291–300 of 557 posts
I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just being idealistic. Why would someone ever hire if they wouldn't be able to terminate the contract if it's ever needed? And this goes both ways, I do want to be able to quit (with a "short" notice) Other answers gave plenty of good reasons: employees underperform, projects change, companies close, etc It's a job, not a marriage, and even those are becoming shorter. Note I'm not proposing "at-will" employmen…
There are placees where termination for arbitrary reasons doesn’t exist (see e.g Sweden). Those economies still seem competitive. If you lay off 10% because times are worse and there is less work, then interestingly you are more or less required to re-hire the same people when you hire again (typically that would be negotiated so you’d buy them out instead). The 10% you fire also has to be the 10% last hired, you can…
That's what you get when you have a high qualified and restricted (in numbers) workforce. But let's see if it keeps being that way or it goes the way of France and Italy
(So how's that idealistic view working out in their real estate market again?)
Again, it's a job, not a marriage. Some stability and regulation is welcome, sure, but jobs for life don't exist anymore.
The SoCal aerospace job market is hot right now. The driver is multiple large program starts at multiple contractors who are competing for people. This should make it possible for everyone to land on their feet. (I've reached out to my former colleagues who left to join Space X) What's odd is why SpaceX is cutting staff with the new development underway on the larger rockets and the satellite business. I'm curious ab…
> What's odd is why SpaceX is cutting staff with the new development underway on the larger rockets and the satellite business. I'm curious about how they're going to increase development while cutting staff. The oddness diminishes when you look at their open jobs listing [1], as it looks that they have >300 open positions. [1] https://www.spacex.com/careers/list
I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…
What about when people get comfortable and stop performing at initial levels. Or if you realize you have too much middle management?
At my company I ensure that everyone is always borderline burned out!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. Companies are not created to take care of their employees. They are created to make profit and/or accomplish a societal goal. If a company is non-profit then it's just the latter. As someone from a post-communist state, it's plainly obvious to me that people on average don't work as well as they could if the threat of termination does not exist. My…
Termination due to non-performance on the job is entirely different from at will termination which can hit a performer and non performer alike. You seems to imply employees are the resources to be used to achieve goals. I do not see an issue in this arrangement if Employees have the same negotiation power as the employer.
Termination due to non-performance can also hit a performer. Human beigns and hence their social systems are not perfect. N% layoff is performance related termination, because it's an impossibility that all employees pefrorm at the same level, are of the same value to the company. It's absurd to imply that N% layoff is absolutely random, that companies use lottery techniques to choose who to fire next.
>You seems to imply employees are the resources to be used to achieve goals.
They are. Within the constrains of culture and law.
I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good ol' Roman army strategy of "Decimation", in 1 in 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
"SpaceX decimates its WorForce" would have been just as correct but then Swat Teams might have moved in :). On topic, probably just cutting out the fat (I'm sure most companies can fire 10% and a month later very few would notice the difference). But then, why not move them to R&D? I doubt SpaceX has cash problems to fire (more or less) essential workers.
10% usually means 10% to 40% of company productivity is affected shortterm. 10% leave, 5% wanted to get fired but didn't, 25% will think they are next and change how they work (some positive some negative).
It is usually a signal for top performers to start moving on. In this case the story is spacex is growing conflicts with the layoffs.
I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…
>If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. Companies are not created to take care of their employees. They are created to make profit and/or accomplish a societal goal. If a company is non-profit then it's just the latter. As someone from a post-communist state, it's plainly obvious to me that people on average don't work as well as they could if the threat of termination does not exist. My…
Says who?
Societies create the conditions under which companies are allowed to exist, therefore societies get to define what responsibilities companies have.
Also, who says that the right of the company to exist >> the rights of the employees?
Not allowing companies to easily shed workers is a way of putting extra fitness pressure on companies, meaning the less fit companies perish and the fitter companies thrive. This is of benefit to society. See Schumpeter, Creative Destruction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
You will note that some of the most highly efficient/competitive economies have pretty strong worker rights. Of course there has to be a balance, excesses in either direction are usually not good. However, in this particular case I don't think any of these SpaceX employees were systematically drunk on the job, or playing videogames instead of working.
I don't understand how anyone in the world accept such social contract of being laid off anytime for arbitrary reasons. If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members. If you have to cut expenses because the company needs to be "leaner" then you cut the salaries starting from the top executives. Eventually you fire management, because the state of the company is in part the result of their decisi…
I find it entirely unconvincing that optimizing for "employee care" is overall more beneficial to humanity, including for the long term well being of the exact same employees and their families, than the alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there have been cases of that the average person is going to fullfil their obligation and collect the check. Any manager that really is concerned about theft and sabotage in that scenario should not be a manager. Employees steal and sometimes sabotage while gainfully employed too. Everyday the company is already risking that.
> While there have been cases of that the average person is going to fullfil their obligation and collect the check. It only takes one. Risk to the company is much bigger when you’re building rockets than your typical software shop, too.