[johngladtj]

There is no responsibility on the part of the company to do anything other than what they agreed to do.

If employees wanted to be kept on even in a downturn, they should have negotiated for it, but I suspect the price they would have had to pay for that would make the entire prospect unattractive.

You just want to eat your cake, and have it afterwards too.

[mola]

Well I know of other employers that do take in to account the impact on the life of they're workers and families, and will hire very conservatively, and would resort to firing only if very extreme circumstances. It's because they were not trained in American style business schools, where everyone is just a number, And there's no such thing as decency. You somehow believe this is natural, it's not, it's insane.

[j_walter]

Many things are done for the sake of growth at the expense of employees...however those employees generally get much higher salaries in exchange for that. There is a reason Google, Facebook and Apple are the huge companies they are...and they were all started in the US.

Companies like Intel are facing new realities in over hiring as well (not to mention overextending on new fabs)...apparently they preferred not to have layoffs but instead cut salaries, bonuses and 401k matching. Personally I would prefer to fire the bottom 5% than risk the top 10% leaving because of a short sighted cash flow play.

[tedunangst]

The obvious question is why didn't these laid off salesforce employees go get a job at the company that never fires people instead?

[erik_seaberg]

Hiring very conservatively hurts GDP and increases long-term unemployment, especially for unproven entry level candidates.

[mola]

They actually like hiring new grads. Building slowly and soundly is not bad for the GDP.