7 ms·

As if only low-performing coworkers would be terminated. The total freedom of the company to terminate anyone any time for any reason or no reason is extreme,

As if only low-performing coworkers would be terminated. The total freedom of the company to terminate anyone any time for any reason or no reason is extreme, and now we are pivoting to the other extreme. Funny how that happens.

cool_dude85 2y ago
"Just cause" provisions are about an inch away from arbitrary termination, they are hardly "the other extreme."
- lucianbr 2y ago
  That's really nice if that is the case. My understanding from the comments was that this prevents people who don't do their job from being fired, as long as they don't set fire to the servers or something. If I misunderstood, then the union is being nicer than they have to.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    In my experience, the commenters here, on a forum for SV startups, are overwhelmingly biased in favor of business.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      Why wouldn't it be? Businesses doing pro-business things are the main reason well paying jobs exist. And people love well paying jobs rather than poor paying jobs.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        I am making no claim about what the comment bias should be here on HN. I am merely reporting it to the parent comment.
      - miltonlost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        Government is in charge of regulating the minimum wage. Private companies are in charge of bidding for the "maximum wage", they have no obligation for providing a minimum as they serve their shareholders not the public, the government serves the public.
        miltonlost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        drawkward 2y ago
        >Private companies are in charge of bidding for the "maximum wage", they have no obligation for providing a minimum as they serve their shareholders not the public, the government serves the public. This doesn't support your point the way you think it might.
      - matsemann 2y ago
        That's a very loaded way of putting it.
  - eloisant 2y ago
    Speaking from a country where workers are very well protected, nothing really prevents anyone from being fired. It's just more expensive. A court never reinstates anyone to their job, the company just needs to pay damages to the former employee.
    - cool_dude85 2y ago
      In the US you can be reinstated, it's not actually that uncommon of an outcome.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    My own experience working in a white-collar union with a just cause provision is that the process is much more cumbersome and time consuming, and includes some off-ramps, but it is certainly possible to fire and or punish low performers. The more concretely "low performance" can be measured, the quicker and easier, but we're still talking months or years.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > My understanding from the comments That is your problem right there. You cannot trust comments to give you an accurate idea of what actually happened. The linked source is marginally better (but keep in mind that it is close to one side of the story, even though it is more independent than some people here seem to believe).
leereeves 2y ago
[flagged]
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Are you deliberately ignoring the concept of power imbalance and wide spectrum on which it occurs? All of those examples you cited are drastically different types of relationships, set in very different contexts, that absolutely deserve different terms of engagement. >Do we now hate the rich so much that we want to impose that burden on them when they pay someone I don't even know how to parse this. We're talking about companies of a certain size. I guess we have fully stopped pretending they are anything other than an appendage of the wealthy class, and have no other responsibilities to society.
  - ericd 2y ago
    That power imbalance mainly exists if you don't save any money and/or live in an area with only a couple of employment options in your field and can't move. If you save up enough money to take a couple years off, there's no power imbalance.
    - pokerface_86 2y ago
      i agree with you but you do realize what you’re saying right? the vast majority of people will never have 150k+ in liquid capital they can tap in to if they don’t like their job
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Um no fault divorce (even without a co-respondent etc) is in fact fairly recent
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Indeed and most liberal-minded people think it was a good change.
csallen 2y ago
Why is that extreme? If you own a company, why shouldn't you be able to fire someone at any time? If you work a job, why shouldn't you be able to quit at any time? I don't think it's great that our society tries to treat work like it's family, and jobs like they're some guaranteed long-term relationship. It sets people up with the wrong expectations. Your company will lay you off or fire you once they run out of money to pay you or reason to keep you on board. That's how it works. Just as you will quit your job and take a new one if you interview and get a better offer elsewhere. These are business contracts.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  You're asking why it's bad that your owners can take away your livelihood on a whim without any reason?
  - gojomo 2y ago
    Can an employee quit on a whim without any reason, taking vital functions away from the productive team on which they served?
    - laserlight 2y ago
      > taking vital functions away It's business's responsibility to not depend on a single employee. The employee might have been hit by a bus.
      - csallen 2y ago
        Yes, and it's an employee's responsibility to not depend on a single job, and to be prepared for the possibility that it might go away. That's the mindset we should be teaching people, because it's REALITY. Plenty of people are aware of this, and they navigate this successfully by saving part of their income, by maintaining an employable skillset, and by living within their means, while working a job. When you suggest to people that it's their company's responsibility to take care of them, to guarantee their job into their future, or to look out for their personal financial livelihood, that IS NOT REALITY. That's not how it works. You're telling people that their own responsibilities are someone else's, when that's not in fact true. When people mistakenly believe this drivel, they're far more likely to take bad risks and make huge financial mistakes.

cool_dude85 2y ago

"Just cause" provisions are about an inch away from arbitrary termination, they are hardly "the other extreme."

lucianbr 2y ago
That's really nice if that is the case. My understanding from the comments was that this prevents people who don't do their job from being fired, as long as they don't set fire to the servers or something. If I misunderstood, then the union is being nicer than they have to.
- drawkward 2y ago
  In my experience, the commenters here, on a forum for SV startups, are overwhelmingly biased in favor of business.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    Why wouldn't it be? Businesses doing pro-business things are the main reason well paying jobs exist. And people love well paying jobs rather than poor paying jobs.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      I am making no claim about what the comment bias should be here on HN. I am merely reporting it to the parent comment.
    - miltonlost 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        Government is in charge of regulating the minimum wage. Private companies are in charge of bidding for the "maximum wage", they have no obligation for providing a minimum as they serve their shareholders not the public, the government serves the public.
        miltonlost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        drawkward 2y ago
        >Private companies are in charge of bidding for the "maximum wage", they have no obligation for providing a minimum as they serve their shareholders not the public, the government serves the public. This doesn't support your point the way you think it might.
    - matsemann 2y ago
      That's a very loaded way of putting it.
- eloisant 2y ago
  Speaking from a country where workers are very well protected, nothing really prevents anyone from being fired. It's just more expensive. A court never reinstates anyone to their job, the company just needs to pay damages to the former employee.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    In the US you can be reinstated, it's not actually that uncommon of an outcome.
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  My own experience working in a white-collar union with a just cause provision is that the process is much more cumbersome and time consuming, and includes some off-ramps, but it is certainly possible to fire and or punish low performers. The more concretely "low performance" can be measured, the quicker and easier, but we're still talking months or years.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > My understanding from the comments That is your problem right there. You cannot trust comments to give you an accurate idea of what actually happened. The linked source is marginally better (but keep in mind that it is close to one side of the story, even though it is more independent than some people here seem to believe).

leereeves 2y ago

[flagged]

anon84873628 2y ago
Are you deliberately ignoring the concept of power imbalance and wide spectrum on which it occurs? All of those examples you cited are drastically different types of relationships, set in very different contexts, that absolutely deserve different terms of engagement. >Do we now hate the rich so much that we want to impose that burden on them when they pay someone I don't even know how to parse this. We're talking about companies of a certain size. I guess we have fully stopped pretending they are anything other than an appendage of the wealthy class, and have no other responsibilities to society.
- ericd 2y ago
  That power imbalance mainly exists if you don't save any money and/or live in an area with only a couple of employment options in your field and can't move. If you save up enough money to take a couple years off, there's no power imbalance.
  - pokerface_86 2y ago
    i agree with you but you do realize what you’re saying right? the vast majority of people will never have 150k+ in liquid capital they can tap in to if they don’t like their job
selimthegrim 2y ago
Um no fault divorce (even without a co-respondent etc) is in fact fairly recent
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  Indeed and most liberal-minded people think it was a good change.

csallen 2y ago

Why is that extreme? If you own a company, why shouldn't you be able to fire someone at any time? If you work a job, why shouldn't you be able to quit at any time? I don't think it's great that our society tries to treat work like it's family, and jobs like they're some guaranteed long-term relationship. It sets people up with the wrong expectations. Your company will lay you off or fire you once they run out of money to pay you or reason to keep you on board. That's how it works. Just as you will quit your job and take a new one if you interview and get a better offer elsewhere. These are business contracts.

ForHackernews 2y ago
You're asking why it's bad that your owners can take away your livelihood on a whim without any reason?
- gojomo 2y ago
  Can an employee quit on a whim without any reason, taking vital functions away from the productive team on which they served?
  - laserlight 2y ago
    > taking vital functions away It's business's responsibility to not depend on a single employee. The employee might have been hit by a bus.
    - csallen 2y ago
      Yes, and it's an employee's responsibility to not depend on a single job, and to be prepared for the possibility that it might go away. That's the mindset we should be teaching people, because it's REALITY. Plenty of people are aware of this, and they navigate this successfully by saving part of their income, by maintaining an employable skillset, and by living within their means, while working a job. When you suggest to people that it's their company's responsibility to take care of them, to guarantee their job into their future, or to look out for their personal financial livelihood, that IS NOT REALITY. That's not how it works. You're telling people that their own responsibilities are someone else's, when that's not in fact true. When people mistakenly believe this drivel, they're far more likely to take bad risks and make huge financial mistakes.