Why top firms fire good workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#231

Post by mlrtime » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 12:05 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #221

mlrtime wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all those actually happen? Tell me why I should want a union for myself.

Is there anything that annoys you about your current workplace? Not just compensation, but really anything at all. Does it also annoy others in your workplace? If so, you found something that forming a union may be able to help with. Your ability to negotiate away that annoyance might not be strong, but with 20 other fellow employees, you might be able to do something about it. That's really all there is to it. A "un…

>Is there anything that annoys you about your current workplace? Not just compensation, but really anything at all.

Yes, of course, I'm human! But the things that mostly annoy me are the other 20 employees, not "the system".

And the little things that bother me, if it were too bad I would try and fix it or move on. I don't see how a Union helps, I suppose you assume that we all have the same annoyances and we band together.

The problem is we are all smart enough to realize how good we have it actually, and nobody wants to rock that boat.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#232

Post by SanjayMehta » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 2:01 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #145

SanjayMehta wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe whatever you wish. We live with this reality. At least you can move from CA to TX. We can't, it's the same clown show everywhere. The fact is that for every policy the government introduces, the entrenched clerks find ways to sabotage it. If you think you can handle it I invite you to come and apply for any government scheme of your choice. True story: we once sent an NDA to a government ministry for review a…

Oh I have no doubt it's miserable, and your story is pretty funny haha. I just don't think that a guy who has been dead for 75% of a country's existence is why something is a certain way. It's been 60 years without the fellow. It's not like he's an immortal god commanding you still.

It's the entrenched system built by that long dead British stooge.

They just have to outlast each elected government of five years and they have a similar judiciary which protects them.

There was a (feeble) attempt by the current government in their previous term to reform the judiciary (NJAC Act) and the entrenched judges ruled it unconstitutional. Unlike the US, judges aren't political appointees, they appoint each other.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#233

Post by SanjayMehta » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 2:03 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #169

renewiltord wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one great commonality I've noticed about California Democrats and Online Indians is that each region's problems seem exclusively the fault of some long dead fellow. Apparently this Nehru chap has been dead for 60 years. In fact, India has only been a country for 80 years so he's been dead for most of the time India has been around. Likewise with Ronald Reagan. Supposedly he's responsible for all the woes of Calif…

I don't know if this source is biased [0], but Nehru sounds refreshingly pragmatic and does not come across as a burden to India and his "socialism" is different from the standard US boogieman socialism or Soviet socialism that you could hardly argue that India was ever on the path towards communism. At some point it's just a kneejerk reaction to the word "socialism". [0] https://www.thehindu.com/society/nehrus-socia…

The Hindu is a biased source.

They were once caught red handed cropping images of documents to push their narrative.

https://www.opindia.com/2019/02/the-hindu-not-only-cropped-t...

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#234

Post by Dayshine » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:21 PM UTC

prewett wrote: post #197

idiotsecant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For whatever reason collective bargaining is wildly unpopular on HN, which is ironic because tech workers are exactly who should be organizing their labor.

Speaking for myself, I see unions as frequently corrupt, being intransigent (such as essentially making Detroit not cost-effective) and just as self-serving as management. Every union experience I have had or hear about involves arbitrary rules (we're not allowed to do that, union rules; you have to get that union to do that). Why would I want to pay dues for that? Furthermore, I see no reason for a union; software d…

None of the things you mention are things I've seen in my union covered jobs in the UK.

I've never heard of union rules here. Employees are not required to be part of the union in order to get their benefits, the unions just negotiate with employers on behalf of all employees. I've also never heard of credentials/gatekeeping for unions in the companies I've worked in.

For reference, I was working as a software developer at a University on a research project: I got the benefits of the higher education university (nationally negotiated pay scales, holiday benefits, etc) but was not a member.

Pay was lower, yes, but that wasn't mandatory; that was just the budget of a research project.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#235

Post by wakawaka28 » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

ahartmetz wrote: post #228

wakawaka28 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions work in entertainment because there is a lot of value in relationships and brand recognition. They still have the same disadvantages as they do in other fields, but the advantages make it fly anyway. If only the members of the union get to declare whether it's good or not, it will practically always be considered a success. Non-members don't get work, or at least get less. It is an inevitable outcome. >A healt…

> putting a floor on minimum skill level to get hired Oh hell yes. Also, look at the cast of a movie. There are tens to hundreds of people. Very few of them are recognized names, at least to the general public. It's no only the big names that are union members, far from it.

I think you are excited about the skill level thing because you only want to work with skilled individuals, but you're looking at it wrong. That only works BEFORE you are hired. After hiring, really lame workers become harder to get rid of if they are in a union.

You remember the writer's strike right? The lesser paid writers were all over the internet complaining about their union, saying it was dominated by big name people who can afford to be on strike while the lesser paid people were becoming destitute. The same thing happens in other unions too, no doubt.

Suppose you wanted to work in a different technology stack and would perhaps be 75% as productive as more experienced people in the first year. According to union rules, based on your experience level, you might be shoehorned into a role where they would have to pay you more than you're worth. The same kind of shit happens to less specialized workers. If the minimum salary is higher than your expected productivity, and you can't adjust it according to market conditions, you will be unhireable. However, that is only in an honest system. Nepotism and bribery would be easier to justify when you don't let people get a fair shake.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#236

Post by whattheheckheck » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #142

autoexec wrote: post #56

> The firm starts to underpay those better workers who kept their jobs, akin to making them pay for being “chosen.” Consequently, profits do not decline and may even increase. > “Firms now essentially can threaten the remaining employees: ‘Look, I can let you go, and everybody’s going to think that you’re the worst in the pool. If you want me not to let you go, you need to accept below market wages,’” This is exactly…

> This is exactly what unions are for. Unions are mostly extortion schemes to benefit the union leaders. My read is that they're getting paid in prestige rather than money. The worker can turn that prestige into money further down the line by saying "I worked at so-and-so for five years" at their next interview.

Corporations are mostly extortion schemes to benefit the executives and shareholders.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#237

Post by JackSlateur » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:16 PM UTC

mlrtime wrote: post #231

ryandrake wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything that annoys you about your current workplace? Not just compensation, but really anything at all. Does it also annoy others in your workplace? If so, you found something that forming a union may be able to help with. Your ability to negotiate away that annoyance might not be strong, but with 20 other fellow employees, you might be able to do something about it. That's really all there is to it. A "un…

>Is there anything that annoys you about your current workplace? Not just compensation, but really anything at all. Yes, of course, I'm human! But the things that mostly annoy me are the other 20 employees, not "the system". And the little things that bother me, if it were too bad I would try and fix it or move on. I don't see how a Union helps, I suppose you assume that we all have the same annoyances and we band to…

"the things that mostly annoy me are the other 20 employees"

This resonates so deeply within me

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#238

Post by SanjayMehta » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 2:02 AM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #117

SilverElfin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is sycophancy different there? I think in many places employees often praise their managers and agree with everything because it’s a survival strategy. Or maybe a misplaced hope to get recognized that way. I assume that’s all this is too?

In India loyalties run deep. It can come along the lines of religion, region, caste, family, color, class etc. Many times novices to this game, work mad hours, only to realise a year or two down the lane, some guy who practically did no work but comes from the same state your manager does, is now promoted above you.

> some guy who practically did no work but comes from the same state your manager does,

I took over a unit where 80% of the engineers were from one state, and mostly from the same college as the previous hiring manager.

There was one particular misfit - competent engineer but didn't have any skills for my BU.

I tried to transfer him to the hiring manager's new unit, and he refused. So I told him I would have to fire the misfit. Guess what, the next day he found a req and took the misfit.

This was a pattern everywhere I worked. So when I was able to dictate hiring policies, one rule was that we would never visit the same college twice in row. This of course made me very unpopular with HR. Now they had to work harder to maintain connections with placement departments.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#239

Post by labcomputer » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 5:13 AM UTC

wakawaka28 wrote: post #210

ryandvm wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective bargaining has been unpopular in this industry for so long because 25 years ago pretty much any ADHD autodidact that was interested in tech could get an extremely promising job with nothing more than a high school diploma. Naturally, these individuals had very little interest in waiting in line behind retiring gray-beards for high pay and job security. They experienced that just being interested in tech wa…

Unions can't defeat the forces of supply and demand. If people feel it is in their best interest to take a pay cut, they should be free to do so. If you want to take a job for a lower rate because of a mismatch in experience, union rates can amount to a ban on you getting a job. Likewise, if you can command a higher wage than average, no union should be able to tell you that you're not fit for the pay grade. If the s…

> Unions can't defeat the forces of supply and demand

Oh, but they do! A core part of most union contracts is figuring out how to limit the number of people eligible to be hired.

That’s why “union shops” exist. Or: why (in the entertainment industry) a production pays a heavy fine to hire non-union actors. Doctors do a similar thing by having the AMA lobby to limit the number of credentials granted each year.

Re: Why top firms fire good workers

#240

Post by wakawaka28 » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 7:26 AM UTC

labcomputer wrote: post #239

wakawaka28 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions can't defeat the forces of supply and demand. If people feel it is in their best interest to take a pay cut, they should be free to do so. If you want to take a job for a lower rate because of a mismatch in experience, union rates can amount to a ban on you getting a job. Likewise, if you can command a higher wage than average, no union should be able to tell you that you're not fit for the pay grade. If the s…

> Unions can't defeat the forces of supply and demand Oh, but they do! A core part of most union contracts is figuring out how to limit the number of people eligible to be hired. That’s why “union shops” exist. Or: why (in the entertainment industry) a production pays a heavy fine to hire non-union actors. Doctors do a similar thing by having the AMA lobby to limit the number of credentials granted each year.

Ultimately, unions don't want to limit how many people get hired. They want to dictate how much those people have to be paid, and somehow get their cut. Businesses decide that they can't afford more people and find a way to succeed within the constraints imposed by the union. Unions can't force businesses to hire people they can't afford. They also can't stop others from being willing to work for less. That's what I mean about not beating supply and demand.