3 ms·
its sickening that these companies making 10s of Billions in profit annually at 60% gross margins are going to throw their employees that got them there under t
by 33MHz-i486 5mo ago
its sickening that these companies making 10s of Billions in profit annually at 60% gross margins are going to throw their employees that got them there under the bus.
layoffs are for at risk companies undergoing restructuring not semi-annual financial engineering of your earnings release
I’m not a big collective action proponent historically but in the face of this bs, it might be time.
- wahnfrieden 5mo agoLayoffs are not “for” that. That’s your fantasy. You believe more in the individual relationship each worker has with their employer to negotiate times like these? With what power? The employees did excellently so they are being let go. The individual worker has no leverage for anything.
- renticulous 5mo ago> that got them there under the bus. Do you employ construction workers for lifetime after they have built your house?
- xboxnolifes 5mo agoIve seen this exact analogy on HN quite a few times now, and its a bit odd (read: nonsensical). You dont tend to employ construction workers directly to build your house. You contract a housing company, who contracts construction companies (or has inhouse workers), who do keep their employees employed.
- renticulous 5mo agoThe individual is his own construction company in this scenario. Just like the construction company has to advertise itself to keep getting contracts, here the individual has to do the same with employers. The analogy is not superficial.
- xboxnolifes 5mo agoThe analogy is superficial because it makes absolutely no sense. Analogies are supposed to be analogous.
- renticulous 5mo agoYou want the company to share surplus with you but you won't share your surplus with construction workers. Is that fair?
- zzrrt 5mo agotemporary contractor != employee. Many people expect employees should get some of the surplus, or at least get to keep working when the company is claiming they're financially secure. I suspect you'll say the company owes them nothing in the US, which is true, but companies aren't/weren't always this stingy (or lying about financial strength), and you could have just said so without this strained analogy.
- Npovview 4mo agoI have some loose thoughts. Please make a healthy and critical case fo this. People earn money on capital. Software developers work on code within a company. The company makes tonne of money. Then lays off the very people who wrote the code. Why shouldn't the code writers get royalties for as long as their code is in use. Consider construction workers. They build our houses. Why shouldn't we pay also royalties to them for continuing to live in that house. What if the code changes, should the royalty still be paid? Why is capital treated differently than actual production artifacts prepared by people? The company should share its surplus with its previous employees and the house owners should pay their surplas to construction workers too. What if my house is engulfed in a fire caused by shortcircuit due to faulty work by electrician? Ask LLM to connect this distinct ideas and it will help you understand how difficult problem it is to assign monetary value to our contributions.
- zzrrt 5mo agoAmong other differences, a house construction contract is understood to be limited in time. Imagine the construction company said "record profits this year, thanks for building great houses, you're fired." The message wouldn't go over well. They are being outrageously cutthroat or hiding bad news.
- pnw_throwaway 5mo agoFound the corpo cuck