[epolanski]

> Workers and customers do not in fact "know what the fate's gonna be" and that's the problem to address.

1. Bending Spoons model is known, everybody knows as soon it's announced

2. The company belongs to the shareholders and founders. It's them making the decision.

[rswail]

#2 is why the government, via laws, needs to establish employment rights, such as redundancy payments when someone is terminated due to their position being no longer required.

Those rights need to show up in company balance sheets as a contingent liability.

That applies when the company is acquired as well.

The employment of a company need to be either paid out to employees at net present value, or need to be transferred to the new owners as part of the sale.

In the US, with employment sponsored health insurance, it's even more important.

[johnnyanmac]

1. we're on a tech forum and can quickly link to other discussions on the company. Many employees may not even be aware there was a change in management. If they were, their statement outright lied to them saying they still wanted to continue to grow. Meanwhile, many Vimeo clients won't know about this for months or even years. So no, not everyone knew.

2. And I'm saying a cooperation shouldn't be able to make reckless decisions like "lets lay off most of our workforce" withotu reprecussions. Like most civilized societies outside the US do. Thats's what the bulk of my previous response is about.

What are you arguing? That you can do anything you want to something you own? That's not true for nearly anything in modern society.

[CadmiumYellow]

I can assure you everyone knew exactly what was coming from the moment the acquisition was announced