4 ms·

Getting laid off has got to be the single highest trigger of suicide. Maybe breakups or child loss are higher but it’s at least top 3. Watching companies perfor

Getting laid off has got to be the single highest trigger of suicide. Maybe breakups or child loss are higher but it’s at least top 3. Watching companies perform layoffs on thousands of employees just for their stock price to temporarily bump is really disgusting. I’d like to see some legislation that significantly penalizes companies engaging in layoffs. They should be a last resort, not a well-worn tool.

bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Accept that your job can disappear at anytime and for any reason, no matter how loyal you are. Your sense of security should come from your confidence in getting work if needed.
- quadrifoliate 3y ago
  This is more acceptable as a solution in a situation where your and your family's literal access to healthcare is not dependent upon your not getting laid off. Healthcare costs on the "open" market are enough to drive even families that think of themselves as well-off into poverty. One of the reasons that a single-payer healthcare system didn't take off in the 15 years between 2008 and now has been that the current system was working well enough. I wonder if the widespread layoffs and resulting loss of healthcare access will change voters' minds on that issue.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    Unemployment is actually at record lows now; it's just the tech industry seeing massive layoffs probably due to a ZIRP bubble popping. The indignities of the system are already well-known to the majority of people who don't have 6-figure work from home jobs. You'd think a single-payer system would be more popular, but that is not what people seem to prioritize. Instead it seems that they vote ever more to cut social safety nets (though I think they really vote for cultural reasons and right-wing politicians use their grievances to serve the wealthy). > Even on death’s doorstep, Trevor was not angry. In fact, he staunchly supported the stance promoted by his elected officials. “Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it,” he told me. “I would rather die.” When I asked him why he felt this way even as he faced severe illness, he explained: “We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.”[0] [0]https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying-whiteness/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying...
- jimbob45 3y ago
  That’s definitely the advice I give to friends and family. Waiting around for the government to solve layoffs is not a viable strategy to keep you and your family out of the soup kitchen. Publicly, though, I’m happy to advocate for layoffs to end or at least for companies to stop treating them like a fun tool.
gruez 3y ago
>I’d like to see some legislation that significantly penalizes companies engaging in layoffs. They should be a last resort, not a well-worn tool. Be careful, such legislation might reduce layoffs, but might make other aspects of the labor market worse. For instance, in some European countries where layoffs are hard to pull off, companies are very adverse to hiring anyone, lest they hire a dud that they have to keep on payroll forever. Or they only hire them for fixed term contracts, so that if the economic winds change they're not stuck with a long term liability. It's the opposite in freerer labor markets like in the US. Companies are more willing to hire unproven/unconventional candidates because they know they can be easily fired if things don't work out, and they react faster to demand shocks because each hire isn't a long term liability. That's not to say we should accept people committing suicide after layoffs as a trade-off for a more dynamic labor market. A robust unemployment system and/or social safety net mitigates the negative effects of layoffs without the affecting dynamism of the labor market, and should be the solution rather than making workers harder to fire.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  It's not like it's easy to get a decently paying job to begin with in the States. Making the interview process less frequent or more annoying falls of deaf ears when it can already be 5-7 interview stages and 2-3 months before you actually get to offer stages. >Or they only hire them for fixed term contracts, so that if the economic winds change they're not stuck with a long term liability. Games industry in a nutshell. They certainly try and they tried so hard Microsoft got slapped again for trying to have their cake and eat it too with "eternally contracted employees with no benefits". Sounds like you can only go up, since the industry would only do contract gigs if they can get away with it. >A robust unemployment system and/or social safety net mitigates the negative effects of layoffs without the affecting dynamism of the labor market, and should be the solution rather than making workers harder to fire. I see nothing wrong with both. ^Companies are more willing to hire unproven/unconventional candidates because they know they can be easily fired if things don't work out, and they react faster to demand shocks because each hire isn't a long term liabilit y In all honestly, I feel those kinds of hires are perfect for a fixed term contract first. That's just another weakness in that companies will try so hard to not convert someone to FTE even if they at some point are more productive than most of their staff. That can also be regulated. X months/years of work and you convert or walk. Worst case the employee gets a few good years of experience, of which should be more than enough experience to make the next step much easier than the first. ---- I feel like the best balance of this would be - FTE gets a 3-6 month trial period (similar to an internship). This period can be treated as "at will" and can be let go if stipulations show they can't perform to the role. After that, you got an employee and that employee is protected in someone way. - You need to layoff, fine. 6 month severance minimum. Otherwise the employee is either breaking the law or borderline breaking the law (e.g. sexual harassment, coercion, etc), has a significant breach of contract (breaking NDA that isn't whistle blowing, consistently is not available at agreed upon hours), or has multiple months of severe lack of productivity to give them the boot. - contract work has stipulations as above. Enforce a decent minimum contract length, only allow renewals for some given period of time by the same company (my gut says 2-3 years of work at the company, but the exact number isn't important) before either breaking the contact or hiring full time. Contracting houses also cannot keep an employee for more than 2 of these contract lengths; we shouldn't encourage places to keep employees long long term as some mandated middleman - in general, encourage more apprenticeships if you want to train unproven talent (and not leave it to a contractor). Don't know why these died down if companies are going to turn aroind and complain that new grads don't have the skills. They don't, but most of your stuff is proprietary. What do you expect? If you need specialized skills you gotta teach that and not expect a unicorn to master it in a month and be productive. there can be exceptions of such a house is themself a company doing work (i.e. Not simply a middleman) or they hire very specialized talent. Main point is to not exploit new labor trying to get a break and it becomes the new normal.

bsdpufferfish 3y ago

Accept that your job can disappear at anytime and for any reason, no matter how loyal you are. Your sense of security should come from your confidence in getting work if needed.

quadrifoliate 3y ago
This is more acceptable as a solution in a situation where your and your family's literal access to healthcare is not dependent upon your not getting laid off. Healthcare costs on the "open" market are enough to drive even families that think of themselves as well-off into poverty. One of the reasons that a single-payer healthcare system didn't take off in the 15 years between 2008 and now has been that the current system was working well enough. I wonder if the widespread layoffs and resulting loss of healthcare access will change voters' minds on that issue.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  Unemployment is actually at record lows now; it's just the tech industry seeing massive layoffs probably due to a ZIRP bubble popping. The indignities of the system are already well-known to the majority of people who don't have 6-figure work from home jobs. You'd think a single-payer system would be more popular, but that is not what people seem to prioritize. Instead it seems that they vote ever more to cut social safety nets (though I think they really vote for cultural reasons and right-wing politicians use their grievances to serve the wealthy). > Even on death’s doorstep, Trevor was not angry. In fact, he staunchly supported the stance promoted by his elected officials. “Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it,” he told me. “I would rather die.” When I asked him why he felt this way even as he faced severe illness, he explained: “We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.”[0] [0]https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying-whiteness/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying...
jimbob45 3y ago
That’s definitely the advice I give to friends and family. Waiting around for the government to solve layoffs is not a viable strategy to keep you and your family out of the soup kitchen. Publicly, though, I’m happy to advocate for layoffs to end or at least for companies to stop treating them like a fun tool.

gruez 3y ago

>I’d like to see some legislation that significantly penalizes companies engaging in layoffs. They should be a last resort, not a well-worn tool. Be careful, such legislation might reduce layoffs, but might make other aspects of the labor market worse. For instance, in some European countries where layoffs are hard to pull off, companies are very adverse to hiring anyone, lest they hire a dud that they have to keep on payroll forever. Or they only hire them for fixed term contracts, so that if the economic winds change they're not stuck with a long term liability. It's the opposite in freerer labor markets like in the US. Companies are more willing to hire unproven/unconventional candidates because they know they can be easily fired if things don't work out, and they react faster to demand shocks because each hire isn't a long term liability. That's not to say we should accept people committing suicide after layoffs as a trade-off for a more dynamic labor market. A robust unemployment system and/or social safety net mitigates the negative effects of layoffs without the affecting dynamism of the labor market, and should be the solution rather than making workers harder to fire.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
It's not like it's easy to get a decently paying job to begin with in the States. Making the interview process less frequent or more annoying falls of deaf ears when it can already be 5-7 interview stages and 2-3 months before you actually get to offer stages. >Or they only hire them for fixed term contracts, so that if the economic winds change they're not stuck with a long term liability. Games industry in a nutshell. They certainly try and they tried so hard Microsoft got slapped again for trying to have their cake and eat it too with "eternally contracted employees with no benefits". Sounds like you can only go up, since the industry would only do contract gigs if they can get away with it. >A robust unemployment system and/or social safety net mitigates the negative effects of layoffs without the affecting dynamism of the labor market, and should be the solution rather than making workers harder to fire. I see nothing wrong with both. ^Companies are more willing to hire unproven/unconventional candidates because they know they can be easily fired if things don't work out, and they react faster to demand shocks because each hire isn't a long term liabilit y In all honestly, I feel those kinds of hires are perfect for a fixed term contract first. That's just another weakness in that companies will try so hard to not convert someone to FTE even if they at some point are more productive than most of their staff. That can also be regulated. X months/years of work and you convert or walk. Worst case the employee gets a few good years of experience, of which should be more than enough experience to make the next step much easier than the first. ---- I feel like the best balance of this would be - FTE gets a 3-6 month trial period (similar to an internship). This period can be treated as "at will" and can be let go if stipulations show they can't perform to the role. After that, you got an employee and that employee is protected in someone way. - You need to layoff, fine. 6 month severance minimum. Otherwise the employee is either breaking the law or borderline breaking the law (e.g. sexual harassment, coercion, etc), has a significant breach of contract (breaking NDA that isn't whistle blowing, consistently is not available at agreed upon hours), or has multiple months of severe lack of productivity to give them the boot. - contract work has stipulations as above. Enforce a decent minimum contract length, only allow renewals for some given period of time by the same company (my gut says 2-3 years of work at the company, but the exact number isn't important) before either breaking the contact or hiring full time. Contracting houses also cannot keep an employee for more than 2 of these contract lengths; we shouldn't encourage places to keep employees long long term as some mandated middleman - in general, encourage more apprenticeships if you want to train unproven talent (and not leave it to a contractor). Don't know why these died down if companies are going to turn aroind and complain that new grads don't have the skills. They don't, but most of your stuff is proprietary. What do you expect? If you need specialized skills you gotta teach that and not expect a unicorn to master it in a month and be productive. there can be exceptions of such a house is themself a company doing work (i.e. Not simply a middleman) or they hire very specialized talent. Main point is to not exploit new labor trying to get a break and it becomes the new normal.