>Regardless of your view on labour laws I think most people agree on this.
Not if the other option was China shutting down a bunch of Marriott hotels and hundreds of employees losing their jobs instead.
Not if the other option was China shutting down a bunch of Marriott hotels and hundreds of employees losing their jobs instead.
They specially stated the false dichotomy, and made a strong argument.
No one here knows if the other option has to be Marriott losing business, so you putting that out there is wrong, and ironically, again a false dichotomy.
I was responding to this point, which is specifically about the Marriott case.
>Executives dismissing a support employee—out-of-touch executives who have probably forgotten how important an ongoing income stream is for people on low or even normal incomes—just to save face in a business relationship is in my opinion unjustifiable.
>Not if the other option was China shutting down a bunch of Marriott hotels and hundreds of employees losing their jobs instead.
to which I said we don't know, and you saying so is a false dichotomy because there are often other options.
Or they didn't have to fire anyone - it's not like China actually gets to see employment records for random staff in Omaha.
If Marriott was forbidden by law from firing the employee in this situation, then they could much more easily deflect the pressure from China. Make some token gesture and then say, hey, we'd like to do more, but those pesky laws prevent us from doing that.
This is a case where everybody wins when there's stronger employee protection.
How's the NFL doing?
So I prefer the direct approach that is known to work by directly helping people do the right thing, over the indirect approach that may or may not work, depending on circumstances.
Which is? Decide for them?