4 ms·

Really need the government to start heavily penalizing companies who lay people off. Layoffs can't be a tool for a company to get ahead financially. We're ruini

Really need the government to start heavily penalizing companies who lay people off. Layoffs can't be a tool for a company to get ahead financially. We're ruining lives and triggering suicides with these layoffs.

peter_l_downs 3y ago
How would this work? Would companies be unable to fire people except for rule violations?
- anotherhue 3y ago
  No fault layoff == 50% salary severance would help align incentives.
- yladiz 3y ago
  It’s not exactly related to the parent, but in many parts of Europe, yeah, you can’t just fire someone after the probation period, and the firing needs to be for cause (which is genuinely a high bar to cross). To the point of the parent, in a lot of Europe it’s not so simple to just lay off some small portion of the company. It needs to be justified and a decent percentage, and employees are often entitled to some compensation (some severance) to offset the layoff.
  - yreg 3y ago
    Yeah, obviously depends from country to country, but for a layoff the company often has to be in some problems. It's difficult to do a layoff when you have record profits. Of course there are other ways to fire employees but those have their own rules.
    - yladiz 3y ago
      Right. My point is that the company can’t just say “we’re not doing well, we need to get rid of a few people” and do a layoff with impunity. They have to lay off a pretty decent amount of people (in some cases like 30%) and they need to pay severance to the laid off employees. In most of Europe it’s basically a tool of last resort besides going bankrupt, unlike in the states where it’s easier and done somewhat regularly.
- flavius29663 3y ago
  maybe don't allow them to hire any visa employee for the next x years? That would make them much more careful with layoffs.
  - estebank 3y ago
    There are already restrictions on visa and employer sponsored green card applications for 6 months after a layoff, iirc.
    - flavius29663 3y ago
      should extend to H1b, J class visas and others, and for longer than 6 months, maybe 2 years. Give other companies a chance of getting those people, htey just proved they cannot manage them properly.
      - estebank 3y ago
        Blocking the EB GC applications of an employer that had layoffs screws over the employee, not the employer. If anything, the employer gets to have that employee tied to them for that additional time, regardless of the desires of the employee to move on.
- Scarblac 3y ago
  Simple, only allow them after top management takes a heavy decrease in compensation.
- pwb25 3y ago
  if you have millions in cash why would you ever fire someone except that?
symlinkk 3y ago
That would slow down hiring.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  Maybe that's a good thing? Companies need to stop defining growth in terms of head count and instead in terms of revenue and profit and learn that just because you have access to money doesn't mean you should go on a hiring frenzy.
r053bud 3y ago
The government is totally disinterested in penalizing companies for this. How else will it keep a healthy well-supplied reserve army of labour?
kbd 3y ago
More government is not the solution to all problems.
davidw 3y ago
Or, instead of the government dictating those kinds of company decisions, put in place a system so that you're ok if you do get laid off, like a real health care system that is not linked to your place of employment.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  >put in place a system so that you're ok if you do get laid off the being laid off part itself takes a huge mental toll, regardless of material circumstances. There's a reason the mental health of phd candidates and a good chunk of white collar workers in nominally lucrative professions is in the gutter. The hire and fire hamster wheel is in itself completely pathological. The industry just has done a really fantastic job of marketing permanent insecurity and precarity as individual choice.
  - fwip 3y ago
    Sure, but the threat of losing your house, and the ability to feed, clothe, and care for your family, is also a pretty big stressor.
  - davidw 3y ago
    Yeah, you have a point... it's trickier to figure out a good way to create stability without also creating genuinely harmful rigidity too, though. I lived in Italy for a long while and you do see a lot of negative effects. People stay in jobs they hate because they have landed a permanent position. Companies reticent to hire because they're stuck with you. I agree that a lot of US companies have behaved very poorly and casually with people's lives. I guess I just see stuff like health care as easy wins. The rest of it is trickier.
HammadB 3y ago
I don't think its the role of the government to penalize layoffs. If a company needs to do a layoff to remain viable it must be allowed to - the downside (everyone loses their job) is worse. And trying to apply some mechanism where the government decides if its ok or not seems too intractable. I think the approach of things like the WARN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...) act are more plausible. Use legislation to make the workforce more informed, resilient and ahead-of layoffs. You don't want mass layoffs crippling your economy because people are unable to plan. It's a direct consequence of the WARN act that most tech layoffs have extremely generous severance.
- wombatpm 3y ago
  So should companies be prohibited from doing stock buybacks or paying dividends for some period of time if they do a layoff. Or should they be required to rehire laid off workers before doing any new hiring? When it’s truly about maintaining company viability, I have some sympathy for the corporate position. But companies reporting increasing or record profits AND doing layoffs smells of financial engineering and socializing costs while privatizing profits.
  - mathiasgredal 3y ago
    Why not just tax stock buybacks the same or higher than regular profits? This would force companies to either increase R&D/CAPEX spending or lower prices.
  - tonystubblebine 3y ago
    Isn’t it net good that tech companies regularly overhire? I’d be afraid that too much regulation would end up making companies hesitant to hire in the first place. And why are we asking companies to act as charities here. That’s so against their nature. Tax them instead and have government improve the safety net.
  - Madmallard 3y ago
    That’s because it is. It is degenerate inhumane latestage capitalism garbage.
EA-3167 3y ago
There's already a known way to combat these sorts of things... they're called unions. Tech jobs will be a lot more stable and bearable when more people understand that, and that we aren't all embarrassed millionaires.
paxys 3y ago
The question we really need to ask is – why are people driven to bankruptcy and suicide because of their employment situation? Why can't everyone have a cushion so they aren't reliant on their next paycheck to have food and shelter? Why can't everyone have healthcare? Why can't we have reasonable vacations, sabbaticals, maternity/paternity leaves? These are the issues government should be solving. And when they do, companies should happily lay off as many people as they want as frequently as they want.
- milanvrekic 3y ago
  That severance package is quite generous. "Why can't everyone have a cusshion" = because someone has to pay for it.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Not everyone is getting laid off from Google. Most people are handed their last paycheck and shown the door. As for "someone has to pay for it", well we already are. We have the highest per capita healthcare spending in the world, also the highest rate of medical-related bankruptcies in the world and lowest life expectancy in the developed world. We are putting 6-12% of our paycheck into social security and will likely never see a payout when we need it. Different industrial sectors are getting hundreds of billions in subsidies. The military is getting trillions. The money is there, we just need to have the will to spend it to everyone's benefit. But no, we'd rather set it on fire instead so the wrong people don't accidentally get helped.
    - fwip 3y ago
      The rich man points at the destitute man's donation cup, and tells the poor man, "Look! That guy's stealing your money!"
rqtwteye 3y ago
I don't think penalizing will work. I think government shouldn't constantly inflate bubbles where companies have way too much investment money so they constantly overhire until the shit hits the fan. It would have been better to slowly more away from the low interest rates over the last decade.
rchaud 3y ago
It's shareholder capitalism. On one hand, you get stock options in your comp that might be worth a lot. On the other, you could get booted if it means that the company's earnings per share beats Wall St estimates.

peter_l_downs 3y ago

How would this work? Would companies be unable to fire people except for rule violations?

anotherhue 3y ago
No fault layoff == 50% salary severance would help align incentives.
yladiz 3y ago
It’s not exactly related to the parent, but in many parts of Europe, yeah, you can’t just fire someone after the probation period, and the firing needs to be for cause (which is genuinely a high bar to cross). To the point of the parent, in a lot of Europe it’s not so simple to just lay off some small portion of the company. It needs to be justified and a decent percentage, and employees are often entitled to some compensation (some severance) to offset the layoff.
- yreg 3y ago
  Yeah, obviously depends from country to country, but for a layoff the company often has to be in some problems. It's difficult to do a layoff when you have record profits. Of course there are other ways to fire employees but those have their own rules.
  - yladiz 3y ago
    Right. My point is that the company can’t just say “we’re not doing well, we need to get rid of a few people” and do a layoff with impunity. They have to lay off a pretty decent amount of people (in some cases like 30%) and they need to pay severance to the laid off employees. In most of Europe it’s basically a tool of last resort besides going bankrupt, unlike in the states where it’s easier and done somewhat regularly.
flavius29663 3y ago
maybe don't allow them to hire any visa employee for the next x years? That would make them much more careful with layoffs.
- estebank 3y ago
  There are already restrictions on visa and employer sponsored green card applications for 6 months after a layoff, iirc.
  - flavius29663 3y ago
    should extend to H1b, J class visas and others, and for longer than 6 months, maybe 2 years. Give other companies a chance of getting those people, htey just proved they cannot manage them properly.
    - estebank 3y ago
      Blocking the EB GC applications of an employer that had layoffs screws over the employee, not the employer. If anything, the employer gets to have that employee tied to them for that additional time, regardless of the desires of the employee to move on.
Scarblac 3y ago
Simple, only allow them after top management takes a heavy decrease in compensation.
pwb25 3y ago
if you have millions in cash why would you ever fire someone except that?

symlinkk 3y ago

That would slow down hiring.

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
Maybe that's a good thing? Companies need to stop defining growth in terms of head count and instead in terms of revenue and profit and learn that just because you have access to money doesn't mean you should go on a hiring frenzy.

r053bud 3y ago

The government is totally disinterested in penalizing companies for this. How else will it keep a healthy well-supplied reserve army of labour?

kbd 3y ago

More government is not the solution to all problems.

davidw 3y ago

Or, instead of the government dictating those kinds of company decisions, put in place a system so that you're ok if you do get laid off, like a real health care system that is not linked to your place of employment.

Barrin92 3y ago
>put in place a system so that you're ok if you do get laid off the being laid off part itself takes a huge mental toll, regardless of material circumstances. There's a reason the mental health of phd candidates and a good chunk of white collar workers in nominally lucrative professions is in the gutter. The hire and fire hamster wheel is in itself completely pathological. The industry just has done a really fantastic job of marketing permanent insecurity and precarity as individual choice.
- fwip 3y ago
  Sure, but the threat of losing your house, and the ability to feed, clothe, and care for your family, is also a pretty big stressor.
- davidw 3y ago
  Yeah, you have a point... it's trickier to figure out a good way to create stability without also creating genuinely harmful rigidity too, though. I lived in Italy for a long while and you do see a lot of negative effects. People stay in jobs they hate because they have landed a permanent position. Companies reticent to hire because they're stuck with you. I agree that a lot of US companies have behaved very poorly and casually with people's lives. I guess I just see stuff like health care as easy wins. The rest of it is trickier.

HammadB 3y ago

I don't think its the role of the government to penalize layoffs. If a company needs to do a layoff to remain viable it must be allowed to - the downside (everyone loses their job) is worse. And trying to apply some mechanism where the government decides if its ok or not seems too intractable. I think the approach of things like the WARN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraining_Notification_Act_of_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini...) act are more plausible. Use legislation to make the workforce more informed, resilient and ahead-of layoffs. You don't want mass layoffs crippling your economy because people are unable to plan. It's a direct consequence of the WARN act that most tech layoffs have extremely generous severance.

wombatpm 3y ago
So should companies be prohibited from doing stock buybacks or paying dividends for some period of time if they do a layoff. Or should they be required to rehire laid off workers before doing any new hiring? When it’s truly about maintaining company viability, I have some sympathy for the corporate position. But companies reporting increasing or record profits AND doing layoffs smells of financial engineering and socializing costs while privatizing profits.
- mathiasgredal 3y ago
  Why not just tax stock buybacks the same or higher than regular profits? This would force companies to either increase R&D/CAPEX spending or lower prices.
- tonystubblebine 3y ago
  Isn’t it net good that tech companies regularly overhire? I’d be afraid that too much regulation would end up making companies hesitant to hire in the first place. And why are we asking companies to act as charities here. That’s so against their nature. Tax them instead and have government improve the safety net.
- Madmallard 3y ago
  That’s because it is. It is degenerate inhumane latestage capitalism garbage.

EA-3167 3y ago

There's already a known way to combat these sorts of things... they're called unions. Tech jobs will be a lot more stable and bearable when more people understand that, and that we aren't all embarrassed millionaires.

paxys 3y ago

The question we really need to ask is – why are people driven to bankruptcy and suicide because of their employment situation? Why can't everyone have a cushion so they aren't reliant on their next paycheck to have food and shelter? Why can't everyone have healthcare? Why can't we have reasonable vacations, sabbaticals, maternity/paternity leaves? These are the issues government should be solving. And when they do, companies should happily lay off as many people as they want as frequently as they want.

milanvrekic 3y ago
That severance package is quite generous. "Why can't everyone have a cusshion" = because someone has to pay for it.
- paxys 3y ago
  Not everyone is getting laid off from Google. Most people are handed their last paycheck and shown the door. As for "someone has to pay for it", well we already are. We have the highest per capita healthcare spending in the world, also the highest rate of medical-related bankruptcies in the world and lowest life expectancy in the developed world. We are putting 6-12% of our paycheck into social security and will likely never see a payout when we need it. Different industrial sectors are getting hundreds of billions in subsidies. The military is getting trillions. The money is there, we just need to have the will to spend it to everyone's benefit. But no, we'd rather set it on fire instead so the wrong people don't accidentally get helped.
  - fwip 3y ago
    The rich man points at the destitute man's donation cup, and tells the poor man, "Look! That guy's stealing your money!"

rqtwteye 3y ago

I don't think penalizing will work. I think government shouldn't constantly inflate bubbles where companies have way too much investment money so they constantly overhire until the shit hits the fan. It would have been better to slowly more away from the low interest rates over the last decade.

rchaud 3y ago

It's shareholder capitalism. On one hand, you get stock options in your comp that might be worth a lot. On the other, you could get booted if it means that the company's earnings per share beats Wall St estimates.