46 ms·

This is so ethically and morally odious I struggle to find the words to describe it. I’ve managed people out. I’m sure I’ll have to do it again. I’ve even let

This is so ethically and morally odious I struggle to find the words to describe it. I’ve managed people out. I’m sure I’ll have to do it again. I’ve even let people go during probation but, on the rare occasions that’s happened, I’ve seen it as a failure of the hiring process. People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line. Our employees are after all people, human beings. As I result I skew picky during the hiring process: if there’s any doubt there’s no doubt kind of thing. Just awful behaviour here from Amazon.

sokoloff 5mo ago
On the opposite direction (but compatible overall view): if I think a candidate is marginal/on the bubble of passing, I’m much more likely to move forward with them if they’re unemployed. Someone unemployed might be a little rusty (and thus get estimated slightly worse in the interview) but, more importantly, if they come in and flame out, they’re not worse off for the experience or at least not as much as if they gave up a stable job.
- bartread 5mo ago
  Yes, that’s completely fair, and I’ve done the same. I’ve also been on the other side and made it clear I’m available and happy to take a chance. When everybody is going in with their eyes open I think it’s a different matter.
sneak 5mo ago
> People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line. Literally none of that is the employer’s responsibility. It’s just a business transaction. Having sufficient savings is the responsibility of every adult, never their employer. It is not the employer’s job to manage the employee’s cash flow. Everyone, but ESPECIALLY those making six figures in tech, should have a six months of expenses savings account in cash SPECIFICALLY for this exact scenario. There are a million ways you might be without work for 2-4 months. It’s not an employer’s fault (or responsibility) that their employee is financially irresponsible.
- beepboopboop 5mo ago
  It’s not the employer’s responsibility, but do you think it’s ethical to hire someone so that they can contribute to your firing metrics?
  - nixgeek 5mo ago
    [dead]
- conjectures 5mo ago
  Only if they are being honest. Offer this as a 12 month temp contract with possibility of continuation. Offering a role as permanent but with unvoiced intent to let go, that's dishonest. Being honest is always a responsibility.
  - sneak 5mo ago
    A job today does not imply a job next week.
- encrypted_bird 5mo ago
  A LOT of people don't make enough money to put away 6 months of savings. You can be the most financially responsible person in existence, but if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Seriously, just how privileged can you get?
  - K0balt 5mo ago
    Yeah, employers should not hire people that can’t afford to put away 6 months of livings expenses, because that puts the employer in a questionable ethical position. Or maybe a living wage with savings should be the legal minimum wage? Oh wait, nope, can’t have that lol.
    - encrypted_bird 5mo ago
      It would certainly be nice to have a living wage, I can tell you that much! Haha. I could actually afford to spend more than $40 a week on food! :D

sokoloff 5mo ago

On the opposite direction (but compatible overall view): if I think a candidate is marginal/on the bubble of passing, I’m much more likely to move forward with them if they’re unemployed. Someone unemployed might be a little rusty (and thus get estimated slightly worse in the interview) but, more importantly, if they come in and flame out, they’re not worse off for the experience or at least not as much as if they gave up a stable job.

bartread 5mo ago
Yes, that’s completely fair, and I’ve done the same. I’ve also been on the other side and made it clear I’m available and happy to take a chance. When everybody is going in with their eyes open I think it’s a different matter.

sneak 5mo ago

> People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line. Literally none of that is the employer’s responsibility. It’s just a business transaction. Having sufficient savings is the responsibility of every adult, never their employer. It is not the employer’s job to manage the employee’s cash flow. Everyone, but ESPECIALLY those making six figures in tech, should have a six months of expenses savings account in cash SPECIFICALLY for this exact scenario. There are a million ways you might be without work for 2-4 months. It’s not an employer’s fault (or responsibility) that their employee is financially irresponsible.

beepboopboop 5mo ago
It’s not the employer’s responsibility, but do you think it’s ethical to hire someone so that they can contribute to your firing metrics?
- nixgeek 5mo ago
  [dead]
conjectures 5mo ago
Only if they are being honest. Offer this as a 12 month temp contract with possibility of continuation. Offering a role as permanent but with unvoiced intent to let go, that's dishonest. Being honest is always a responsibility.
- sneak 5mo ago
  A job today does not imply a job next week.
encrypted_bird 5mo ago
A LOT of people don't make enough money to put away 6 months of savings. You can be the most financially responsible person in existence, but if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Seriously, just how privileged can you get?
- K0balt 5mo ago
  Yeah, employers should not hire people that can’t afford to put away 6 months of livings expenses, because that puts the employer in a questionable ethical position. Or maybe a living wage with savings should be the legal minimum wage? Oh wait, nope, can’t have that lol.
  - encrypted_bird 5mo ago
    It would certainly be nice to have a living wage, I can tell you that much! Haha. I could actually afford to spend more than $40 a week on food! :D