5 ms·

First of all, they shouldn't care. But second, they do care. Even if they shouldn't. I was laid off 2 years ago. I was given all the opportunities to find ano

First of all, they shouldn't care. But second, they do care. Even if they shouldn't. I was laid off 2 years ago. I was given all the opportunities to find another internal job. I send my resume to a number of managers. I didn't hear back. Why? Because the CEO told the managers to ignore me? I doubt that. The managers, knowing about all the likely advantages of internal hires (I was familiar with the infrastructure, with the culture, I had a network, etc) decided to not hire me. The company went out of its way to improve my experience. They know it's not fun for people to be laid off, so they did the best they could to soften the blow. I was paid for 4 months, and I was officially still on the pay-roll for 3 months (i.e. I was still covered by the health insurance, I did not need to get COBRA). I received free coaching from a consulting company, to assist me with improving my resume and interviewing skills. The company pays for former laid-off employees to come and tell their story to the freshly laid-off. The company even continued to match my 401k for the 3 months I was not working, but officially still on the payroll. My experience was very positive. Of course, I can't generalize, I'm sure other people felt differently. But here I am. A guy who had gone through the experience of being laid off, and who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company.

triceratops 2y ago
> who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company. Again let's be clear, no one's saying CEOs don't have the right to lay off people. You're arguing against a strawman. Even the article doesn't say that. It says the CEO should not personally benefit financially immediately after a layoff. It's a clear conflict of interest. Not just with other employees but, more importantly, with other shareholders. Do you believe in good corporate governance, free of corruption and self-dealing? CEOs in particular must always act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, even when it's contrary to their own interests. This is one such example. The type of person who won't lay people off when it's necessary solely because they'll lose their bonus, is fundamentally a bad CEO. You don't ever want that person in charge. A company that would appoint that kind of person deserves to fail.
- eschaton 2y ago
  I’ll go ahead and say it then: The CEO shouldn’t have the right to arbitrarily lay off people. They should have to go through substantial formal procedures to do so, much more than the United States makes them go through now. Furthermore, _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision at either a federal or state level, and we need to stop treating it as such—and we need to stop treating it as morally correct, too, since it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision AFAICT it wasn't any kind of decision. Are you thinking of Dodge v Ford? > it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way Dodge v Ford held that companies are run for the benefit of shareholders. Future court decisions further clarified that "benefit" isn't the same as profit. As I wrote in this comment 8 months ago: > The Supreme Court said as recently as 2016: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not...More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452
    - eschaton 2y ago
      Thank you, I indeed meant _Dodge v Ford_. At the time it was decided it really did equate benefit with profit, but as you said there have been a bunch of subsequent decisions specifically declaring that they’re not the same thing. And as I said, the decision itself was non-precedential.
eschaton 2y ago
Wow, all that and you still promote hyper-capitalist bullshit like “they shouldn’t care.” Sounds more like you love the taste of their boot than that you’re any sort of good economist.
- credit_guy 2y ago
  I'm not an economist at all. I'm just someone who is very good at their job. I'm better at what I do that 99% of the people. But in my previous job I wasn't. They did me a favor that they let me go. I was lucky and I found quickly another job where I happened to be a very good fit. The experience of being laid off and then finding a much better job is not unique to me. It's not universal, but it's not that rare either. In a world where the barriers for firing people are high, lots of people will find themselves stuck in jobs they hate. I'm sure you will disagree, you'll say that people are free to go and look for another job at all times. But that's just theory. In practice only a small minority of people do that. Most will just suffer through a bad job, because they have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc. This is just a fact.
  - eschaton 2y ago
    No, I actually do agree that lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate. The solution to that isn’t to cheer on layoffs. The solution is to establish a good social safety net—especially when it comes to housing and healthcare—so people don’t have to either do a job they hate or die in the gutter. When you were laid off with lots of assistance, preserved insurance, compensation, etc. from your employer, you experienced what life is like with such a safety net. However, it was mostly provided by your employer as a perk rather than by society as a social good; the rules on what employers have to provide in the US at least are very lax. What’s maddening about opposition to providing this society-wide is that doing this would also reduce companies’ administrative overhead (HR costs would plummet without tying healthcare and retirement to employment), and would make it easier to entice good people away from their existing jobs by reducing risk. The simple fact is that the oligarchs running corporate America really want serfs, not free agents, and they’re the ones who fight doing this society-wide even though it costs them far more to do it the way it’s done now.

triceratops 2y ago

> who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company. Again let's be clear, no one's saying CEOs don't have the right to lay off people. You're arguing against a strawman. Even the article doesn't say that. It says the CEO should not personally benefit financially immediately after a layoff. It's a clear conflict of interest. Not just with other employees but, more importantly, with other shareholders. Do you believe in good corporate governance, free of corruption and self-dealing? CEOs in particular must always act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, even when it's contrary to their own interests. This is one such example. The type of person who won't lay people off when it's necessary solely because they'll lose their bonus, is fundamentally a bad CEO. You don't ever want that person in charge. A company that would appoint that kind of person deserves to fail.

eschaton 2y ago
I’ll go ahead and say it then: The CEO shouldn’t have the right to arbitrarily lay off people. They should have to go through substantial formal procedures to do so, much more than the United States makes them go through now. Furthermore, _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision at either a federal or state level, and we need to stop treating it as such—and we need to stop treating it as morally correct, too, since it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision AFAICT it wasn't any kind of decision. Are you thinking of Dodge v Ford? > it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way Dodge v Ford held that companies are run for the benefit of shareholders. Future court decisions further clarified that "benefit" isn't the same as profit. As I wrote in this comment 8 months ago: > The Supreme Court said as recently as 2016: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not...More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452
  - eschaton 2y ago
    Thank you, I indeed meant _Dodge v Ford_. At the time it was decided it really did equate benefit with profit, but as you said there have been a bunch of subsequent decisions specifically declaring that they’re not the same thing. And as I said, the decision itself was non-precedential.

eschaton 2y ago

Wow, all that and you still promote hyper-capitalist bullshit like “they shouldn’t care.” Sounds more like you love the taste of their boot than that you’re any sort of good economist.

credit_guy 2y ago
I'm not an economist at all. I'm just someone who is very good at their job. I'm better at what I do that 99% of the people. But in my previous job I wasn't. They did me a favor that they let me go. I was lucky and I found quickly another job where I happened to be a very good fit. The experience of being laid off and then finding a much better job is not unique to me. It's not universal, but it's not that rare either. In a world where the barriers for firing people are high, lots of people will find themselves stuck in jobs they hate. I'm sure you will disagree, you'll say that people are free to go and look for another job at all times. But that's just theory. In practice only a small minority of people do that. Most will just suffer through a bad job, because they have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc. This is just a fact.
- eschaton 2y ago
  No, I actually do agree that lots of people are stuck in jobs they hate. The solution to that isn’t to cheer on layoffs. The solution is to establish a good social safety net—especially when it comes to housing and healthcare—so people don’t have to either do a job they hate or die in the gutter. When you were laid off with lots of assistance, preserved insurance, compensation, etc. from your employer, you experienced what life is like with such a safety net. However, it was mostly provided by your employer as a perk rather than by society as a social good; the rules on what employers have to provide in the US at least are very lax. What’s maddening about opposition to providing this society-wide is that doing this would also reduce companies’ administrative overhead (HR costs would plummet without tying healthcare and retirement to employment), and would make it easier to entice good people away from their existing jobs by reducing risk. The simple fact is that the oligarchs running corporate America really want serfs, not free agents, and they’re the ones who fight doing this society-wide even though it costs them far more to do it the way it’s done now.