>I dont think there should be a penalty by default.
I do.
>The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity.
Charities pay employees too. 501ks don't mean you run on all volunteers and that it's okay to remove them at your whim. Horrible metaphor.
Anyways, a company has 3 goals
1. serve the customer
2. support your labor to enable efficient production
3. overall stimulate the economy and society
These all help the bottom line of "make profit". Shareholders have little stake here so it's annoying that that is all they prioritize lately. because you then break all 3 rules just for them, who will leave on a whim for some other speculation. And then they wonder why they lose money as workers burnout and leave, as customers get frustrated and move, and the economy gets worse as money is pocketed to the rich instead of the public.
It'a all a horrid death spiral. It needs to stop. It will stop forcefully if not voluntarily.
>It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go.
And who's fault is that? I don't remember shouting in glee whenever I hear 5 rounds of interviews, including 2 rounds dedicated to trivia.
>Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner.
it is. That's why Hanlon's razor simply tells me they aren't trying very hard. They need to cut numbers, maxiize money and care about next quarter next quarter. efficiency wasn' prioritized before the layoffs, why would it be now?
I dont think we agree on enough fundamental facts about the world to have a productive conversation. It seems like you are in denial about the possibility that some workers can be detrimental to bottom line profit and efficiency.
By the way, the charity comment wasnt about volunteers. Companies are not run as a non-profit charity with workers as the beneficiaries.
Yes we are. You're in denial that most of these layoffs are performance based, and not because of factors beyond their control.
If you're cynical about your peers to think that the default of them in the field is unprofitable and unproductive, we have nothing to say to each other. Learn some empathy.
I do.
>The objective of a company isnt and shouldn't be to run a charity.
Charities pay employees too. 501ks don't mean you run on all volunteers and that it's okay to remove them at your whim. Horrible metaphor.
Anyways, a company has 3 goals
1. serve the customer
2. support your labor to enable efficient production
3. overall stimulate the economy and society
These all help the bottom line of "make profit". Shareholders have little stake here so it's annoying that that is all they prioritize lately. because you then break all 3 rules just for them, who will leave on a whim for some other speculation. And then they wonder why they lose money as workers burnout and leave, as customers get frustrated and move, and the economy gets worse as money is pocketed to the rich instead of the public.
It'a all a horrid death spiral. It needs to stop. It will stop forcefully if not voluntarily.
>It is slow and expensive to hire people and let them go.
And who's fault is that? I don't remember shouting in glee whenever I hear 5 rounds of interviews, including 2 rounds dedicated to trivia.
>Its actually incredibly hard to to figure out which people to cut in an efficient manner.
it is. That's why Hanlon's razor simply tells me they aren't trying very hard. They need to cut numbers, maxiize money and care about next quarter next quarter. efficiency wasn' prioritized before the layoffs, why would it be now?