3 ms·

It has always annoyed me that companies can basically fire people for whatever reason they want, but more specifically that they can lie about that reason. It

It has always annoyed me that companies can basically fire people for whatever reason they want, but more specifically that they can lie about that reason. It almost makes we wish there were legal requirements for giving proof backing up the reason. It doesn’t need to be an actually good or noble one, but just in the sense of actually being accurate information being put into the world. I imagine this could be sold as a part of financial transparency laws. Because as of now, it really seems like companies are using AI as a cover to fire people.

anthonypasq 6mo ago
??? the reason for every single layoff in the history of the world is to lower expenses, and that is obvious to everyone. not actually sure what other kind of explanation would satisfy you.
- keiferski 6mo ago
  But why is lowering expenses now necessary? If we believed the press releases, it’s because AI blah blah. I’m suggesting that some legal requirement for being truthful about the reason would be beneficial.
  - abi 6mo ago
    What benefit would it truly provide? Companies would simply say they need to cut costs to maximize shareholder value, which is no different than what happened here.
    - keiferski 6mo ago
      Well, generally speaking I think it’s a better world if corporations are forced to not lie to people. Presumably investors and those shorting the company would benefit from more accurate information about a company. So the market as a whole would be healthier and less prone to inflationary claims. I also don’t think that excuse would really hold up under scrutiny: “we fired 14% of our workforce to maximize shareholder value” isn’t exactly a straightforward answer. Right now the answer seems to be latching onto whatever’s trendy and blaming the layoffs on that. If there is an expectation that reasons will be investigated, then I think you’d just get more accurate information in the market, tldr.
      - anthonypasq 6mo ago
        the company is hemorrhaging money, and consistently missing earnings. idk what else you need to know brother
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
  - infamouscow 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - t43562 6mo ago
    "Our product is stupid and probably won't sell despite the mountains of bullshit I've spewed over the last couple of years and we need to pivot so ...." "We took out some huge debt and need to pay it off asap so ...." "I made a strategic mistake, so ...." "I'm hoping to get a huge rise in the stock price and make money off it somehow so ...." I'm just joking but I think the point is that the smug person doing the firing wants to make themselves look good rather than bad and HAS to try to make the company look good to shareholders even if it's not.
- TheCapn 6mo ago
  You're discussing layoffs. OP is discussing firings. And yeah, there's crossover but they're not 1 to 1. At the same time, if a company is taking two people of equal position and firing one, or keeping the other, the honesty in how they came to that conclusion through transparency has value. Was the decision one of seniority? Performance? Geographical relevance? Was it favoritism masked in another reason? The person receiving the pink slip deserves to know the truth, especially in cases where legal matters could be of question where a company may say one thing, but be acting on another.
sofixa 6mo ago
> It has always annoyed me that companies can basically fire people for whatever reason they want, but more specifically that they can lie about that reason. Laughs in labour protections. In many countries (the vast majority of developed countries, and plenty of developing ones), you can't lay off employees for any reason, and reasons can be scrutinised and sued over. E.g. in France, I can be fired for performance after I've been written up and given an opportunity to improve, or fired immediately if I steal money or harass someone at work. But my employer cannot invent themselves a reason. If the reason they want to let me go is because they're going through economic headwinds, or no longer need my position, they have to document that, give me the opportunity to find another job in the company if possible, and if they're lying (e.g. immediately replacement with someone younger and cheaper), I can sue with almost guaranteed success.
redwall_hp 6mo ago
The justification doesn't matter for the diminishing pool of jobs. Companies should be forbidden from hiring for five years after a layoff, and from laying off within a decade after a merger or acquisition.

anthonypasq 6mo ago

??? the reason for every single layoff in the history of the world is to lower expenses, and that is obvious to everyone. not actually sure what other kind of explanation would satisfy you.

keiferski 6mo ago
But why is lowering expenses now necessary? If we believed the press releases, it’s because AI blah blah. I’m suggesting that some legal requirement for being truthful about the reason would be beneficial.
- abi 6mo ago
  What benefit would it truly provide? Companies would simply say they need to cut costs to maximize shareholder value, which is no different than what happened here.
  - keiferski 6mo ago
    Well, generally speaking I think it’s a better world if corporations are forced to not lie to people. Presumably investors and those shorting the company would benefit from more accurate information about a company. So the market as a whole would be healthier and less prone to inflationary claims. I also don’t think that excuse would really hold up under scrutiny: “we fired 14% of our workforce to maximize shareholder value” isn’t exactly a straightforward answer. Right now the answer seems to be latching onto whatever’s trendy and blaming the layoffs on that. If there is an expectation that reasons will be investigated, then I think you’d just get more accurate information in the market, tldr.
    - anthonypasq 6mo ago
      the company is hemorrhaging money, and consistently missing earnings. idk what else you need to know brother
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
- infamouscow 6mo ago
  [dead]
- t43562 6mo ago
  "Our product is stupid and probably won't sell despite the mountains of bullshit I've spewed over the last couple of years and we need to pivot so ...." "We took out some huge debt and need to pay it off asap so ...." "I made a strategic mistake, so ...." "I'm hoping to get a huge rise in the stock price and make money off it somehow so ...." I'm just joking but I think the point is that the smug person doing the firing wants to make themselves look good rather than bad and HAS to try to make the company look good to shareholders even if it's not.
TheCapn 6mo ago
You're discussing layoffs. OP is discussing firings. And yeah, there's crossover but they're not 1 to 1. At the same time, if a company is taking two people of equal position and firing one, or keeping the other, the honesty in how they came to that conclusion through transparency has value. Was the decision one of seniority? Performance? Geographical relevance? Was it favoritism masked in another reason? The person receiving the pink slip deserves to know the truth, especially in cases where legal matters could be of question where a company may say one thing, but be acting on another.

sofixa 6mo ago

> It has always annoyed me that companies can basically fire people for whatever reason they want, but more specifically that they can lie about that reason. Laughs in labour protections. In many countries (the vast majority of developed countries, and plenty of developing ones), you can't lay off employees for any reason, and reasons can be scrutinised and sued over. E.g. in France, I can be fired for performance after I've been written up and given an opportunity to improve, or fired immediately if I steal money or harass someone at work. But my employer cannot invent themselves a reason. If the reason they want to let me go is because they're going through economic headwinds, or no longer need my position, they have to document that, give me the opportunity to find another job in the company if possible, and if they're lying (e.g. immediately replacement with someone younger and cheaper), I can sue with almost guaranteed success.

redwall_hp 6mo ago

The justification doesn't matter for the diminishing pool of jobs. Companies should be forbidden from hiring for five years after a layoff, and from laying off within a decade after a merger or acquisition.