OKC-based company wants to keep employees’ $1,200 stimulus payments
thelostogle.com
thelostogle.com
Oh wow. If I put morals aside, I almost see how execs rationalise keeping their employees wages, "keeping the business stable", etc.. How in the world can you justify taking the kids payments as well?
If rentals are being priced purely based on "what can renters afford", then your problem is with the housing market itself, not with UBI or anything else. Obviously UBI won't ameliorate a situation where housing is priced like that – in that case you would also need to ensure there is a larger supply of housing to make the market actually competitive, but it isn't a problem with UBI, it's a problem with housing.
That said, they're quite foolish to link this to the stimulus checks. And I suspect a lot of their employees (especially the better ones) will leave.
Oh look Google has competition in free slave labor.
When a company cuts employees' salary by a significant amount (let's call it 25% of 75k = $18k == $1500 over 1 month, for argument's sake, but which we know will become 3 months) without knowing how employees will make it up, it's understandable and even acceptable -- just poor luck. But when another company cuts employee's salary by a fixed amount defined by what they are getting from another, guaranteed source -- thus making them whole -- they are monstrous?
ok, got it.
i, for one, would much rather face this than furlough or layoffs.
They are both amoral corporate acts, neither bad nor good.
The difference, though, one form of an equivalent act raises pitchforks. And you wonder why executives care about "optics"? This wasn't a bad move by Image Consulting, but it was a dumb one.
Business decisions cannot be amoral unless you pretend they don't impact other human beings. That in and of itself is immoral.
And regardless of what you think the purpose of a company is, they are places where friends socialize and families look out for each other. They're social collectives, and people will do social things where those form. Profit motive or not. They are also a social support system, that's what your salary and health insurance are.
And to that point, "doing what they need to do" is synonymous with hurting people for the benefit of others. Removing pay benefits across the board is not prioritizing individuals, but actively harming the people who can tolerate it the least as a group.
The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.
You are mistaken about how companies actually work, and how they should work. The only rational way to treat a company is in an amoral, unfriendly (wouldn't go so far as to say adversarial) way. Because when push comes to shove, that's how they are going to treat you.
Your personal relationships with coworkers are completely different thing than your relationship with the company. I may have misspoke when I said "corporations are not places where ...". Of course those things happen at corporations; after all you are spending the majority of your waking hours there. All of my best friends come from previous jobs. But the corporation itself is not there to facilitate that and support that, not even as a "side purpose".
ISTM that you do not understand capitalism.
> The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.
Really? It's evil to cut pay by the exact amount the government is giving out, thereby maintaining worker's salary, at a time when it's clear there's not really work for them to do, rather than cutting by an arbitrarily large amount? Or furloughing workers entirely?
We're not talking about capitalism, but corporatism, and corporations are social organizations and to understand them is not to understand supply and demand but humans and how we gather.
The decision to cut pay or lay off employees is never amoral. It's an example of the trolley problem. It is wholly irrational to think a business decision that impacts other human beings and their livelihood as amoral. If it were amoral, managers wouldn't lose sleep at night when they look at the org chart and make hard decisions when push comes to shove.
I don't think that this particular decision was evil. I think the attitude you express about how companies "should" or "do" operate is both wrong and at the heart of evil and immoral companies.
It's fine if you think I don't understand capitalism, because what I'm talking about is empathy.
It was both bad and dumb.