4 ms·

“There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Mr Gurner said. “We need to remind people they work for th

“There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Mr Gurner said. “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” As much of a tool as this guy seems to be, it's hard to say he's wrong here. I've also been noticing a surge of tech people treating companies as some kind of social service / adult daycare where it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life. It's really bizarre.

28304283409234 2y ago
It's not that black and white. The relationship between employer and employee should be far more symbiotic than what Gurner states. Both should benefit equally from the system. That is no longer the case.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
I think this guy is the kind of person that will fire an employee out of spite, even if it will damage the business. ‘the peasants should know their place’ I am not clear on this whole ‘employees want too much’ issue - we are still talking about companies like FANG that have giant profits and insane capitalisation? Why is having employees claim larger share of the pie a bad thing? The money they pay in salaries actually gets taxes and enters the real economy. The money they stash in tax heavens does not
pjc50 2y ago
> it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life Ultimately that's why the person is going to work, no?
anal_reactor 2y ago
> It's really bizarre. Everything seems bizarre before it becomes the new standard.
dgb23 2y ago
> “There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Aren’t they? I feel like that’s a healthy way of looking at it. Goes both ways though. > “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” What does this even mean? Remind how? And why isn’t mentioned that it’s supposed to be a mutually beneficial exchange?
hnbad 2y ago
A company can remain operational for quite a while if the business owner walks out. A company has to shut down pretty much entirely if all the workers walk out. As both a worker and a business owner (and formerly an employer) I can tell you that this will always hold true. Sure, in most companies the business owner will also be the general manager or CEO of the company and actively steer the long-term trajectory and development of the company as well as manage day-to-day regulatory compliance and other concerns of "business as usual" but all of this is literally just work and owning the company is neither necessary nor sufficient for doing this work (except when it comes to legally representing the company but that too can be delegated to a person who doesn't have to be the owner). What a business owner brings to the table, like a landlord, is capital. It doesn't matter if this capital was accumulated through hard work, exploitative business practices, bank loans, inheritance or anything else. At the end of the day the difference is a business owner has capital, a worker only has their own labor to sell. I'm not sure why you're blaming employees for treating companies like "adult daycare" when you're even saying it's something you observed the development of. If you did, you surely know the origins, most prominently Google and all of its cultural copycats. Startups having foosball tables was a cliché over the past decades for a good reason. In a market where experienced and skilled developers were rare and job openings for them were plenty, companies tried to attract and retain them at any cost. Laundry services, on-site gyms and three warm meals at work meant less private life and more reliance on the company for everyday necessities, it also meant overtime was less visible because you're "living in the office" anyway. The "adult daycare" phenomenon existed as much to pamper high-value employees as to lock them in (psychologically at least) and to trick them into fully identifying with the company they work for (and give up their private life for it). It's functionally equivalent to any run of the mill cult. The crux here is that the companies didn't want to make sure the employee's family was living a good life, they wanted to make sure the employee didn't get distracted. Heck, companies like Google have sponsored freezing their employees' eggs to incentivize them delaying their family planning. There's a reason former Google employees still call themselves "Xooglers" because having worked at Google is still ingrained into their identity. Also, conveniently, all these benefits and affordances ensure employees don't think they need a union or can be told that unions would actually get in the way by asking inconvient questions or demanding separation of work time and private time or fair treatment of individuals who don't want to or can't participate in "the lifestyle".
silverquiet 2y ago
In the US, our healthcare depends on being employed. It is indeed bizarre.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  That's due to tax laws that effectively make it cheaper to compensate healthcare than in cash. Since everyone needs healthcare it's a standard offering. But you're free to purchase it privately. I've bought health insurance privately when unemployed easy peasy.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    > But you're free to purchase it privately. That hardly disconnects it from being employed, unless you are fortunate enough to have savings/inheritance/etc to fall back on.
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      Well yeah if you want things in life you need to offer something in return, obviously the doctor isn't a slave at your command to work for you for free. But you need not be employed to employ his services, merely need to compensate him for his employment in your service.
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        What if you're disabled (like me)?
        beaglesss 2y ago
        Your options are to offer the doctor something, ask for charity, or use violence (either yourself or through the state) to force someone to give you what you want. Obviously I am not going to advocate for violence.
        2y ago

28304283409234 2y ago

It's not that black and white. The relationship between employer and employee should be far more symbiotic than what Gurner states. Both should benefit equally from the system. That is no longer the case.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

I think this guy is the kind of person that will fire an employee out of spite, even if it will damage the business. ‘the peasants should know their place’ I am not clear on this whole ‘employees want too much’ issue - we are still talking about companies like FANG that have giant profits and insane capitalisation? Why is having employees claim larger share of the pie a bad thing? The money they pay in salaries actually gets taxes and enters the real economy. The money they stash in tax heavens does not

pjc50 2y ago

> it's the company's responsibility to make sure the employee and their family are living a good life Ultimately that's why the person is going to work, no?

anal_reactor 2y ago

> It's really bizarre. Everything seems bizarre before it becomes the new standard.

dgb23 2y ago

> “There’s been a systematic change where employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them,” Aren’t they? I feel like that’s a healthy way of looking at it. Goes both ways though. > “We need to remind people they work for the employer, not the other way around.” What does this even mean? Remind how? And why isn’t mentioned that it’s supposed to be a mutually beneficial exchange?

hnbad 2y ago

A company can remain operational for quite a while if the business owner walks out. A company has to shut down pretty much entirely if all the workers walk out. As both a worker and a business owner (and formerly an employer) I can tell you that this will always hold true. Sure, in most companies the business owner will also be the general manager or CEO of the company and actively steer the long-term trajectory and development of the company as well as manage day-to-day regulatory compliance and other concerns of "business as usual" but all of this is literally just work and owning the company is neither necessary nor sufficient for doing this work (except when it comes to legally representing the company but that too can be delegated to a person who doesn't have to be the owner). What a business owner brings to the table, like a landlord, is capital. It doesn't matter if this capital was accumulated through hard work, exploitative business practices, bank loans, inheritance or anything else. At the end of the day the difference is a business owner has capital, a worker only has their own labor to sell. I'm not sure why you're blaming employees for treating companies like "adult daycare" when you're even saying it's something you observed the development of. If you did, you surely know the origins, most prominently Google and all of its cultural copycats. Startups having foosball tables was a cliché over the past decades for a good reason. In a market where experienced and skilled developers were rare and job openings for them were plenty, companies tried to attract and retain them at any cost. Laundry services, on-site gyms and three warm meals at work meant less private life and more reliance on the company for everyday necessities, it also meant overtime was less visible because you're "living in the office" anyway. The "adult daycare" phenomenon existed as much to pamper high-value employees as to lock them in (psychologically at least) and to trick them into fully identifying with the company they work for (and give up their private life for it). It's functionally equivalent to any run of the mill cult. The crux here is that the companies didn't want to make sure the employee's family was living a good life, they wanted to make sure the employee didn't get distracted. Heck, companies like Google have sponsored freezing their employees' eggs to incentivize them delaying their family planning. There's a reason former Google employees still call themselves "Xooglers" because having worked at Google is still ingrained into their identity. Also, conveniently, all these benefits and affordances ensure employees don't think they need a union or can be told that unions would actually get in the way by asking inconvient questions or demanding separation of work time and private time or fair treatment of individuals who don't want to or can't participate in "the lifestyle".

silverquiet 2y ago

In the US, our healthcare depends on being employed. It is indeed bizarre.

beaglesss 2y ago
That's due to tax laws that effectively make it cheaper to compensate healthcare than in cash. Since everyone needs healthcare it's a standard offering. But you're free to purchase it privately. I've bought health insurance privately when unemployed easy peasy.
- dspillett 2y ago
  > But you're free to purchase it privately. That hardly disconnects it from being employed, unless you are fortunate enough to have savings/inheritance/etc to fall back on.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Well yeah if you want things in life you need to offer something in return, obviously the doctor isn't a slave at your command to work for you for free. But you need not be employed to employ his services, merely need to compensate him for his employment in your service.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      What if you're disabled (like me)?
      - beaglesss 2y ago
        Your options are to offer the doctor something, ask for charity, or use violence (either yourself or through the state) to force someone to give you what you want. Obviously I am not going to advocate for violence.
        2y ago