We really need to lock this absurdity down and increase severance requirements for large companies heavily. It's one thing to gamble risk for the company, it's something completely different to gamble employee livelihood when you're signaling job security by hiring.
So same result, to some extent.
My current worry is that the first round of layoff at my first company will get 4 months severance, I'll miss that round, and 2 months later get laid off with only 2 months severance. This would of course mean that my severance ends at the same times as the first group but I had to work an additional 2 months.
Absolutely. People in tech don't realize how good they have it.
The first time I lost a job I found out when my company phone started showing alerts on a Saturday night that it couldn't connect to the e-mail server. It turned out that my entire department was canned.
The second time, I came to work on a Thursday only to discover the door locked, and a couple of coworkers lingering around. Eventually, we decided we had the day off. Same story Friday. In the Sunday newspaper there a small note that the company has been bought. So Monday morning, it was off to the Unemployment office.
For 99% of American companies, you're lucky to get notice before you get laid off, let alone severance pay.
My hope for folks affected (and, as a former SFDC employee, I know several affected) is that it's pay & vesting for the WARN period, with the severance period following that.
Overall will probably be a good change - as much as I liked our product, the sfdc transition was rough. For better or worse the layoffs don't seem to have been totally random: most of the affected folks I know had larger than normal equity packages
Either that or they see something the rest of us don't when looking at economic data (a long recession).
Typically, revenue suffers if either clients downgrade or stop their contracts. Or go out of business. Is Salesforce in a position or niche where that doesn't apply?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrai...
- layoff results in fewer than 50 workers losing their jobs at a single employment site
- If 50 to 499 workers lose their jobs and that number is less than 33% of the employer's total, active workforce at a single employment site
These seem to let some* tech companies off the hook.
* Those that are highly remote or distributed.
The other side of the token is that such a guarantee would help convince more people to accept an offer. I'd personally be hesitant to switch to a less stable job right now, and getting an offer yanked or immediately laid off with minimal severance would be brutal for many. A company providing "we changed our mind" insurance would retire a lot of risk for job seekers - and, if things are going well, it costs them essentially nothing to do.
Many people taking a job are leaving some other job or passing up on other offers to do so. Imposing a cost on employers when they pull a "whoopsie daisy" and rescind offers or immediately lay off a new employee seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
Where's the efficiency for employee or employer?
- "If we hire this specific person, we might be stuck with them for a while" and
- "If we build out this entire department, we can't close it down on a whim"
I think that's a lot of repeated applications of the former case.
You may not be able to put little Timmy in private school and he may have to gasp go to a public college.
Or do you expect the government to replace 100% of a tech employees compensation?
Employment should be easy to find, switch and end.
More like dating than marriage.
Tax implications (maybe - not sure how the credits/deductions work today).
A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years, it's entirely possible that a weaker labor market with stronger workers protections would've been less effective at doing so leaving the very poor worse off.
Source?
> A strong labor market has been effective in rasing the real incomes of the bottom 25% or so over the past few years
is it possible that strong labor market was due to increased demand from the stimulus checks?
Does "more reluctant" here = "more thoughtful"?
I'm sure you could take it too far, but I'm highly skeptical that we're in any sort of optimal situation today.
Typically there is not a hefty severance paid by most companies though. There's some restructuring costs and lots of disruption though.
I’d rather it be harder to get a job, but have higher job security when you get it.
Look into how hard it is to fire someone in Germany post trial period (Probezeit).
If you were out of work, 3 months behind on your mortgage, and wondering if you have enough money saved to keep your kids fed until you get another paycheck - I doubt you would make the same statement.
Welcome to "government is the means by which a group of people make collective decisions about the way we want our city/state/country to work." When striving for liberty, the thing we actually want, anarchy is just as much a preference as order.
Everything else is haggling over the specific details. If we decide that one of those employer obligations is to provide guaranteed runaway for employees in the case of termination then that’s that. If we decide that one of the employee’s obligations is providing 3 months of notice then that’s also that. But the two things aren’t at all related except in your mind.
Right now today with no change in policy whatsoever you have to make the choice as to weather you are willing and able meet your obligations as an employer before taking on employees and you have as much say and the same votes as everyone else to decide what those obligations are.
Fairness informs but does not ultimately decide the employer employee relationship. The only thing we get for sure if the system works is that over time it tends toward what is considered fair by the current working citizens.
Depends on where it happens. They are in many places.