Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

omaha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 548 posts

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#421

Post by your-nanny »

um_ya wrote: post #264
andrepd wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often, you assert. But have you got any evidence to say so?

Can confirm, I run a business. The biggest expense to my company are the employees. All the regulatory requirements and bullshit that comes along with it, not to mention the risk of an employee suing the company for whatever reason. There's a lot of risk hiring employees, that's why I try to minimize the number of employees I have to hire, whenever possible.

Considering how many times companies (usually run by young ambitious entrepreneurs) tried to pay me less than was promised, I'd say that employees take on quite a bit of risk too.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#422

Post by brann0 »

darawk wrote: post #358
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company tries to minimize the number of employees. But the fact remains that the employee always takes on more risk, as being fired at the wrong time, say during the crisis we just had, might end up in homelessness. Yet companies love to pretend they are the ones taking the risk and need the right to abuse employees, fire then at will, don't oay a living wage and all that.

That's because they are taking a risk. If you make it harder to fire people, companies simply won't hire them in the first place. The harder it is to fire someone, the more dangerous it is to hire them . The more cautious employers will be about hiring in the first place. This is a real problem in countries that have strict firing laws.

In countries with strict firing laws, this is only a problem for people like you who think business are entitled to do their will, and who see worker rights as obstacles to avoid.

Sigh

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#423

Post by bedhead »

um_ya wrote: post #264
andrepd wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often, you assert. But have you got any evidence to say so?

Can confirm, I run a business. The biggest expense to my company are the employees. All the regulatory requirements and bullshit that comes along with it, not to mention the risk of an employee suing the company for whatever reason. There's a lot of risk hiring employees, that's why I try to minimize the number of employees I have to hire, whenever possible.

Agree completely. I got rid of my employees and now outsource everything. I'll never have another full-time employee ever again, if I need someone they are going to work as a consultant and get a 1099. For every guy like this one at Marriot, there are 1,000 who have genuine problems and need immediate firing.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#424

Post by gbacon »

jeena wrote: post #303
banned1 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to empathize with a business owners. It's their resources at play. So they simply will do business elsewhere. I don't have to open an office in France. I just don't. It's too much hassle. I open it wherever I want. So if an employee loses out by not being hired by me (or I lose out by not hiring some French awesome person), then so be it. But the point is that the US environment is more friendly for bu…

I would like to see that poll because nobody I know would ever want to emigrate to the US, especially now with that idiot president you have. On the other hand I see a lot of refugees trying to get to Germany and Sweden which have at least the same if not stricter labour laws. Reading your comment I feel that you live in a really strange bubble which allows you to think like you do.

Different people are attracted to different potential outcomes. Compensation is a vector, after all. It’s the usual question of risk versus reward. Some will find the perceived safety of generous government protection and benefits desirable, even at the cost of lower remuneration. Others prefer to swing for the fence.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#425

Post by brann0 »

gbacon wrote: post #408
Tehnix wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>simply won't hire them in the first place Except that is simply not true, and very easily proven false simply by showing countries with actual employee protection and unions like e.g. Denmark.

The economist must consider both the seen and the unseen. Yes, people have jobs in Denmark 🇩🇰, but there are employment positions and opportunities that do not exist because firing regulations price them out of the market.

Yeah slavery jobs tend to disappear where proper worker rights are enforced. This is not the middle ages anymore.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#426

Post by user5994461 »

banned1 wrote: post #70
JPKab wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets abused for sure, but more often, businesses get to fire bad employees, and this means they are more likely to give some people a chance who wouldn't get one otherwise. Hiring in certain countries is very risky, because it is so costly to fire a bad employee.

Which is why many companies don’t hire many people in France http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/14...

A french contract has 1 to 6 months of trial period. New employees can be fired anytime with 24h notice and zero protection.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#427

Post by your-nanny »

gbacon wrote: post #408
Tehnix wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>simply won't hire them in the first place Except that is simply not true, and very easily proven false simply by showing countries with actual employee protection and unions like e.g. Denmark.

The economist must consider both the seen and the unseen. Yes, people have jobs in Denmark 🇩🇰, but there are employment positions and opportunities that do not exist because firing regulations price them out of the market.

Possibly true, though nonexistent jobs must surely be a difficult thing to count.

But at will employment also imposes economuc costs, which economists don't really care to count, like economic security, health and psychological well being, mutual respect between companies and their public, and the opportunities to do stupid image damaging life-harmful shite like Marriot did to this man.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#428

Post by gbacon »

patmcc wrote: post #230
manigandham wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that reasonable when firing an employee (vs layoffs)? So a bad performing person now costs even more to get rid of? That might force the company to just keep them on and try to squeeze out some productivity, waiting until they just quit instead.

It's reasonable when firing an employee without cause . If a person is performing badly, document that and then fire them.

For you to be so dismissive of the breadth and depth of documentation needed to withstand a potential lawsuit, I suspect your experience is limited to the employee side of the relationship.

Re: Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

#430

Post by your-nanny »

gbacon wrote: post #414
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - because job availability depends on other considerations too. Strangely, European countries with more humane employment laws don’t have correspondingly higher unemployment.

At higher cost, less is demanded, and we tend to be loss averse. Driving up the perceived risk and thus the cost of firing bad employees unavoidably reduces the supply of jobs. No good or service is perfectly inelastic — certainly not employees.

At higher cost, less is demanded, and we tend to be loss averse. Driving up the perceived risk and thus the cost of firing bad employers unavoidably reduces the supply of labor.
Post reply on HN