6 ms·

The term 'layoffs' in this context is simply not what you're describing. These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual emplo

by qwery 1y ago

The term 'layoffs' in this context is simply not what you're describing. These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual employee being "let go" has even been evaluated as an individual. And, yes, of course layoffs are something that need to be justified, just as with firing an individual employee, as you know -- the "employee is not being productive" is a justification.

baggy_trough 1y ago
If I no longer want to pay for your services, I should be able to stop for any reason, or no reason at all.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  At a fundamental level, I agree with you. I also believe that the fact 1,000 employees can be laid off at once, and then flood the market with applications, is not something we should prevent. Rather, it's a sign we need to make more small independent companies. This is a concentration problem. That would of course require that maybe we shouldn't have the Magnificent 7, but the Magnificent 100. Maybe instead of the Fortune 500, we need the Fortune 5000, with each one much smaller. Not happening anytime soon with current incentives, but I think it would be better for everyone. We shouldn't split Google into two, but into thirty. It would be radical... but imagine if we set an aggressive, aggressive cap on employees and contractors. Like, limit 100, with a 1% corporate income tax on every additional person. Projects at scale - 50 companies cooperating; maybe with some sort of new corporation cooperation legal structure (call it the D-Corp, it manages a collection of C-Corps working together, and cannot collect profits for itself or own property, a nonprofit that manages for-profit companies who voluntarily join in a singular direction).
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    That wouldn't just be radical, it would be a violation of free market principles. If smaller orgs are actually more effective than big ones, then the market would self-correct. I'm inclined to argue that we have the economic data to prove your theory wrong. Imposing a hard headcount limit would be the definition of pointless government overreach.
- lawlessone 1y ago
  >If I no longer want to pay for your services, I should be able to stop for any reason, or no reason at all. Yeah but you live in a society, not a world of 8.1 billion sovereigns.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    A properly ordered society allows people to stop paying for services when no longer wanted.
    - lawlessone 1y ago
      employees aren't services, they're employees. This libertarian fantasy where you can do as you please, pretending your company is a person and your employees are furniture might be what you think is a "properly ordered society". But guess what? , most of us don't, and it's a common view across both the left and the right :-). It's same reason most people left and right didn't really care when some guy that denied people their health insurance got denied himself.
      - baggy_trough 1y ago
        If you are talking about the murder of an innocent man, I hope we can both agree that this was an act of pure evil, regardless of what his job was.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        lawlessone 1y ago
        If the allegations about the suspect are true it was an act of someone in pain denied access to healthcare. Like the case of Kirk or Ian Watkins, nobody should be killed but i won't lose sleep.
        baggy_trough 1y ago
- tavavex 1y ago
  If you're an individual or a small business owner who wants to no longer pay for my services, you should be allowed to stop doing so. If you're a megacorp, however, you wield extremely disproportionate power over thousands of people, and your moves can send shockwaves through an entire industry and have severe consequences for your employees that have no real power in comparison to you. I think that moderating the actions of huge businesses will be far better in these situations, especially if their reasoning for mass layoffs is maximizing profit-wringing rather than actual desperation and an immediate need to cut expenses.
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    Absolutely not, if megacorp feels need to lay off half its workforce that is its prerogative. Employment is a business relationship. Businesses have to be flexible to be competitive. The whole point of a business is to make a profit. If its not making a profit or growing, its at risk of dying, then layoffs hit 100%. The ship has to stay afloat. There's no fundamental diff between a small business and large business here except scale.
    - 9dev 1y ago
      That just is not true, though. A company externalises a lot of its cost on the rest of society; laying off older employees, for example, that likely won’t find another job until retirement, are a liability society has to take care of. The only thing separating Workers with insurance coverage via their employer from eternal financial ruin is their very job. When the auto companies fucked up in Detroit, they wreaked havoc on an entire town. The tech giants raised rent in the valley so much, it essentially became uninhabitable to anyone but software engineers. There are more examples. Businesses are just as much part of society as individuals, and they have to do their part of this relationship. IMHO this includes being considerate about layoffs, and taking care of your employees.
      - chrisco255 1y ago
        A company generates value for society, or it ceases to exist over the long run. We have unemployment insurance for laid off workers and most people at megacorps also get severence when they get let go. Older employees can find the same jobs at different companies there are almost no jobs that are exclusive to any one company and even where that is the case you can still find related jobs. There is no excuse. Unemployment levels are near 4% right now, historically near all time lows. Silicon Valley is expensive because of nimby zoning laws. We do not have that problem in Austin as Texas is pro-growth and allows for dense, high rise buildings and apartments to be built at will. As a result, our rent has gone down significantly in the last several years despite population growth. Fix your regulations and the supply problems in housing will fix themselves.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  In general this is not true. Typically you sign contracts and make agreements. You can't just unilaterally decide 'nahhh I don't wanna'. Employment IS NOT like this - employment is at will. But we still have liability, particularly around discrimination. And, also, you can follow the law and be a piece of shit. It's easy, people do it all the time.
gruez 1y ago
>These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual employee being "let go" has even been evaluated as an individual. Isn't that most layoffs? Think of the layoffs post GFC. Did the subprime mortgage crisis suddenly make everyone incompetent, or are companies simply trying to trim budgets and need to hit some number? If it's actually due to poor performance, it would be through a PIP or similar.
- immibis 1y ago
  The latter, and that doesn't make it a good thing
- wholinator2 1y ago
  Yes but the GP used poor individual performance as their only positive reason of layoffs not needing justification. So the reply was that individual performance is almost never a factor in actual layoffs, a point which you and I agree with. Thus, poor employee performance is not a monolith that can be used to explain all layoffs, and these companies should have to give better reasons that align with actual reality. It's about the immense asymmetry of power here. Yes, a person can leave just like a company can fire. But a single person quitting is nearly never a massive disruption to the business, but the business firing someone is nearly always a catastrophy for that person. I don't need to justify quitting because I'm not harming you by doing so. Laying off hundreds of people absolutely requires careful and validated justification as your significantly harming nearly everyone impacted. Of course these companies do pay well usually, but not all of them do, and not every individual has the privilege of cheap health and rent and a cheap family. Any single significant factor in a persons life can cause that "well paid" factor to mean a lot less, especially if it drags out to 6 months or more like it is known to do
  - brailsafe 1y ago
    Ya, it's an easy mistake though, very subtle difference between general dismissal/firing/layoff. They're interpreting layoff to mean the same as "firing" or general dismissal, but as far as I understand it's more like a shortage of work thing due to lack of income on the company side, compared to insufficient productivity on the worker's side. A subtle difference in terminology, but a bit difference in terms of outcome. In a layoff you'll likely have no issues getting severance if it was ever on the table to begin with, employment insurance, it's not a mark against you on a resume necessarily or socially.
jdminhbg 1y ago
> These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual employee being "let go" has even been evaluated as an individual. There’s no reason to think that you need to evaluate individuals to have a reason to let them go. I might be the best iOS developer in the world but if I’m working for a company that doesn’t need a custom iOS app, they should lay me off.

by qwery 1y ago

baggy_trough 1y ago

If I no longer want to pay for your services, I should be able to stop for any reason, or no reason at all.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
At a fundamental level, I agree with you. I also believe that the fact 1,000 employees can be laid off at once, and then flood the market with applications, is not something we should prevent. Rather, it's a sign we need to make more small independent companies. This is a concentration problem. That would of course require that maybe we shouldn't have the Magnificent 7, but the Magnificent 100. Maybe instead of the Fortune 500, we need the Fortune 5000, with each one much smaller. Not happening anytime soon with current incentives, but I think it would be better for everyone. We shouldn't split Google into two, but into thirty. It would be radical... but imagine if we set an aggressive, aggressive cap on employees and contractors. Like, limit 100, with a 1% corporate income tax on every additional person. Projects at scale - 50 companies cooperating; maybe with some sort of new corporation cooperation legal structure (call it the D-Corp, it manages a collection of C-Corps working together, and cannot collect profits for itself or own property, a nonprofit that manages for-profit companies who voluntarily join in a singular direction).
- bigyabai 1y ago
  That wouldn't just be radical, it would be a violation of free market principles. If smaller orgs are actually more effective than big ones, then the market would self-correct. I'm inclined to argue that we have the economic data to prove your theory wrong. Imposing a hard headcount limit would be the definition of pointless government overreach.
lawlessone 1y ago
>If I no longer want to pay for your services, I should be able to stop for any reason, or no reason at all. Yeah but you live in a society, not a world of 8.1 billion sovereigns.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  A properly ordered society allows people to stop paying for services when no longer wanted.
  - lawlessone 1y ago
    employees aren't services, they're employees. This libertarian fantasy where you can do as you please, pretending your company is a person and your employees are furniture might be what you think is a "properly ordered society". But guess what? , most of us don't, and it's a common view across both the left and the right :-). It's same reason most people left and right didn't really care when some guy that denied people their health insurance got denied himself.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      If you are talking about the murder of an innocent man, I hope we can both agree that this was an act of pure evil, regardless of what his job was.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - lawlessone 1y ago
        If the allegations about the suspect are true it was an act of someone in pain denied access to healthcare. Like the case of Kirk or Ian Watkins, nobody should be killed but i won't lose sleep.
        baggy_trough 1y ago
tavavex 1y ago
If you're an individual or a small business owner who wants to no longer pay for my services, you should be allowed to stop doing so. If you're a megacorp, however, you wield extremely disproportionate power over thousands of people, and your moves can send shockwaves through an entire industry and have severe consequences for your employees that have no real power in comparison to you. I think that moderating the actions of huge businesses will be far better in these situations, especially if their reasoning for mass layoffs is maximizing profit-wringing rather than actual desperation and an immediate need to cut expenses.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Absolutely not, if megacorp feels need to lay off half its workforce that is its prerogative. Employment is a business relationship. Businesses have to be flexible to be competitive. The whole point of a business is to make a profit. If its not making a profit or growing, its at risk of dying, then layoffs hit 100%. The ship has to stay afloat. There's no fundamental diff between a small business and large business here except scale.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    That just is not true, though. A company externalises a lot of its cost on the rest of society; laying off older employees, for example, that likely won’t find another job until retirement, are a liability society has to take care of. The only thing separating Workers with insurance coverage via their employer from eternal financial ruin is their very job. When the auto companies fucked up in Detroit, they wreaked havoc on an entire town. The tech giants raised rent in the valley so much, it essentially became uninhabitable to anyone but software engineers. There are more examples. Businesses are just as much part of society as individuals, and they have to do their part of this relationship. IMHO this includes being considerate about layoffs, and taking care of your employees.
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      A company generates value for society, or it ceases to exist over the long run. We have unemployment insurance for laid off workers and most people at megacorps also get severence when they get let go. Older employees can find the same jobs at different companies there are almost no jobs that are exclusive to any one company and even where that is the case you can still find related jobs. There is no excuse. Unemployment levels are near 4% right now, historically near all time lows. Silicon Valley is expensive because of nimby zoning laws. We do not have that problem in Austin as Texas is pro-growth and allows for dense, high rise buildings and apartments to be built at will. As a result, our rent has gone down significantly in the last several years despite population growth. Fix your regulations and the supply problems in housing will fix themselves.
array_key_first 1y ago
In general this is not true. Typically you sign contracts and make agreements. You can't just unilaterally decide 'nahhh I don't wanna'. Employment IS NOT like this - employment is at will. But we still have liability, particularly around discrimination. And, also, you can follow the law and be a piece of shit. It's easy, people do it all the time.

gruez 1y ago

>These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual employee being "let go" has even been evaluated as an individual. Isn't that most layoffs? Think of the layoffs post GFC. Did the subprime mortgage crisis suddenly make everyone incompetent, or are companies simply trying to trim budgets and need to hit some number? If it's actually due to poor performance, it would be through a PIP or similar.

immibis 1y ago
The latter, and that doesn't make it a good thing
wholinator2 1y ago
Yes but the GP used poor individual performance as their only positive reason of layoffs not needing justification. So the reply was that individual performance is almost never a factor in actual layoffs, a point which you and I agree with. Thus, poor employee performance is not a monolith that can be used to explain all layoffs, and these companies should have to give better reasons that align with actual reality. It's about the immense asymmetry of power here. Yes, a person can leave just like a company can fire. But a single person quitting is nearly never a massive disruption to the business, but the business firing someone is nearly always a catastrophy for that person. I don't need to justify quitting because I'm not harming you by doing so. Laying off hundreds of people absolutely requires careful and validated justification as your significantly harming nearly everyone impacted. Of course these companies do pay well usually, but not all of them do, and not every individual has the privilege of cheap health and rent and a cheap family. Any single significant factor in a persons life can cause that "well paid" factor to mean a lot less, especially if it drags out to 6 months or more like it is known to do
- brailsafe 1y ago
  Ya, it's an easy mistake though, very subtle difference between general dismissal/firing/layoff. They're interpreting layoff to mean the same as "firing" or general dismissal, but as far as I understand it's more like a shortage of work thing due to lack of income on the company side, compared to insufficient productivity on the worker's side. A subtle difference in terminology, but a bit difference in terms of outcome. In a layoff you'll likely have no issues getting severance if it was ever on the table to begin with, employment insurance, it's not a mark against you on a resume necessarily or socially.

jdminhbg 1y ago

> These layoffs occur at such scale that it's unreasonable to assume any individual employee being "let go" has even been evaluated as an individual. There’s no reason to think that you need to evaluate individuals to have a reason to let them go. I might be the best iOS developer in the world but if I’m working for a company that doesn’t need a custom iOS app, they should lay me off.