this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
254 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59419 readers
5534 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need laws around layoffs, stat. It shouldn't be legal for execs to layoff a thousand people and still keep their own jobs. It's their failure that caused the issue in the first place - they've been safe for too long.
And what would that law be?
I mean, I'm not a lawmaker, but ideally if execs do layoffs they should either have to also layoff a certain percentage of upper level execs dependent on the # of people laid off, and/or the company or execs should have to pay fees dependent on the # of people laid off.
You're suggesting the government should be be involved in a private business hiring / firing decisions? And pay fee's also? So if a business is having a down time, they don't have funds for payroll, you want to fine them? A large project concludes, they lay off those people, they need a fine? So they'll need to calculate fines into the price they charge for projects?
Maybe look at this another way:
The government should represent the interests of the people. If the people have shown interest in curbing these layoff behaviors, where thousands of people lose their jobs while management remains in place with no apparent cuts to the top billing, then why would lawmakers not want to translate these interests into legislation?
I get a reasonable wariness of keeping the government out of private business, but if you have a town of 10 people, all employed by local business owner, and that business owner lays off two people, you have a large percentage of the population affected. If the townspeople enact a local ordinance to prevent this kind of behavior in the future, would they be in the wrong?
To prevent ... what kind of behavior exactly? Firing people? I'm for the government protecting peoples interest, but also a business needs the freedom to hire and fire as they see fit, without beuaracy involved. Maybe you're more referring to a union?
how do you know management is not also being fired? Should the 'people' be given a list of potential fires and they vote on who the business can fire?
It's easy to screech "nuh uh" at ideas people toss around, where are YOUR solutions that aren't "Shouldn't have been part of the 10% laid off, fucking losers! ALL HAIL CORPORATE PROFITS!"
Yep, that sounds great to me! At least for large corporations. Obviously shouldn't apply to contractors, but that sounds great.
you are forgetting that businesses already pay unemployment. That is their 'fee' basically. Your unemployment funds come from the payments a business makes during their monthly or quarterly taxes they pay to the state. When they fire anyone , their unemployment payments they have to make increase the following years. Each year the state looks at how many people a company hired / fired and adjusts their payments for the year. And that calculation takes account the last 3 or so years where I am.