of their own that required employees for fixed aims is absurd. It also promotes informality and labor black markets, in which people who prefer actually getting a job and money for living expenses to "enjoying worker protection" in the abstract but having it basically impossible to get hired legally in practice. So they accept being hired under the table. Now that they're working informally, as if they were illegal immigrants, they're even more open to abuse than they would have been if they could just get hired and fired easily, but at least formally, and under at least basic rules of minimum wage and labor law. A simple analogy would be you hiring a gardener to trim your hedges and mow your lawn and then being forced to offer him work any time he asks for it from then on. I doubt you'd accept this. In fact, I doubt you'd even hire gardeners ever again.
        iancmceachern 3y ago

i67vw3 3y ago

It has gone so bad in many countries that companies cannot even fire people (due to headache that comes with it) and have to ask employees to rather resign via some way (WFO)

iancmceachern 3y ago
Badly for who?
- Auracle 3y ago
  Anyone who cares about efficiency. Imagine a world where every business was saddled with useless workers. How hard would it be to get a new job? They’d have to be ridiculously sure about you. Progress would severely slow down across the board.
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    Is efficiency the most important metric here? Is bothering people who care about efficiency more important than the basic rights of those that dont?
    - southernplaces7 3y ago
      It's not efficiency itself that's the sole metric, it's the ability to find a job in the first place, easily, fluidly, in a dynamic economy that lets business owners and workers both experiment fairly smoothly. You cannot have this without foregoing heavy handed worker protection laws. It's such an obvious bloody thing but apparently some people get so emotionally blind-sided by the notion of "companies firing = bad" and immediately assume that such a right always boils down to "greedy businesses". It does not. Put yourself into the other shoes: You want to start a business, you have limited resources, you want to hire people who can help you in exchange for compensation and these people want that compensation, but the laws where you live make it nearly impossible to fire anyone you hire. What will you do? Be realistic, looking at your actual finances and human self.interest as objectively as you can. Businesses are the private organizational expression of private people (or groups) using their personal resources to try to earn something more, improve their economic well-being. Saddling them with the ideological notion of being make-work resources just because they started something of their own that required employees for fixed aims is absurd. It also promotes informality and labor black markets, in which people who prefer actually getting a job and money for living expenses to "enjoying worker protection" in the abstract but having it basically impossible to get hired legally in practice. So they accept being hired under the table. Now that they're working informally, as if they were illegal immigrants, they're even more open to abuse than they would have been if they could just get hired and fired easily, but at least formally, and under at least basic rules of minimum wage and labor law. A simple analogy would be you hiring a gardener to trim your hedges and mow your lawn and then being forced to offer him work any time he asks for it from then on. I doubt you'd accept this. In fact, I doubt you'd even hire gardeners ever again.
      - iancmceachern 3y ago