> hire quickly and fire quickly
This kind of mentality is not conducive to a well-functioning nation with people who have dependents and need stability.
This kind of mentality is not conducive to a well-functioning nation with people who have dependents and need stability.
The nation is not conducive to business if it can't provide healthcare and safety nets for those without work or in between jobs. In the US we are held hostage with healthcare based on our employers - if you're even lucky enough to have a stable job with benefits.
Unemployment is bad for society generally and for the unemployed. Maybe one day we’ll get to fully automated luxury gay space communism but France is not there. Those extra unemployed people are having their talents and productivity wasted by economic mismanagement.
Less of an issue if you're full remote, or you provide good accommodations, I guess.
The problem is of course that even if you have every reason to think that some other place would hire you, you need a degree of slack to begin with. There aren't any easy answers there, but that's where I'd say an expanded social safety net should come in.
I think a generous severance makes up for that. Plus people would know what they are getting into, just like Netflix. If you don’t want the risk/return you don’t have to apply or accept a job there.
I don't think so.
> I think a generous severance makes up for that.
That's your opinion. But what you think is generous isn't necessarily what others think is generous.
> Plus people would know what they are getting into, just like Netflix.
I disagree.
> If you don’t want the risk/return you don’t have to apply or accept a job there.
The risk/return needs to be clear though and hirefast/firefast isn't always clear.
Incredible hiring risk aversion is what makes finding a job for everyone a shitshow. Definitely not an efficient market as it stands.
If it weren’t for an easy to hire organization that gave me a chance, I’d likely be homeless.
Unfortunately this cuts at the moat that big corporations have set up not to mention health insurance industry and big pharma. Which is why it hasn't happened yet here (though it has in many other countries).
Surely companies have some minimal responsibility to act ethically, and surely behaving in a way that causes social dysfunction is not ethical.
By your reasoning, I am free to degrade public infrastructure such as roads because it is not my responsibility to build them.
Equivalently: I am morally justified in committing crimes since I am not a police officer.
To me, this seems like a very cynical scheme. We tell "normal people" that they, personally, ought to BUY AMERICAN to prevent jobs from moving abroad. When they eventually do, we can tell them they should've done more and that it was their fault. It shifts the liability on to the victims, rather than the perpetrators.
But the responsibility of ensuring that a country has a good trade deficit is upon the government, if anyone! There's no serious way I can prevent it, so the only real point of saying it's my responsibility is to diminish the government's responsibility for failing to prevent it.
To suggest that the companies have a moral obligation, is to suggest that an abstract body corporate can have a conscience. If it could, there would be no need to ban slavery - just expect that the honest businessmen of America cease to traffic in them.
We agree. We also agree that businesses do not have the responsibility of fixing society.
However, they do have the responsibility not to degrade it.
Companies are inert objects. They do not have consciences. I can't say that a company does an evil thing, any more than I can blame a rock someone else threw for hitting my head. It hurts, but I can't very well blame the rock for it. Companies are just like driftwood in the ocean; their motion is defined solely by the forces acting upon them.
What is left, then, is to suggest that society should go after the companies that don't do what we want. But this can never be done by individuals. It has to be done by unions, governments, or something of the sort. It cannot be done by the companies themselves, and it cannot be done by individuals.
When you suggest that companies are doing something wrong, and not the government for failing to regulate them, this is tantamount to suggesting that the responsibility for punishing them actually lay on the individual. But to do so makes the primary victim into the perpetrator of the aggression against him. It is a terrible thing to do.
A civilization enforces responsibility through the law.
>I am free to degrade public infrastructure such as roads because it is not my responsibility to build them.
Yes. And either the government should set laws to prevent you from misusing the infrastructure, and/or the people should shun your company for being a bad actor. The former being consistent for infrastructure that is owned and maintained by the tax-funded government.
>I am morally justified in committing crimes since I am not a police officer.
Morality and legality are different things. Neither people nor corporations should be judged by the government through the abstract, subjective morality of individuals, only by agreed upon, written law, and at its loosest which is a court's interpretation of the law.
You as an individual can hold anyone responsible for anything under any criteria, but then you should state you're speaking for yourself as per your own moral code. As a society, we have rules for that.
If you want to make your moral code the law, then that should also be explicitly mentioned as such instead of speaking as if it's the status quo.
It seems we agree. Similarly, governments should encode the civic responsibility of businesses into law.
Whether or not they have actually done that is a different debate.
The only major problem would be relocation, so I'd suggest working a few months at a new job before relocating for it.