> The argument that businesses should never 'harm' their employees by laying them off is a straw man. No one is suggesting that companies be legally bound to ke

> The argument that businesses should never 'harm' their employees by laying them off is a straw man. No one is suggesting that companies be legally bound to keep all employees indefinitely. I believe it was implied in the comment I replied to. The focus on 'harm' would imply that they believe any harm should be minimized if not eliminated outright. > However, there is a vast difference between making strategic adjustments and engaging in practices that unduly harm employees for the sake of short-term financial gains. What evidence do you have to make this claim in the context of Spotify? Are you suggesting that because the CFO sold his stock, therefore the layoffs only occurred specifically with short-term financial gains in mind? > bankruptcy (a process I don't think you understand based on your comment) We both know what I'm talking about, details of exactly how bankruptcy affects employees, creditors, and shareholders are unimportant. I'll stop reading your comment here, given you wanted to use the old "you're doing a straw man" and then pull this out.