> If you can be fired easily, you will find a job easily.
What happens in a recession? When tens of thousands of people are fired easily across an economy they're not going to find another job quickly.
Making firing more difficult puts a mandate on companies to be a little more responsible when growing their headcount. As a consequence they're less vulnerable to wild swings as a result of unforeseen circumstances.
> Companies are big and look financially stable because the little ones cannot survive or dont enjoy the same monopoly / legal protections.
Big companies are favoured in hundreds of ways. Leveraging other income streams to price dump their way into a dominant position and creative methods of lowering their tax burden being just two. The answer to this isn't to strip worker protections but to remove those loopholes and encourage competition rather than monopolisation.
Many laws around workers rights are already relaxed for smaller companies.
> If a company is not useful to society, it should go down.
Absolutely, but most societies wouldn't be able to function if this was the case. Most economies simply aren't resilient enough to allow large companies to go down. I feel like it's fairly intuitive that once companies in certain sectors grow large enough they can become an essential part of the nation's infrastructure. That only leaves a few options:
- Continue bailing them out
- Nationalise them
- Prevent them from reaching that size in the first place
I don't see how making it easier to lay people off would advance any of these. Instead it only encourages companies to engage in risky behaviour and grow beyond their ability to sustain themselves.
> Don't idealize employment and companies. They are only tools on our path to wealth and freedom
We've created a system predicated on the fact that not everyone can be wealthy. I don't think it's moral to then say that the solution to being treated poorly is to just become wealthy.