[moe091]

Just because they don't hypocritically claim they care about their employees and only laid them off because they HAD to, doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them and (if possible) use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions. Just because we know corporations only value profit, to the detriment of human quality of life in general, doesn't mean we should accept it

[s1artibartfast]

As someone who holds stocks, I see value and appreciate that those corporations work hard to maximize my returns over providing charity employment.

Shareholders like me are the ones you have to convince, not some CEO or abstract concept of a corporation.

Fair warning, you will have to convince me that it is more important than supporting my children and maximizing my retirement.

[bbzealot]

I’m pretty sure that if you need some stock to grow in order to support your children, then your influence on a public company is virtually irrelevant.

[s1artibartfast]

You have a good point on my individual control of a public company is quite small. Luckily, basically every single other stockholder has the same reason for owning the stock as me- making money.

There is basically no risk that a different group of stockholders with more voting power want to run it as a public works jobs program

[bbzealot]

Yet the fact that shareholders want to get richer doesn’t mean that laying off people when a company is drowning in money is ethically right.

[s1artibartfast]

If you want to look at it simply in terms of ethics, I'm not sure layoffs are always unethical, even if the company is profitable.

I do think it is unethical to jerk people around (e.g. new hires), but I think generous severance goes a long way towards addressing this.

[kgwgk]

> use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions

Most workers don’t want to use their leverage to make corporations make better decisions - they want to use their leverage to get paid more.