4 ms·

> you might as well say management must be able to see the future. Arguably they can't have ignored that a surge this big would be temporary... It's not like w

by sgu999 3y ago

> you might as well say management must be able to see the future. Arguably they can't have ignored that a surge this big would be temporary... It's not like we suddenly discovered a massive amount of resources at our disposal to produce the goods they are transporting. EDIT: It's frankly amazing to see how much has been projected onto my comment. For the sake of transparency towards the neoliberal police, I quoted what was obviously the only phrase I was answering to.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Should retailers hire more people during holiday season? Or theme parks during summer vacation?
- interactivecode 3y ago
  No they should not. They should manage their headcount in a way that people can have stable employment year round. If that means during Christmas your checkout line takes longer so be it. I also want a job year round, why wouldn’t someone else deserves that? This is not a conversation about amount of work vs number of people. Its amount of work vs pay. If there really is only work to do 2 months out of the year, then they should pay 600% of a regular monthly salary.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    No one is arguing against providing sufficient pay to incentivize people to accept a job for 2 months. Sounds like your last sentence also agrees that businesses should be able to increase number of employees and decrease number of employees.
  - sgu999 3y ago
    I think it's feasible in some cases but isn't in others. Here in France for instance a lot of seasonal workers are in the ski resorts during the winter and along the shores during the summer. It suits only a certain category of workers, of course.
Invictus0 3y ago
So the company should ignore the needs of the market and its customers? Arguably workers should wake up and accept that jobs are not permanent or guaranteed.
- bsbsinai 3y ago
  Unless you are an exec I suppose - based on what I see, it seems like in good times you make money, in bad times you take responsibility and others loose their jobs, and you still make money.
  - Invictus0 3y ago
    Execs do not permanently have jobs. Bankruptcy is a thing, and even without that, execs are fired all the time.
simonh 3y ago
So are you suggesting they should not have hired those workers, and left that customer demand stay unsatisfied, with all the knock-on consequences for workers in other sectors? These kinds of policies just lead to ossification of the economy. We need dynamic, responsive economies that can adapt to conditions, and we need strong protections for worker's rights and support for citizens through economic adjustments. These are not contradictory goals. A stronger more adaptive economy is better able to afford the costs of effectively managing such adaptations. I don't think anyone unconditionally owes me a job. I don't have an unconditional claim on other people's money just because they paid me in the past. I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. It's not reasonable, and is seriously inefficient, to compel private companies to be government work programmes. The result is companies won't hire when they need more workers in case they get stuck with them, harming the company, workers, tax payers from reduced revenue, and the economy in general.
- mangosteenjuice 3y ago
  >I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. You're not owed either of these things. The way you write is curious. You don't really seem like someone who needs to work for a living, but you're trying to portray yourself as labor and not capital in your posts. Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical.
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    Or maybe they’re an employee who understands how business works, unlike many others on this thread.
  - simonh 3y ago
    >>I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. > >You're not owed either of these things. They're in my contract, and protected under UK employment law. >You don't really seem like someone who needs to work for a living, but you're trying to portray yourself as labor and not capital in your posts. You're hallucinating. >Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical. What are our interests? I have interests as an employee, but I also have interests as a customer of other companies, as a tax payer, and as a citizen generally. A lot of the products I buy here in the UK, or inputs to them are probably transported by Maersk. I have an interest in Maersk being a well run efficient company that does a good job cheaply and reliably transporting those goods. If they have insufficient employees or investment, that jeopardises supply. If they have increased costs, that makes the goods I depend on more expensive. It's in my interests that companies I buy products and services from are efficient and are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Also if they see an increase in demand, that they can respond to that without worrying about being locked into near-permanent employment contracts. I even have that interest as an employee, because if my company becomes ossified employing people that are under-utilised that saps their ability to invest, grow, compensate me better, or even for the company to survive. It's also in my interests as tax payer that there is an affordable social safety net, but as an employee that there is an adequate one. Both factors are important to me.
infecto 3y ago
You are wrong, nobody knew exactly what would happen, we had ideas but did not know to an exact measure what would happen.

by sgu999 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Should retailers hire more people during holiday season? Or theme parks during summer vacation?

interactivecode 3y ago
No they should not. They should manage their headcount in a way that people can have stable employment year round. If that means during Christmas your checkout line takes longer so be it. I also want a job year round, why wouldn’t someone else deserves that? This is not a conversation about amount of work vs number of people. Its amount of work vs pay. If there really is only work to do 2 months out of the year, then they should pay 600% of a regular monthly salary.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  No one is arguing against providing sufficient pay to incentivize people to accept a job for 2 months. Sounds like your last sentence also agrees that businesses should be able to increase number of employees and decrease number of employees.
- sgu999 3y ago
  I think it's feasible in some cases but isn't in others. Here in France for instance a lot of seasonal workers are in the ski resorts during the winter and along the shores during the summer. It suits only a certain category of workers, of course.

Invictus0 3y ago

So the company should ignore the needs of the market and its customers? Arguably workers should wake up and accept that jobs are not permanent or guaranteed.

bsbsinai 3y ago
Unless you are an exec I suppose - based on what I see, it seems like in good times you make money, in bad times you take responsibility and others loose their jobs, and you still make money.
- Invictus0 3y ago
  Execs do not permanently have jobs. Bankruptcy is a thing, and even without that, execs are fired all the time.

simonh 3y ago

So are you suggesting they should not have hired those workers, and left that customer demand stay unsatisfied, with all the knock-on consequences for workers in other sectors? These kinds of policies just lead to ossification of the economy. We need dynamic, responsive economies that can adapt to conditions, and we need strong protections for worker's rights and support for citizens through economic adjustments. These are not contradictory goals. A stronger more adaptive economy is better able to afford the costs of effectively managing such adaptations. I don't think anyone unconditionally owes me a job. I don't have an unconditional claim on other people's money just because they paid me in the past. I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. It's not reasonable, and is seriously inefficient, to compel private companies to be government work programmes. The result is companies won't hire when they need more workers in case they get stuck with them, harming the company, workers, tax payers from reduced revenue, and the economy in general.

mangosteenjuice 3y ago
>I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. You're not owed either of these things. The way you write is curious. You don't really seem like someone who needs to work for a living, but you're trying to portray yourself as labor and not capital in your posts. Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  Or maybe they’re an employee who understands how business works, unlike many others on this thread.
- simonh 3y ago
  >>I'm owed fair compensation for my work, and reasonable notice and compensation if I'm let go, which has happened. > >You're not owed either of these things. They're in my contract, and protected under UK employment law. >You don't really seem like someone who needs to work for a living, but you're trying to portray yourself as labor and not capital in your posts. You're hallucinating. >Or you are against your own self-interests, which is illogical. What are our interests? I have interests as an employee, but I also have interests as a customer of other companies, as a tax payer, and as a citizen generally. A lot of the products I buy here in the UK, or inputs to them are probably transported by Maersk. I have an interest in Maersk being a well run efficient company that does a good job cheaply and reliably transporting those goods. If they have insufficient employees or investment, that jeopardises supply. If they have increased costs, that makes the goods I depend on more expensive. It's in my interests that companies I buy products and services from are efficient and are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Also if they see an increase in demand, that they can respond to that without worrying about being locked into near-permanent employment contracts. I even have that interest as an employee, because if my company becomes ossified employing people that are under-utilised that saps their ability to invest, grow, compensate me better, or even for the company to survive. It's also in my interests as tax payer that there is an affordable social safety net, but as an employee that there is an adequate one. Both factors are important to me.

infecto 3y ago

You are wrong, nobody knew exactly what would happen, we had ideas but did not know to an exact measure what would happen.