Normalising Layoffs/Firing

We don't live in the past where you picked a company and built your relationships and career around it for most of your lifetime. That's what my grandfather did, but it's not how the economy works today. And I see this as a good thing; not only is the human race more productive by having more liquidity in the job market, but as an individual it frees you up – albeit sometimes more forcefully than you like – to shift around until you find the best place for you.

I enjoyed 4 out of the first 5 companies I worked for and thought I had things pretty great. But if I had stopped there, I wouldn't have arrived at the company I work at now (number 6) nor had the wisdom to know that I should commit to staying here for 3x longer than any previous company.

It depends on what you mean by a rainy day. I don't think I'd judge most people too harshly in our current system. Circumstances can change in ways that an individual probably won't or can't foresee. Housing and other living expenses have grown to the point that a low wage worker can barely support themselves in many cities.

Personally I'd like to reach a point where society provides enough for a comfortable existence e.g. shelter, food, safety, healthcare, and a small disposable income for hobbies/leisure. At that point I think most people would be in a position where walking away from abusive employer is an actual option and not a punishing risk.

> But why should it be on the company?

It wouldn't need to be if social safety nets were strong enough. As it stands, losing your job has a much bigger impact on an employee than the employer.

Even with appropriate safety nets I think a case could still be made for discouraging companies from firing people lightly and requiring the effects to be cushioned due to the amount of upheaval finding a new job can cause both financially and socially.

> And what were the companies suppose to do (like the one I worked for) that ran out of money? Most people that tying your health insurance to your company is ass backwards. So why tie more of your livelihood to your company?

I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated. The employer/employee relationship is nominally one where the employee accepts a reduction in risk in exchange for giving up some of the value of your labour. Bankruptcy law in many places doesn't seem to respect this.

From the moment the decision was made (an hour or so after the coffee), it is usually a month until they are working with me.

We do reference checks after picking a candidate.

The month delay is due to the notice period people are usually required to give their old employer. It could be more or less but is 4 weeks usually.

The process probably varies by industry a lot. If a profession requires a practicing certification you have a minimum standard already. If a profession is tiny, you have a fair idea about candidates before you interview.

In the US, there is no stigma to losing your job via a reduction in force. As far as financially, I don’t have any moral objection to unemployment insurance being higher if we as a society choose for it to be higher.

> I view it as a failure of our current system that employee obligations aren't first in line when a company has to be liquidated

The VC funded company I worked for literal had no money when it was bought out for pennies. I was one of the people doing pitch decks to potential acquirers and in the room for the technical interviews with them.

Don’t get me wrong, this was 2012 and everyone from developers to tech support found a job quickly and we had plenty of warning.

The eventual acquirer laid almost everyone off immediately with a 1 month severance pay.

Good point. In all the others I’ve lived though, something has, but not this time.

Shares have got cheaper and savings are being hit due to inflation being so high. It’s a good time to spend but what do you buy?