It goes both ways. Employees get to quit at a moments notice, leaving the company scrambling to find a replacement at potentially great costs. The internet is replete with stories of employees quitting, leaving their companies in shambles trying to figure out how to fill the void. I choose to care about my employer and my employer chooses to care about me. I could make a lot more money at a company that does not care, but I value that relationship more than money. Everyone should have the choice.
Most employees have to work in order to make an income. To assume that it's at all common for employees to just jump ship and leave a mess behind is inaccurate
> leaving the company scrambling to find a replacement at potentially great costs
And to this point, most employees are redundant. Other employees can pick up the slack. A well managed organization usually doesn't let the bus factor get too high. And if an org isn't well managed, it's not fair to blame employees for wanting to leave
> I choose to care about my employer and my employer chooses to care about me. I could make a lot more money at a company that does not care, but I value that relationship more than money. Everyone should have the choice.
I think this is closer to the mark. Employment is first a legal agreement, but also a social agreement. And this is the social agreement that Musk is destroying through his game of chicken with Twitter. He doesn't get a pass because "it goes both ways"
> And this is the social agreement that Musk is destroying through his game of chicken with Twitter. He doesn't get a pass because "it goes both ways"
It is a choice that is going to cost his company money. Talented potential employees are going to be well aware of the potential to be fired without a second thought(or severance) on the whim of Elon from now on. Twitter will have to increase compensation or settle for less talented individuals to balance that potential. That is where he does not "get a pass".
I agree of course from a human social standpoint that it would be moral and appropriate to give as much notice and severance as possible. However, there are many factors that come into play when making decisions of this nature. I do not know the full compensation package of the employees(were they already overcompensated?) or the total financial status of the company. The company could in theory be on the brink of failure. If Elon gave the fired employees a sweet parting deal and the company subsequently goes broke, leading to even more layoffs that would be terrible for the remaining employees. Furthermore, what of the employees that have to be fired or never hired in order to compensate the employees that are already leaving? I wonder how the vote would go from the employees if a company proposed the following:
"Would you rather we fire without severance pay 100 employees tomorrow or fire 150 with severance pay next month?" That's essentially the question that happens in management when a layoff is happening. Sadly many people fail to see that 50 jobs were saved in the first scenario when they read headlines about layoffs.
Either way we think, the complexities of human interactions in the markets and business is fascinating!
> "Would you rather we fire without severance pay 100 employees tomorrow or fire 150 with severance pay next month?"
that assumes management is acting in good faith towards the employees, more often than not that decision is tilted towards shareholders ie.. if they think they can cut 150 employees and make it work then it just becomes a choice between cutting 150 employees with or without severance as soon as possible. the amount of severence is essentially decided by local laws and prevailing standards but mind you the game is mostly give as little as needed.
