3 ms·

> there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there wo

by imgabe 3y ago

> there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if you consider your job precarious or not, it's simply irresponsible to not be prepared for the possibility.

sarchertech 3y ago
Sure and it’s probably a bad idea to walk alone in bad areas of town at night. That doesn’t mean that if you get shot while doing so that you aren’t a victim.
- imgabe 3y ago
  The company is not mugging anyone. They are exercising their right to end a voluntary association. This is a perfectly valid choice that either party of the employment relationship may make. If you usually shop at grocery store A and you decide you don't want to any more and shop at grocery store B instead, you're not "victimizing" grocery store A.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    No one said that a company is mugging anyone. The point of the analogy is that failure to prepare doesn’t preclude being a victim. Most societies recognize that the employer to employee relationship is unbalanced in favor of the employer in a way that consumer to grocery store isn’t. Unemployment insurance, and severance requirements wouldn’t be necessary if the relationship were really the equally balanced market transaction you think that it is. Even the executives who do the laying off recognize the harm they are causing. I’ve been on calls with CEOs who were crying because they recognized (or wanted to appear that they recognized) the harm they were causing even if they thought it was justified. Victim is a perfectly reasonable word to describe the people on the receiving end of that harm.
Apocryphon 3y ago
More than a fifth of Americans have no savings. At a certain point of spread, irresponsibility stops being a matter of personal character and becomes a systemic problem that concerns the public interest. https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their-savings-1862843 https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their...
- imgabe 3y ago
  And there's a systemic solution, called unemployment insurance, that every company is required to pay into, and they pay more when they lay people off. What else would you have us do? These are grown professional adults we're talking about, not helpless wards of the state. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Decouple health insurance from employment, for starters.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, but we're getting into the weeds here. My point is just that choosing to voluntarily end a business arrangement, within the the terms of the agreement, does not constitute "victimizing" someone. Otherwise, the employer could claim they're a victim when an employee quits. A store could claim they're a victim if a customer starts shopping at a different store, and so on. It's ridiculous. The tendency to cry victimhood at every obstacle is pernicious and debilitating to those who practice it. I would encourage people to avoid it.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        The way I see it, mass layoffs are one of those situations where it feels unjust. A company might have acted incompetently, even recklessly, leading to people’s lives get disrupted. Are the executives culpable or were they victims of economic fortunes? Who knows? Either way, their positions often don’t change afterwards, and the companies stock price will usually rise as expenses fall with their workforce. So you have one set of people suffering, and others connected to the suffering being unaffected. Whether that connection is causation is up to interpretation. Either way the ethical calculus certainly feels imbalanced. You can use all the logic you want, but it’s hard to address the feeling of something amiss. It might not be arson, but it still feels like a controlled burn that went out of control.

by imgabe 3y ago

sarchertech 3y ago

Sure and it’s probably a bad idea to walk alone in bad areas of town at night. That doesn’t mean that if you get shot while doing so that you aren’t a victim.

imgabe 3y ago
The company is not mugging anyone. They are exercising their right to end a voluntary association. This is a perfectly valid choice that either party of the employment relationship may make. If you usually shop at grocery store A and you decide you don't want to any more and shop at grocery store B instead, you're not "victimizing" grocery store A.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  No one said that a company is mugging anyone. The point of the analogy is that failure to prepare doesn’t preclude being a victim. Most societies recognize that the employer to employee relationship is unbalanced in favor of the employer in a way that consumer to grocery store isn’t. Unemployment insurance, and severance requirements wouldn’t be necessary if the relationship were really the equally balanced market transaction you think that it is. Even the executives who do the laying off recognize the harm they are causing. I’ve been on calls with CEOs who were crying because they recognized (or wanted to appear that they recognized) the harm they were causing even if they thought it was justified. Victim is a perfectly reasonable word to describe the people on the receiving end of that harm.

Apocryphon 3y ago

More than a fifth of Americans have no savings. At a certain point of spread, irresponsibility stops being a matter of personal character and becomes a systemic problem that concerns the public interest. https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their-savings-1862843 https://www.newsweek.com/americans-have-burned-through-their...

imgabe 3y ago
And there's a systemic solution, called unemployment insurance, that every company is required to pay into, and they pay more when they lay people off. What else would you have us do? These are grown professional adults we're talking about, not helpless wards of the state. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Decouple health insurance from employment, for starters.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but we're getting into the weeds here. My point is just that choosing to voluntarily end a business arrangement, within the the terms of the agreement, does not constitute "victimizing" someone. Otherwise, the employer could claim they're a victim when an employee quits. A store could claim they're a victim if a customer starts shopping at a different store, and so on. It's ridiculous. The tendency to cry victimhood at every obstacle is pernicious and debilitating to those who practice it. I would encourage people to avoid it.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      The way I see it, mass layoffs are one of those situations where it feels unjust. A company might have acted incompetently, even recklessly, leading to people’s lives get disrupted. Are the executives culpable or were they victims of economic fortunes? Who knows? Either way, their positions often don’t change afterwards, and the companies stock price will usually rise as expenses fall with their workforce. So you have one set of people suffering, and others connected to the suffering being unaffected. Whether that connection is causation is up to interpretation. Either way the ethical calculus certainly feels imbalanced. You can use all the logic you want, but it’s hard to address the feeling of something amiss. It might not be arson, but it still feels like a controlled burn that went out of control.