6 ms·

I've taken pay cuts twice in my career, but both times it was at unfunded startups and it was more of a "we'll get you back for this later" (one did, one did no

by sbarre 1y ago

I've taken pay cuts twice in my career, but both times it was at unfunded startups and it was more of a "we'll get you back for this later" (one did, one did not). I worry that normalizing the idea that a company can make you an offer (that you can't refuse) of lower pay, with the alternative being that you get fired, would set some really bad precedents. Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts.

stego-tech 1y ago
This. Companies will always min/max a system so they retain as much money as possible for as few hands as they can manage, always funneled upwards to executives and shareholders. Rather than trying to “negotiate” with these entities, regulations should be wielded to stop min-maxing beyond a certain point or in bad faith, and firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Behavior is shaped by incentives. Countries used to be overwhelmingly autocratic - often ruled by hereditary dictators called kings. People realized unchecked power will always lead to abuse and overthrew them. Companies are overwhelmingly autocratic (cooperatives being exceedingly rare to the point most people don't know about their existence) - often rules by hereditary dictators called owners. But you can't legally overthrow them[0]. If only we had a system of rules we could vote on which would make this arrangement forbidden... --- [0]: You can't legally overthrow a government either but if you do it successfully anyway, then you are the government and you decide what is legal. Ironically, no democratic countries I know of have clauses in their ruleset ("laws") which declare that people are allowed to overthrow the government if it's no longer democratic, even if those democratic governments were created by overthrowing a previous dictatorship.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    The US kind of does in that at least in spirit if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. It’s in the Declaration of Independence too which, in my view, is just the first page of the Constitution. The 0th Amendment if you will. Related to your second point about autocracy - I mean the good thing is you can, today, go start a company with the exact governance structure you propose and go compete in the market.
    - Hikikomori 1y ago
      Won't work if the government is willing to use the army against you, like the current one.
      - ericmay 1y ago
        Nope, see various rebellions throughout history plus insurgencies and such. It won’t work not because it wouldn’t work - you’re also assuming 100% military compliance and, as a veteran who served in active duty I can tell you not everyone agrees or disagrees with the current administration and people really do care about the Constitution, but it wouldn’t work because when you sit down and really think about it, the status quo for 90% of people is pretty good and they’re not going to take up arms over the vast majority of things a government does.
    - humanrebar 1y ago
      Also the U.S. Constitution allows for a full rewrite by a constitutional convention process. This hasn't been attempted, of course.
      - ericmay 1y ago
        Yea good point. I always forget about that.
    - danaris 1y ago
      > if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. Yeah? How's that working out right now, when the government is unquestionably violating the Constitution left and right?
- joshuacc 1y ago
  “firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.” That’s far too broad a claim. Just because you’re turning a profit doesn’t mean you should be locked into keeping all of your employees. Some are likely to be underperformers who don’t bring sufficient ROI compared to other investments/hires you could make.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    My experience with these sorts of layoffs is that they are not tightly bound to performance. If you have underperformers you can fire them the ordinary way.
    - Covenant0028 1y ago
      Exactly. How is it that an org suddenly discovered thousands of employees are under performers? And how is it that the number of under performers coincides with the number McKinsey and Co (or similar company) said it would be?
      - gruez 1y ago
        >Exactly. How is it that an org suddenly discovered thousands of employees are under performers? The more correct statement is they suddenly cared about under performers. It's not any different than say, you noticing your grocery bills going up and as a result you cancel all the subscriptions you don't need. It's not like all those SaaS services' value propositions suddenly plummeted because the price of eggs went up, but now you suddenly have an eye for cutting costs.
    - stego-tech 1y ago
      Literally this. Corporations are good at making up plausible excuses, but anyone who takes more than two seconds to evaluate their claims beyond face value will find they’re almost always complete bullshit. Underperformers should be rotated out long before a mass layoff occurs. If your company isn’t axing them until a mass layoff, they’re doing bad business.
    - 1y ago
baq 1y ago
as if they don't already; the job market is a market with a mechanism for price discovery (duh. wouldn't be a market otherwise.) the unfortunate fact is that the people forced to be sellers of their time on the market have livelihoods and families to support, so the market is in most places very heavily regulated, some would say overregulated. OTOH capitalism really did pull out many countries out of extreme poverty, so it isn't globally bad, but outcomes for individual participants aren't always... that great.
- axus 1y ago
  The Colorado rules about publishing salary ranges really help make it a true market. Better insight on compensation, in more places, would be even better. And evolving laws as the workarounds evolve; this is why we have legislators.
cjs_ac 1y ago
You can't fire people and rehire them at lower pay; they'd be so upset at you you wouldn't be able to trust them to do anything properly. What you can do is fire people you think you're paying too much and hire someone else to do the same job at lower pay.
itsoktocry 1y ago
>Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts. And the reverse? We literally just went through a phase where tech companies over hired like crazy, at ridiculous salaries. We had people remote working 3 or more jobs at a time. And yet, people still act like companies have all the power? This stuff ebbs and flows. The reality is the value of your labour fluctuates, despite the inconvenience of that to you.

by sbarre 1y ago

stego-tech 1y ago

This. Companies will always min/max a system so they retain as much money as possible for as few hands as they can manage, always funneled upwards to executives and shareholders. Rather than trying to “negotiate” with these entities, regulations should be wielded to stop min-maxing beyond a certain point or in bad faith, and firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.

martin-t 1y ago
Behavior is shaped by incentives. Countries used to be overwhelmingly autocratic - often ruled by hereditary dictators called kings. People realized unchecked power will always lead to abuse and overthrew them. Companies are overwhelmingly autocratic (cooperatives being exceedingly rare to the point most people don't know about their existence) - often rules by hereditary dictators called owners. But you can't legally overthrow them[0]. If only we had a system of rules we could vote on which would make this arrangement forbidden... --- [0]: You can't legally overthrow a government either but if you do it successfully anyway, then you are the government and you decide what is legal. Ironically, no democratic countries I know of have clauses in their ruleset ("laws") which declare that people are allowed to overthrow the government if it's no longer democratic, even if those democratic governments were created by overthrowing a previous dictatorship.
- ericmay 1y ago
  The US kind of does in that at least in spirit if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. It’s in the Declaration of Independence too which, in my view, is just the first page of the Constitution. The 0th Amendment if you will. Related to your second point about autocracy - I mean the good thing is you can, today, go start a company with the exact governance structure you propose and go compete in the market.
  - Hikikomori 1y ago
    Won't work if the government is willing to use the army against you, like the current one.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      Nope, see various rebellions throughout history plus insurgencies and such. It won’t work not because it wouldn’t work - you’re also assuming 100% military compliance and, as a veteran who served in active duty I can tell you not everyone agrees or disagrees with the current administration and people really do care about the Constitution, but it wouldn’t work because when you sit down and really think about it, the status quo for 90% of people is pretty good and they’re not going to take up arms over the vast majority of things a government does.
  - humanrebar 1y ago
    Also the U.S. Constitution allows for a full rewrite by a constitutional convention process. This hasn't been attempted, of course.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      Yea good point. I always forget about that.
  - danaris 1y ago
    > if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. Yeah? How's that working out right now, when the government is unquestionably violating the Constitution left and right?
joshuacc 1y ago
“firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.” That’s far too broad a claim. Just because you’re turning a profit doesn’t mean you should be locked into keeping all of your employees. Some are likely to be underperformers who don’t bring sufficient ROI compared to other investments/hires you could make.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  My experience with these sorts of layoffs is that they are not tightly bound to performance. If you have underperformers you can fire them the ordinary way.
  - Covenant0028 1y ago
    Exactly. How is it that an org suddenly discovered thousands of employees are under performers? And how is it that the number of under performers coincides with the number McKinsey and Co (or similar company) said it would be?
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Exactly. How is it that an org suddenly discovered thousands of employees are under performers? The more correct statement is they suddenly cared about under performers. It's not any different than say, you noticing your grocery bills going up and as a result you cancel all the subscriptions you don't need. It's not like all those SaaS services' value propositions suddenly plummeted because the price of eggs went up, but now you suddenly have an eye for cutting costs.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    Literally this. Corporations are good at making up plausible excuses, but anyone who takes more than two seconds to evaluate their claims beyond face value will find they’re almost always complete bullshit. Underperformers should be rotated out long before a mass layoff occurs. If your company isn’t axing them until a mass layoff, they’re doing bad business.
  - 1y ago

baq 1y ago

as if they don't already; the job market is a market with a mechanism for price discovery (duh. wouldn't be a market otherwise.) the unfortunate fact is that the people forced to be sellers of their time on the market have livelihoods and families to support, so the market is in most places very heavily regulated, some would say overregulated. OTOH capitalism really did pull out many countries out of extreme poverty, so it isn't globally bad, but outcomes for individual participants aren't always... that great.

axus 1y ago
The Colorado rules about publishing salary ranges really help make it a true market. Better insight on compensation, in more places, would be even better. And evolving laws as the workarounds evolve; this is why we have legislators.

cjs_ac 1y ago

You can't fire people and rehire them at lower pay; they'd be so upset at you you wouldn't be able to trust them to do anything properly. What you can do is fire people you think you're paying too much and hire someone else to do the same job at lower pay.

itsoktocry 1y ago

>Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts. And the reverse? We literally just went through a phase where tech companies over hired like crazy, at ridiculous salaries. We had people remote working 3 or more jobs at a time. And yet, people still act like companies have all the power? This stuff ebbs and flows. The reality is the value of your labour fluctuates, despite the inconvenience of that to you.