[randomdata]

> They'd probably do major layoffs like so much of the tech industry has this deal and lighten that load.

Yes, that is addressed at the end. 'Next will be a massive layoff to follow the small layoff earlier this week to address the haemorrhaging on the expense side. The "everything will be okay in a few days" notice sent to employees today indicates that something "not okay" is coming.'

You don't want to start there if you don't have to. If they can turn things around there is still the possibility of IPO. Current investors have made it clear that they want off the sinking ship. Only staving off bankruptcy by trimming the workforce to the bare minimum is not a good look for the sake of IPO, however. That is saved for the last ditch effort.

[johnnyanmac]

>You don't want to start there if you don't have to.

Of course (I was laid off last month, no dev wishes other devs to be laid off). But to open up my cynical side for a bit: I also don't sympathize with these huge companies taking advantage of (what EVERYONE knew was) a temporary boon in tech and growing off of low interest rates proportions that would not be needed in 2-3 years.

I as an individual saved aggressively for when that bubble inevitably popped and I'd very likely be laid off (fears which came true. Twice.). These companies instead decided to throw all bets in, and I can't exactly sympathize when the obvious future called their bluff. If Reddit didn't have a war chest to help wheather the storm with, I just see that as myopic at best and greedy at worst.

[randomdata]

> I also don't sympathize with these huge companies taking advantage of (what EVERYONE knew was) a temporary boon in tech

While perhaps there is an argument to be made that one can take advantage of another if there is information asymmetry, when you say that EVERYONE recognized the temporary nature of the engagement, to think that temporary hiring under that is taking advantage of a worker is quite silly. A worker needing a guarantee of x number of years of payment had every right to demand it be written into the contract.

> These companies instead decided to throw all bets in

Of course, so did the workers. They didn't have to leave their jobs flipping burgers. They chose to because they saw $$$ in the air. That same greed is no doubt, as before, why they didn't bother putting any conditions in the contract to protect themselves from the downturn you state they knew was coming. They took a chance – sometimes it worked out, other times it didn't. Such is the nature of risk.

[johnnyanmac]

>A worker needing a guarantee of x number of years of payment had every right to demand it be written into the contract.

To be frank: if you're at that level of negotiation in your contracting, you are either a business owner yourself, or are some of the best of the industry who probably isn't financially worried about a downturn. The latter doesn't have any benefit from chaining themselves to a company. I don't even think contracted workers are safe since many contracts were broken over this.

For the other 99.99% of hourly/salary workers in the US, trying to negotiate specific terms in an at-will state will only end with you being crossed off the hire list.

>They didn't have to leave their jobs flipping burgers.

Sure they did. They were laid off from there too:

https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/mcdonalds-lays-off-hundreds-cu...

I know you were being coy, but every sector of almost every industry is doing this. There is no safe place except for already being rich and not having to worry about years of salary.

Maybe you're not from the US, but it seems you don't understand how US employment works. I'll reiterate: the US is almost all "at will states". It gives freedom in that at any time an employee can walk away (well, almost any time. Funny how that works), but employers can also fire you for any reason unrelated to being a protected class (minority, pregnant, gay, etc.). There is never any safety net guaranteed in the US.

[randomdata]

> For the other 99.99% of hourly/salary workers in the US, trying to negotiate specific terms in an at-will state will only end with you being crossed off the hire list.

That's fine. You just said that anything else in the given scenario would have you being taken advantage of, so you would want the agreement to be rejected if they cannot commit to those terms.

Remember, this is, in the end, no different than the earlier suggestion that if all a company sees is a short-term hiring opportunity during a temporary boom that they should not hire at all. The long-term job you want doesn't exist either way. You haven't lost anything.

> I'll reiterate: the US is almost all "at will states".

Sure. And I'll reiterate that you can negotiate your own contractual terms. Yes, that does mean some people won't want to work with you, but that's okay because why would you want to work for someone that is taking advantage of you?

To recognize a bad deal upfront, accept it anyway, and then cry foul later is nonsensical.