[bartread]

This is so ethically and morally odious I struggle to find the words to describe it.

I’ve managed people out. I’m sure I’ll have to do it again. I’ve even let people go during probation but, on the rare occasions that’s happened, I’ve seen it as a failure of the hiring process.

People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line.

Our employees are after all people, human beings.

As I result I skew picky during the hiring process: if there’s any doubt there’s no doubt kind of thing.

Just awful behaviour here from Amazon.

[sokoloff]

On the opposite direction (but compatible overall view): if I think a candidate is marginal/on the bubble of passing, I’m much more likely to move forward with them if they’re unemployed.

Someone unemployed might be a little rusty (and thus get estimated slightly worse in the interview) but, more importantly, if they come in and flame out, they’re not worse off for the experience or at least not as much as if they gave up a stable job.

[bartread]

Yes, that’s completely fair, and I’ve done the same. I’ve also been on the other side and made it clear I’m available and happy to take a chance.

When everybody is going in with their eyes open I think it’s a different matter.

[sneak]

> People have families, they have mortgages, bills to pay, and a powerful need to eat (Mal, Serenity?). The last thing I want is for someone to give up a stable job that allows them to do that to come and work for me only so I can fire them and leave them up the creek a few weeks or months down the line.

Literally none of that is the employer’s responsibility. It’s just a business transaction. Having sufficient savings is the responsibility of every adult, never their employer. It is not the employer’s job to manage the employee’s cash flow.

Everyone, but ESPECIALLY those making six figures in tech, should have a six months of expenses savings account in cash SPECIFICALLY for this exact scenario. There are a million ways you might be without work for 2-4 months. It’s not an employer’s fault (or responsibility) that their employee is financially irresponsible.

[encrypted_bird]

A LOT of people don't make enough money to put away 6 months of savings. You can be the most financially responsible person in existence, but if you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

Seriously, just how privileged can you get?

[K0balt]

Yeah, employers should not hire people that can’t afford to put away 6 months of livings expenses, because that puts the employer in a questionable ethical position.

Or maybe a living wage with savings should be the legal minimum wage? Oh wait, nope, can’t have that lol.

[encrypted_bird]

It would certainly be nice to have a living wage, I can tell you that much! Haha. I could actually afford to spend more than $40 a week on food! :D

[K0balt]

Just wait for a few months, that 40 isn’t going to stretch nearly as far. We are entering a period of food scarcity, and if things continue on the road they are on, a high likelihood of global conventional conflicts. The powers that be seem to have converged on the need for depopulation and consolidation of power.

[encrypted_bird]

I am aware.

[harimau777]

Its a business transaction with a MASSIVE power differential and as Spiderman taught us, with great power comes great responsibility.

An employer has a responsibility to treat an employee with respect, not exploit them, and give them a fair part in the rewards when the company succeeds.

[sneak]

There isn’t that much power differential as long as there’s more than one employer.

Either party can walk away.

[beepboopboop]

It’s not the employer’s responsibility, but do you think it’s ethical to hire someone so that they can contribute to your firing metrics?

[ThunderSizzle]

I've heard this before.

Then COVID happened and employers didn't have 2-4 months of savings built up, and ended up shuttering due to lack of money immediately.

Also, since post COVID, we've had hyper inflation and a locked up housing market. $150 townhomes that a $50 family salary could afford are now going for $300. And rent has gone up to match.

I don't think the numbers not matching is because of anyone's personal financial responsibility. It's more from the Fed's and Congress's horrible actions over the past 2 decades and their financial irresponsibility.

Granted, grumbling about the powers that be doesn't solve the problem, which is why I fear civil turmoil will be here very soon.

[conjectures]

Only if they are being honest. Offer this as a 12 month temp contract with possibility of continuation. Offering a role as permanent but with unvoiced intent to let go, that's dishonest. Being honest is always a responsibility.

[sneak]

A job today does not imply a job next week.

[bartread]

In my country employers have a duty of care towards their employees: "hire to fire" very clearly violates that duty of care.

Even ignoring that - let's say that duty of care didn't exist - are you telling me that you, as a human being, will not simply choose to do the right thing unless you are legislatively forced to do so? Pretty scummy when you think about it like that, isn't it? Your talk of "business transactions" is fine in the abstract but I bet you won't be so chipper about it when it happens to you.

Moreover, nobody materialises in this world with 6 months of expenses for themselves and their families magically in their bank account. Most people have to work and save for that, and that's if they're fortunate enough to have a job that pays them well enough to save after expenses. Many people don't.

Perhaps you should climb down off that high horse of yours, travel a little, learn what the world is really like, and understand the very real struggles that many people face.

[sneak]

I think that such a duty of care does not exist ethically or morally, and that legislating it into existence is foolish.

Both parties can walk away from a deal they don’t like. It’s just a business transaction. There are other employers; the balance of power is not as one-sided as everyone pretends it is.

[kordlessagain]

This is good advice. Moving the responsibility onto the employer is a BLAME game, and when people haven't prepared, it's easier if they attack the messenger instead of being critical of their own bad decisions for whom to work.

Clearly some are triggered by the idea that employers should be held accountable for those that don't plan so well. The fact is, the employers are only accountable to the stakeholders and their continued corporate existence.

[jmogly]

Yes I suppose this is the bare minimum, but isn’t that just a nasty way to go about things? What about responsibility and decency, do we just not do that anymore?

[theshackleford]

You missed the point by such a large margin it’s impressive.

[K0balt]

Gotta have goals lol. Missing the point far enough to make another is remarkable.