←back to thread

209 points htrp | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.641s | source
Show context
idkwhattocallme ◴[] No.44444622[source]
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them get there drives home it's just a paycheck, do your job, but know it can and will end when convenient for the company. I know folks will argue, low performers, but really. This "productivity apps" company hired them, onboarded them, made $82B in profit, surely they can figure out how to uplevel folks. Also how do you have a layoff every couple of months for 3 years. Thinking about the middle class in the previous generation, it was unions that effectively ensured a labor job meant a secure future. I wonder if that's the solution (again).
replies(22): >>44444692 #>>44444744 #>>44444872 #>>44445007 #>>44445352 #>>44445600 #>>44445621 #>>44445705 #>>44445722 #>>44445743 #>>44445758 #>>44445853 #>>44445888 #>>44446540 #>>44446696 #>>44447236 #>>44447339 #>>44447678 #>>44447824 #>>44452199 #>>44452368 #>>44457573 #
1. geodel ◴[] No.44444872[source]
Talking about stock price is in fact indication of layoffs being working not other way round. I don't think people are arguing against "job is just a paycheck" in last 5 years. In the same vein for company "employee is just a cost".

Union may save job for few who have job but people who don't (and they are lot more and increasing) are not gonna get helped by any union.

replies(1): >>44445516 #
2. hardwaresofton ◴[] No.44445516[source]
> Union may save job for few who have job but people who don't (and they are lot more and increasing) are not gonna get helped by any union.

Note that in some countries, unions extend to cover workers who are not even part of the union. Heard about this from some french friends:

> Collective bargaining agreements (conventions collectives) may be negotiated between employers and labour unions covering a company or group of companies (accords d’entreprise), or between employers’ associations and labour unions covering an industry as a whole; in the latter case, the government may decide that the collective agreement covers even those employers who are not members of the employers’ association and is therefore mandatory throughout the industry.

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...

Not saying it's the right solution for $COUNTRY, but I was certainly surprised when I heard of this

replies(1): >>44445635 #
3. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.44445635[source]
This is true on a workplace basis in the USA. Union contracts define terms for non-union workers.