3 ms·

> Bout time workers started reminding companies that you need us. If they laid off people they needed they'll find out soon enough without any blow-harding.

Rygian 3y ago
By then it will be too late for those laid off, so a lose-lose situation.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Either it's happening and the consequences are obvious, or it's not happening because everyone's aware of the consequences. Either way, there's no need for any silly "Let's remind them why they need us."
  - Rygian 3y ago
    Or the more realistic: it's happening, the long-term consequences are ignored due to short-term return on investment. While I agree that "let's remind them why they need us" sounds a bit too pitchforky, I believe the background problem is that of mixing long-term considerations (a motivated workforce and a solid business plan) with short-term ones (quick ROI, appeasing shareholders). I believe that unions help focus on the employee side of the longer-term problem.
yareal 3y ago
It might take awhile for systems to disintegrate. And the executives might move on after collecting a tidy bonus. The incentives are too short term for anyone to be concerned about the finding out stage.
- spacemadness 3y ago
  It’s amazing people keep buying into the delusion that any of the people at the helm of these companies have a vested interest in long-term health of the company. What incentive is there with this much money floating around as an executive? You’re already set for life.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Okay, so in this context what does that mean? Are you saying the executives don't need the workers after all?
  - yareal 3y ago
    When the pilot steps away from the controls, the plane doesn't instantly crash, but you do still need a pilot. An exec thinks labor is a pilot, but only thinks about the 3 minutes after the pilot moves away, then declares, "see? No pilot needed!" Then the exec jumps out with their parachute, and receives no consequences. Execs don't think about long time horizons. Ever.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      This seems a pointless conversation. You're describing a stereotype in your head. That's fine, but it's not very useful outside of your head. Do you think companies are all firing people all the time and being destroyed in 2, say, years in real life? How have companies lasted more than 2 years? Or do you think no company is more than 2 years old?
      - yareal 3y ago
        Median tenure of large cap companies is like 5 years. Those CEOs are financially incentivized to raise stock value. It's not hard to imagine that many, many executives are motivated to maximize profits even if it hurts the company in the long run. That's not even a matter of opinion. Of course half the CEOs are above the median, which means some do seem to care enough to invest for long term value. In fact, short term gains is basically the reason private equity firms exist - extracting what value can be extracted from a company and then letting it die.

Rygian 3y ago

By then it will be too late for those laid off, so a lose-lose situation.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Either it's happening and the consequences are obvious, or it's not happening because everyone's aware of the consequences. Either way, there's no need for any silly "Let's remind them why they need us."
- Rygian 3y ago
  Or the more realistic: it's happening, the long-term consequences are ignored due to short-term return on investment. While I agree that "let's remind them why they need us" sounds a bit too pitchforky, I believe the background problem is that of mixing long-term considerations (a motivated workforce and a solid business plan) with short-term ones (quick ROI, appeasing shareholders). I believe that unions help focus on the employee side of the longer-term problem.

yareal 3y ago

It might take awhile for systems to disintegrate. And the executives might move on after collecting a tidy bonus. The incentives are too short term for anyone to be concerned about the finding out stage.

spacemadness 3y ago
It’s amazing people keep buying into the delusion that any of the people at the helm of these companies have a vested interest in long-term health of the company. What incentive is there with this much money floating around as an executive? You’re already set for life.
robertlagrant 3y ago
Okay, so in this context what does that mean? Are you saying the executives don't need the workers after all?
- yareal 3y ago
  When the pilot steps away from the controls, the plane doesn't instantly crash, but you do still need a pilot. An exec thinks labor is a pilot, but only thinks about the 3 minutes after the pilot moves away, then declares, "see? No pilot needed!" Then the exec jumps out with their parachute, and receives no consequences. Execs don't think about long time horizons. Ever.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    This seems a pointless conversation. You're describing a stereotype in your head. That's fine, but it's not very useful outside of your head. Do you think companies are all firing people all the time and being destroyed in 2, say, years in real life? How have companies lasted more than 2 years? Or do you think no company is more than 2 years old?
    - yareal 3y ago
      Median tenure of large cap companies is like 5 years. Those CEOs are financially incentivized to raise stock value. It's not hard to imagine that many, many executives are motivated to maximize profits even if it hurts the company in the long run. That's not even a matter of opinion. Of course half the CEOs are above the median, which means some do seem to care enough to invest for long term value. In fact, short term gains is basically the reason private equity firms exist - extracting what value can be extracted from a company and then letting it die.