[arrrg]

Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves.

A hiring freeze and marking obsolete positions as obsolete (meaning if someone switches teams or quits that specific position will not be replaced) should be a workable model for all profitable companies with some cash reserves. Sure, it takes a bit longer and probably costs a bit more (though probably not tons and lay offs also have other traumatic effects concerning knowledge loss, morale and motivation that can negatively affect the business) but it's a workable model.

Embed that into overall more cautious hiring in good times (yeah, we can't time travel, so that's not an option - but to me that's the thing that should be learned from this) and you should never have to do any layoffs if your business is basically sound. I would be shocked, for example, if Apple were to do any lay offs. They seem to follow that approach (well, probably not in the retail context which I also think is unfortunate).

To me it seems like those lay offs are primarily a tool to communicate and that just sucks. It sucks that something that should clearly be seen as a management failure (if you need to do lay offs it seems to me obvious that management is to blame, not those laid off) can in this weird upside down world be used as a communication tool towards the wider world that they are doing something useful. Even if it wouldn't be needed.

Also, I just don't think people should be treated like that, especially if it's not needed. It seems so pointlessly cruel and inhuman. This is not the world I want to live in.

And I know that's hard to pull off in capitalism. Maybe that's the issue. Though it's not as if you cannot modify capitalism to at least not allow for stuff like this.

[mshake2]

>Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves.

That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them. Nobody is stopping you.

[arrrg]

Do you think it‘s pointless to talk about the ethics of decisions of other people, especially if those decisions affect several thousand people? Do you think anything that is legal is also ethical?

Also, in general I don’t live in that world. It‘s much harder for sound companies to just lay off people in Germany (though not impossible).

[mshake2]

I don't think it's productive or wise to speculate on decisions that restrict the free association of people. Outside of narrow circumstances, an employer should not be legally required to employ someone any more than an employee should be legally required to work at the company.

[piva00]

Why is it so easy for you to disregard any kind of power/leverage relationship about labour and employment? Reality isn't that simple nor that reductionist.

[arolihas]

It's easier to not care about anything if you decide your only principle is "the free association of people". It's one of the easiest ways to do whatever you want in your life and not give a damn about the impact it has on others without having to feel any guilt or cognitive dissonance.

[matheusmoreira]

Nothing wrong with free association of people though. Unionization is also an example of free association: people coming together to maximize leverage and minimize power imbalances.

[mshake2]

Or maybe you don't know how I feel and I can come to different conclusions that aren't a result of me "not giving a damn" about people. Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

[rightbyte]

> were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business?

If the layoffs were uneccesary you know to treat the company and its executives as worse to work for than they would be if they did necessary layoffs only.

I.e. increase the cost of hiring you.

The "none of your business" trope is silly. Why not warm each other of shitty things, be it a bad restaurant or MS as an employer.

[tkfu]

This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them.", but why should that be my course of action instead of working collectively to make sure that companies' decisions are driven by all stakeholders--owners (shareholders), employees, customers, and regulators to the extent that the company's actions generate negative externalities. Why should that be my course of action instead of advocating for change, and expressing my displeasure and outrage when large companies act in ways that I would never accept from a human being with empathy? Yes it's my business, because I live in the world, in a society, and everyone who lives in a society is affected by everyone else.

I was really fascinated to learn that most North Americans never even encounter the concept of ordocapitalism/ordoliberalism in their basic economics courses. Somehow, a concept of capitalist economic organization that has been the recipe for success for the creation of most successful economic turnaround in modern times is just...ignored?

[mshake2]

>This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them."

The beauty of America is you can do my suggestion (make your own startup, run it without firing people), but in other places where layoffs are illegal, you can't do the opposite suggestion (make your own startup, fire people). Let the best idea win! But you seem to be endorsing a world where you don't want the best idea to win, you want the state to enforce a particular idea that makes you feel good.

If you are free to run a company however you want within the bounds of the law, but only one type of company emerges, maybe there is a reason for that.

[melagonster]

I am not American. I never read one of two words before. yes, guess I think this in my whole life...

[doctor_eval]

> The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business?

I think a more relevant question is: should the layoffs be illegal?

Just because todays law says “tough luck” doesn’t mean it has always been, or will always be, that way, or that we can’t argue for something better.

[capitalsigma]

Obviously no, they shouldn't. You're not going to be able to keep that 6+ figure salary in a world where layoffs are illegal.

[ericd]

I'd keep in mind that if you make it risky to hire you, you're less likely to get hired.

[danaris]

The law should be the absolute lower bound on our ethics, not where the conversation starts and ends.

[IX-103]

Why would it not be any of our business? Corporations only exist because they received the explicit blessing of the government. This gives them and their owners extra rights (limited liability for example) and tax benefits.

Originally corporate charters were hard to get because they were only issued by the Crown. Nowadays you can get one for a few dollars. We need to ask ourselves if they are still serving the public purpose we intend, and if not how we need to adjust things.

[matheusmoreira]

How is it not everyone's business? People should be aware of how flaky these corporations are and demand higher pay to compensate for the added instability due to the risk of getting fired out of nowhere associated with working for them.

[lxgr]

Is discussing the layoffs illegal, and if it isn‘t, why is it any of your business?