Hacker News Reader

Comment by HarryHirsch | Hacker News Reader

"Callous" would mean it's about you, but think about it from the viewpoint of the company. If the aggrieved employee leaves, the problem is solved.

View on HN

Hiring and onboarding costs money. Having people quit costs money in replacing them. Allowing managers to drive them out and incur the cost of replacement is basically allowing them to light money on fire for their entertainment.

Not from the POV of the company, but from the individual actors within it, is the problem solved. Principal-agent dilemma, innit.

Only if the issue is with that individual employee. In this case, that obviously isn’t the case. Ignoring a systemic problem in your company solves nothing.

Don't know if that's true. The big goal is to avoid federal lawsuits and other scandals. If the can can be kicked down the road for a few more years, fine! Uber only blew up because Susan Fowler was better connected than most, and you'd like to know how much the scandal affected the company. Uber is fine, Kalanick is fine, a few HR drones lost their jobs, business as usual.

Highly paid people are a pain to hire for and replace.

If all of a sudden your turnover spikes that's a lot of sudden unexpected cost, which is very bad.

Diversity in team pays off, you are missing if you don’t have a diverse team. It’s not a charity anymore it’s more of a science in getting quality output from your team.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com