> You were used, they got what they needed and now it is time to go. That's how workers are treated and people should understand that.
I can't tell if all of this is due to the age of people who have joined the workforce over the last decade, when we were in a constant uphill swing.
Markets go through cycles, boom and bust. We happen to be in part of the cycle where interest rates are rising, inflation is high, profits margins are tightening and companies are laying off.
"You were used" is a bit much. You go to work to earn a paycheck. I'm not sure how many people bought into the whole "we're a family" stuff, but obviously these are for-profit corporations and they are beholden only to their shareholders. There was never the illusion otherwise, unless you truly believed that now that you're in, you're in.
I'm older so I've been through a number of these cycles, including having been laid off. Perhaps the decade+ of constant upward tragectory had people disillusioned that this was "normal". It wasn't, and now companies are downsizing.
I'd generally agree. I think my sentiment was a counter-point to the whole "we are a family", "we care about you" that companies put out to employees.
Employees especially need to understand that's fine and good, but companies exist to make money. They _can_ care about you but only to the extent that it makes them money through your continuing loyalty. Your manager as a human can care about you, your manager as a boss cannot.
I don't think many top-level managers is fooling themselves into thinking this behavior is anything but company loyalty.
I am not quite entirely jaded, but I would certainly have choice words for my 24 year old self being overjoyed about my company buying me dinner at the office. It's a fun gesture but you need to understand as an employee what your company's priorities are and not get fooled into it being anything but a monetary transaction.
But yes, to summarize, my language was a bit more coarse and pointed than the situation probably calls for.
> I can't tell if all of this is due to the age of people who have joined the workforce over the last decade, when we were in a constant uphill swing.
I've lived through four recessions now and worked through two. My first working recession was while I was putting myself through college. We used to average one per decade, but now we're bordering on two. To understand the magnitude, my first working recession was a complete life reset for me. It's hard to look at businesses that are cash rich, posting record profits, and then doing layoffs as a result.
>"You were used" is a bit much. You go to work to earn a paycheck. I'm not sure how many people bought into the whole "we're a family" stuff, but obviously these are for-profit corporations and they are beholden only to their shareholders. There was never the illusion otherwise, unless you truly believed that now that you're in, you're in.
There is a lot of corporate ink spilled trying to convince people of exactly this. The counter to this kind of treatment is a strong union. Hopefully this goes a ways toward convincing people they need that level of protection.
If people are always "protected" how do you deal with low performing companies?
If Zoom becomes unusable because it is crashing all the time and everyone switches to another service where do you think the money is going to come from to pay these "protected" employees? Fire the CEO, sure, but where is the money coming from for the thousands of other employees?
> If people are always "protected" how do you deal with low performing companies?
mentor them? help them find a better position? change managers? lots of things you can do before firing... also i think the word "protection" the previous commenter means is 'protection from random/mass firings/layoffs without cause' not firing for being lazy/sabotage etc
Even in areas with good strong unions, there isn’t some kind of company wide protection. If the company doesn’t fit in the market, it goes away. I’m not weaving some fantasy tale, these systems exist in other countries that still have free markets and profitable companies.
> You go to work to earn a paycheck. I'm not sure how many people bought into the whole "we're a family" stuff, but obviously these are for-profit corporations and they are beholden only to their shareholders.
That's "You were used" with extra steps. Why are you trying to rebrand this?
> There was never the illusion otherwise, unless you truly believed that now that you're in, you're in.
Just because people knew it was happening doesn't mean it's consensual or okay. Workers know that a system beholden only to shareholders isn't good for them, but they can't exactly go work elsewhere.
> That's "You were used" with extra steps. Why are you trying to rebrand this?
Of course you were "used". You were used to get work done in exchange for a paycheck.
That's how work ... works. I am confused by the outrage ... did engineers think signing on to a company meant they were set for life? That once they were onboarded they were sheltered from future storms?
The tides turn, and right now the tide is going out. Eventually, this process will reverse and the cycle begins anew.
> "You were used" implies you didn't get anything in return.
It doesn't imply that you didn't get anything, it implies that you didn't get enough.
> But if you got paid, maybe you came out ahead on the deal?
Workers almost never come out ahead on the deal. Company sees 100% revenue growth (as a result of worker's labor), worker gets a 3% raise. Company sees 10% revenue loss, worker gets laid off. It's the same story every cycle: the people at the top reap benefits while the people at the bottom pay the losses.
It's only in the business echo chamber that anyone is even saying what you're saying. Everyone else knows that layoffs are bad for workers.
If the company saw 10% revenue loss, and the employee got 2 years' pay, then I would argue the employee definitely came out with the better end of that deal.
Of course layoffs are bad for workers.
I'm just taking the controversial position that on the other hand, jobs are good for workers.
So let me get this straight: jobs are good for workers, so when a worker loses their job, that's... somehow also good? Sure, they were depending on that job to feed their kids and pay their mortgage and now both those things are at risk. But the real story here is that they had a job for two whole years and should be grateful to have been generously paid a miniscule fraction of what their work gained the company for so long.
Is there any case where you'd ever admit that corporations can harm workers, or is it really just impossible for corporations to do any harm within your worldview?
Facebook had $40.7 billion cash on hand in 2022[1] and laid off 11,000 workers in the same year[2]. That's literally $3.7 million cash on hand per worker laid off, or $370K/year over the next 10 years, if the recession lasts that long. Meta could definitely weather this recession without laying off these workers.
But let me guess, they don't have any responsibility to workers. The only people companies are responsible to are shareholders, amirite? It doesn't matter who gets harmed, we just have to follow these arbitrary rules!
> If you feel your work is so incredibly valuable you can either start a company yourself or become a gold-ticket consultant.
> Either way you'll quickly learn that turning your hard work into revenue on your own with any decent amount of efficiency is not that simple.
I work as a consultant in part because it makes turning my work into revenue easier. :D
But, that's overly-glib--I'm aware that my career is somewhat of an outlier here. The more important point to be made is that "value", in the capitalist sense of "the value of something is what people are willing to pay for it", has nothing to do with actual value. The pandemic highlighted this when it became apparent that all our "essential" workers also happen to be our least paid. The very basics of human survival would cease to be available without these people: food, water, etc.--do you really think the software which allows you to post pictures of your brunch for your friends is more valuable than not starving to death?
The reason for the disconnect between pay and value is that pay is determined by the people at the top, who obviously have an incentive to decide their own work is valuable and therefore they deserve the most pay. Unsurprisingly, the people with the power to enforce their opinions on what is most valuable, have decided that "deciding what is most valuable" is the most valuable skill of all! The narrative that a CEO is more valuable than a farm hand exists because it's propagated by those who have the most to gain from it.
I won't accuse you of being one of those people, but at the very least you've bought into a story which isn't true.
The thing is, if you feel you're being paid too little for your work there are basically 3 reasons:
1 - you are wrong because you're not that good
2 - you are right, but the overhead necessary for the company to survive does not allow them to pay you as much
3 - you are right and they are exploiting you
The way to prove case 1 wrong is to start your own business or consultancy and earn more money than you did before. But to prove 2 or 3 you would have to create a very similar company and prove it can successfully operate while earning the employees much more money, which would be very difficult.
If, as you say, "there are basically 3 reasons", then disproving 1 should be sufficient to prove that 2 or 3 is true. You're just trying to place an unreasonable burden of proof on possibilities you disagree with.
There is no difference between possibilities 2 and 3. If the overhead necessary for a company to survive doesn't allow them to pay their workers, the company shouldn't survive. Mysteriously, companies that underpay their workers always have money to pay their execs and shareholders--you're just expecting workers to pay the overhead instead of the people at the top. All this is, is a shitty excuse for exploiting workers.
As for proving 1 incorrect: whenever essential workers unionize--analogous to starting their own consultancy--money suddenly materializes to pay them more. As it turns out, essential workers are essential, and the only reason they get paid less is that the people at the top can pay them less and keep more money for themselves.
I can't tell if all of this is due to the age of people who have joined the workforce over the last decade, when we were in a constant uphill swing.
Markets go through cycles, boom and bust. We happen to be in part of the cycle where interest rates are rising, inflation is high, profits margins are tightening and companies are laying off.
"You were used" is a bit much. You go to work to earn a paycheck. I'm not sure how many people bought into the whole "we're a family" stuff, but obviously these are for-profit corporations and they are beholden only to their shareholders. There was never the illusion otherwise, unless you truly believed that now that you're in, you're in.
I'm older so I've been through a number of these cycles, including having been laid off. Perhaps the decade+ of constant upward tragectory had people disillusioned that this was "normal". It wasn't, and now companies are downsizing.