Tech Employee Who Went Viral for Filming Her Firing Has No Regrets::undefined

  • godzillabacter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m going to digress from the economics a tad and focus on the ethics of this. I feel like companies should be on the hook for this. You should invest in capital (including human labor) based on your confidence in its expected return. Companies should not be able to hire a myriad of workers for funzies and not have to meaningfully consider if that person will be necessary in 6 months. If it is a legitimate business venture, then the cost of potential severance for new hires should be folded into the economics of the decision to pursue that venture. Larger severance pay/worker protections encourage employers to not utilize exploitative hiring practices.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      For example, a company in such an environment could have a plan for a four month bit of work. They could employ people on an appropriate short term contract.

      • godzillabacter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Can’t tell if we’re agreeing or disagreeing. Companies should totally be able to hire on short-term contracts. But it should be clear that it is a temporary contract from the start, not a bait-and-switch from long-term employment to hire-and-fire.

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Some people want a short term contract. If too few people want such, the company will have to pay a premium to hire people short term.

          There of course must also be penalties for companies that hire ongoing, but end it before retirement

    • deegeese
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      59
      ·
      10 months ago

      I guess you’re OK with putting a damper on entry level positions if it protects workers who already have a job.

      • jak
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        They gave a nuanced reply. You wrote that.

      • godzillabacter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean if the only way they’re gonna have jobs is through predatory hiring practices that could leave them fired and without severance, then yeah. Because if the company is planning on hiring these younger workers for the long-haul, then this shouldn’t be a significant change. I think overall national policy should discourage unnecessary high-turnover and predatory hiring. I’m sure there will be situations this is still unavoidable, but that doesn’t mean we have to endorse it by way of law/policy.

        • stardust@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, what companies want is all jobs to be exploitable like entry level jobs. That’s kind of what’s happening now with stuff like Uber where companies get away with paying their employees as little as possible and few benefits.

          Protecting and providing incentive to hire for the long term seems like better thing in the long run over many crappy low paying jobs.