←back to thread

209 points htrp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.44s | 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 #
stego-tech ◴[] No.44445853[source]
> 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).

It is, and they are. It’s why Reagan fired ATC strikers and blackballed them. It’s why private enterprise stockpiled machine guns and chemical weapons against strikers back in the Gilded Age. It’s why companies will spend billions to block Unions rather than just give workers the few million or so more they need over a decade to just maintain a standard of living. It’s why they’ll close down stores, warehouses, offshore jobs and outsource to contractors to penalize Unions.

Unions are a direct response to the inequality of Capital allocation and distribution.

replies(2): >>44446002 #>>44446952 #
aydyn ◴[] No.44446952[source]
Unions are not effective when there's such a surplus of labor and people willing to break lines. It wont work in today's tech labor market.
replies(4): >>44447366 #>>44448020 #>>44449626 #>>44457592 #
silisili ◴[] No.44448020[source]
Sure it would. There are way more employed tech people than unemployed. Imagine if every single person at a company like MS up and went on strike tomorrow.

Could MS replace them all with scabs? Sure, with enough time and money. But it wouldn't happen overnight, and things would get very dire if not company ruining in the meantime.

replies(2): >>44449647 #>>44451103 #
billy99k ◴[] No.44451103[source]
With remote work? good luck. Unions only work where all the work is localized.

I'm in tech and I would never join a union. Why do I need collective bargaining to set my salary (and not give me raise until it's collectively raised) when I can bargain for my own raises?

In addition to this, unions don't bode well for innovation and technology. Look at the Taxicab unions. We could only get a cab in person or through the phone, because the unions had no incentive to innovate. It look a non-union startup to push them to actually make it convenient and better for the customer.

replies(2): >>44451531 #>>44457626 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44457626[source]
I work in games. Salary is honestly fine for the most part, even if lower than traditional tech.

I just want to not be laid off every 3 years becsuse some executive wants numbers to look 1% better for shareholders. I'd gladly join a union that ensures there's proper warning for layoffs and proper payout if it goes through.

>Look at the Taxicab unions.

So you're complaining about regulation because unregulated tech was convinent for you for a few years? That thinking is how we got here.