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

451–460 of 548 posts

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

#451

Post by mercurial »

shaftoe wrote: post #432
coupdetaco wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a right to work under the responsibility to protect. Industry structure that produces a permanent underclass is a form of violence, and class warfare.

This is a bizarre take on a business relationship between two free entities. Is an employee allowed to quit? What about the "violence" it does to the company, investors, and fellow employees? Must they stick around to provide continuity? If so, how is this not indenture? Am I allowed to fire a painter I hire to paint my house if I think he does poor work? Do I need to document his performance and discuss an improveme…

> Is an employee allowed to quit? What about the "violence" it does to the company, investors, and fellow employees? Must they stick around to provide continuity? If so, how is this not indenture?

Grotesque. Many industries in various countries have a reasonable notice period (say, 3 months), which should give the company enough time to adapt. Nobody considers this "indenture".

> Employment represents a contract between two parties. Basic freedom of association and contract law means both parties can enter and leave under the terms they negotiate and have a rational self interest in acting in good faith.

The difference is that one party, most of the time, can manage without the other. On the other hand, the fired employee still needs to pay rent/feed his family. And depending on the economy/location, finding a different job might take some time (if it's possible at all without retraining).

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

#452

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

kristianov wrote: post #141
michaelmrose wrote: post #135

Lets be real about America's relationship with China. They are our enemies. Both parties seek to dominate the globe even if nobody is anxious to do so bullets and bombs. Both parties have values that can never be reconciled. How do you reconcile the notion that man ought to be free with a society that believes in lifelong servitude and a mans proper place under each others boots. A society that poisons its people and…

> I just don't wish our government employees or leadership to patronize them and strongly suggest that those who feel strongly about America also abstain from giving anyone affiliated with Marriott their money. I feel kinda bad for Marriot: Chinese boycott them for liking the tweet, and now americans are furious that they apologized.

We aren't furious that they apologized, we're furious that they fired someone over a mistake just because China threw a tantrum.

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

#453

Post by zombieprocesses »

hnaccy wrote: post #172
earenndil wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you said, partly. And I agree that there are serious problems with chinese culture and government (at least, from my perspective). But, why should the US government be any better?

>But, why should the US government be any better? Its foundational principles are superior.

What foundational principle? White supremacy? Genocide and theft of land?

It's nice to know that we are just as brainwashed as the chinese.

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

#454

Post by ceras »

Tehnix wrote: post #367
darawk wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

It's easy to fire employees in Denmark. That's one reason why it's economy and employment rates are quite good for Europe, and while you think it proved your point, it's evidence of the opposite. See [1][2][3].

If you're interested in the academic research, someone above in the thread posted research links on the relationship between ease-of-firing and employers' willingness to hire. If you find those unsatisfying, this is a well-researched (empirically, not just theoretically) and uncontroversial topic among economists, so you should be able to find much more research.

[1] Country summary for Denmark economic freedom: https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark

[2] Country comparison: https://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?cnts=denmark&type=1...

[3] NYT article covering Denmark's ease of firing: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/business/worldbusiness/th...

> "The Danish system creates a flexible labor market," the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions said in an official document. "Danish companies are more willing to hire new employees in times of economic revival than their European competitors, who have trouble letting off workers when the economy goes downhill again."

> Note that the source of this last comment is the country's largest labor union confederation, a sign of the consensus surrounding the easy-to-fire policy.

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

#455

Post by zombieprocesses »

ghostcluster wrote: post #227

And thus the Chinese Communist Party's cold authoritarian censorship extends overseas to strike at the job of a US citizen. It was just a few months ago that I wrote this here on HN: > I even feel a personal dampening on what I will say publicly about China on social media, just because of hypothetical tech/travel opportunities, and I don't even live there. Obviously, those fears were founded. Part of me is happy abo…

It isn't just china. You can be fired for offending european sensibilities. You can be fired for offending saudis/muslims/etc. Of course we already have examples of tech workers being fired for conservative opinions. But the most egregious example is israel, where it is illegal for an american citizen to boycott israel.

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

#456

Post by klibertp »

paradite wrote: post #290

Chinese citizen here. A few points that I want to make after reading some comments: 1. I would be personally offended if anyone or any organization lists Tibet as a country. 2. Lots of Chinese people would be offended too by this. Reasons for 1 and 2: - It is a piece of wrong information - The wrong information directly contradicts what is considered basic knowledge in China - That basic knowledge happens to be on th…

Could you explain what is your view on the acquisition of the Tibetan territory by China?

From what I know about the issue, the transfer of the territory was forced, wasn't it?

What justification do you have for invading and annexation of a previously independent country? Is it that it never was independent in the first place? Do you have any sources to support this?

I come from a country which was occupied in its entirety for over a hundred years - it's arguably worse than what happened to China in the same time-frame. I can understand sovereignty being of prime concern to you. On the other hand, precisely because of a history like that, I can't help but see the Tibetans sovereignty over themselves being denied.

In other words, I'd like to understand: what makes you believe you have a right to take a sovereignty from others as you pursue your own? Is asserting your sovereignty over dead bodies of another nation worth it? (or are Tibetans considered to be 100% Chinese? if so, how come they seem to disagree?)

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

#457

Post by user5994461 »

isostatic wrote: post #409
nicolas_t wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No different than California? Let's see. I don't know the numbers well in Cali but I know what I paid in France. I'd be curious to see what one would pay in California for a similar situation. For a 100,000 euros income as a sole proprietorship, I paid 42% altogether. From those 42%, 7% were income tax, the remaining 35% were Charges sociales which covers healthcare, unemployment and retirement benefits. When French…

100k euros in the uk is about £87k. That would be £77k gross wage or net of £52500 - about 40% total tax, do not excessively different to France.

The same position that got you £80-100k gross in London will only get you €40-50k gross in Paris.

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

#458

Post by Retra »

gnulinux wrote: post #331
cylinder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real story is he has no employment rights because he's in America and he's "at will." They can dismiss him because they don't like his lunch selection that day and he has no rights. That's at will employment. This type of situation plays out all over the country everyday.

As an "at will" junior software engineer, if I one day get fired for my lunch selection, is there any legal actions I can take, assuming I'm an honest, skilled, competent worker?

They probably won't tell you why you were fired.

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

#459

Post by [deleted] »

gnulinux wrote: post #331
cylinder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real story is he has no employment rights because he's in America and he's "at will." They can dismiss him because they don't like his lunch selection that day and he has no rights. That's at will employment. This type of situation plays out all over the country everyday.

As an "at will" junior software engineer, if I one day get fired for my lunch selection, is there any legal actions I can take, assuming I'm an honest, skilled, competent worker?

[deleted]

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

#460

Post by moorhosj »

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.

If they “simply wouldn’t hire them in the first place” then they aren’t hiring the correct number of employees to maximize profit.
Post reply on HN