> The company would also take half of the $500 stipend allotted for dependents under the bill.
Oh wow. If I put morals aside, I almost see how execs rationalise keeping their employees wages, "keeping the business stable", etc.. How in the world can you justify taking the kids payments as well?
How is this legal? They are essentially robbing their employees no? They have effectively converted government actions of bailing out the citizens into bailing out just me and myself only. The authorities should hit them with a big fine.
Employment in the US is generally at-will. Unless there are contracts otherwise, employers can raise or lower pay as they like, subject to few limitations.
That said, they're quite foolish to link this to the stimulus checks. And I suspect a lot of their employees (especially the better ones) will leave.
Generally speaking, you have to keep in mind that in the US many employers see employees as subjects (much like slaves),especially when it comes to bluecollar work. There is no national legislation that draws a clear line.
No coincidence here that the term human resources was invented for labour. They are resources that can be exploited until they can't be further exploited.
It weirded me out big time when I first heard people talking corporate-speak saying "we need a resource for ...". Took a while to proccess , apparently they meant a person, I was thinking "hmm.. Wouldn't it be better to hirr someone, what resource can do this? ML? SaaS service?"
When a company cuts employees' salary by a significant amount (let's call it 25% of 75k = $18k == $1500 over 1 month, for argument's sake, but which we know will become 3 months) without knowing how employees will make it up, it's understandable and even acceptable -- just poor luck. But when another company cuts employee's salary by a fixed amount defined by what they are getting from another, guaranteed source -- thus making them whole -- they are monstrous?
ok, got it.
i, for one, would much rather face this than furlough or layoffs.
They're not. Corporations are not places where friends socialize, or where families support each other. They are workplaces and corporations have to look out for themselves. Doing what they need to do, not prioritizing individuals, is what they do and should be doing and employees should never mistake them as some kind of social support system.
They are both amoral corporate acts, neither bad nor good.
The difference, though, one form of an equivalent act raises pitchforks. And you wonder why executives care about "optics"? This wasn't a bad move by Image Consulting, but it was a dumb one.
To be willfully ignorant of the human cost of business decisions is intellectually dishonest and perpetuates the immoral and downright evil corporate cultures.
Business decisions cannot be amoral unless you pretend they don't impact other human beings. That in and of itself is immoral.
And regardless of what you think the purpose of a company is, they are places where friends socialize and families look out for each other. They're social collectives, and people will do social things where those form. Profit motive or not. They are also a social support system, that's what your salary and health insurance are.
And to that point, "doing what they need to do" is synonymous with hurting people for the benefit of others. Removing pay benefits across the board is not prioritizing individuals, but actively harming the people who can tolerate it the least as a group.
The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.
> And regardless of what you think the purpose of a company is, they are places where friends socialize and families look out for each other
You are mistaken about how companies actually work, and how they should work. The only rational way to treat a company is in an amoral, unfriendly (wouldn't go so far as to say adversarial) way. Because when push comes to shove, that's how they are going to treat you.
Your personal relationships with coworkers are completely different thing than your relationship with the company. I may have misspoke when I said "corporations are not places where ...". Of course those things happen at corporations; after all you are spending the majority of your waking hours there. All of my best friends come from previous jobs. But the corporation itself is not there to facilitate that and support that, not even as a "side purpose".
ISTM that you do not understand capitalism.
> The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.
Really? It's evil to cut pay by the exact amount the government is giving out, thereby maintaining worker's salary, at a time when it's clear there's not really work for them to do, rather than cutting by an arbitrarily large amount? Or furloughing workers entirely?
All respect friend, but I feel you're the one who are gravely mistaken about what a company is or how it should work.
We're not talking about capitalism, but corporatism, and corporations are social organizations and to understand them is not to understand supply and demand but humans and how we gather.
The decision to cut pay or lay off employees is never amoral. It's an example of the trolley problem. It is wholly irrational to think a business decision that impacts other human beings and their livelihood as amoral. If it were amoral, managers wouldn't lose sleep at night when they look at the org chart and make hard decisions when push comes to shove.
I don't think that this particular decision was evil. I think the attitude you express about how companies "should" or "do" operate is both wrong and at the heart of evil and immoral companies.
It's fine if you think I don't understand capitalism, because what I'm talking about is empathy.
This is exactly what the problem with UBI is. Companies will know that you have an extra $X so they may be able to offer less salary (unless we are talking about a huge UBI where people won't have to work if they don't want to). However, the risk is much more realistic with landlords. Since renting is basically a bidding war, the only difference with everyone have $X extra is that the final "sale" will be $X more
So your saying that tax reductions and lowering the interest also have no economic effects because every last penny will be simultaneously be deducted from salary and go fully to increased rent/housing sales?
GP has a point though – why doesn't the same logic apply? If I am an employer, I know your pay grade. Therefore, I know how tax cuts affect you. So if there is a cut in tax rates, why not just deduct the equivalent value you would've kept as extra due to the cut from your paycheck?
If rentals are being priced purely based on "what can renters afford", then your problem is with the housing market itself, not with UBI or anything else. Obviously UBI won't ameliorate a situation where housing is priced like that – in that case you would also need to ensure there is a larger supply of housing to make the market actually competitive, but it isn't a problem with UBI, it's a problem with housing.
21 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadOh look Google has competition in free slave labor.
Oh wow. If I put morals aside, I almost see how execs rationalise keeping their employees wages, "keeping the business stable", etc.. How in the world can you justify taking the kids payments as well?
That said, they're quite foolish to link this to the stimulus checks. And I suspect a lot of their employees (especially the better ones) will leave.
When a company cuts employees' salary by a significant amount (let's call it 25% of 75k = $18k == $1500 over 1 month, for argument's sake, but which we know will become 3 months) without knowing how employees will make it up, it's understandable and even acceptable -- just poor luck. But when another company cuts employee's salary by a fixed amount defined by what they are getting from another, guaranteed source -- thus making them whole -- they are monstrous?
ok, got it.
i, for one, would much rather face this than furlough or layoffs.
They are both amoral corporate acts, neither bad nor good.
The difference, though, one form of an equivalent act raises pitchforks. And you wonder why executives care about "optics"? This wasn't a bad move by Image Consulting, but it was a dumb one.
Business decisions cannot be amoral unless you pretend they don't impact other human beings. That in and of itself is immoral.
And regardless of what you think the purpose of a company is, they are places where friends socialize and families look out for each other. They're social collectives, and people will do social things where those form. Profit motive or not. They are also a social support system, that's what your salary and health insurance are.
And to that point, "doing what they need to do" is synonymous with hurting people for the benefit of others. Removing pay benefits across the board is not prioritizing individuals, but actively harming the people who can tolerate it the least as a group.
The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.
You are mistaken about how companies actually work, and how they should work. The only rational way to treat a company is in an amoral, unfriendly (wouldn't go so far as to say adversarial) way. Because when push comes to shove, that's how they are going to treat you.
Your personal relationships with coworkers are completely different thing than your relationship with the company. I may have misspoke when I said "corporations are not places where ...". Of course those things happen at corporations; after all you are spending the majority of your waking hours there. All of my best friends come from previous jobs. But the corporation itself is not there to facilitate that and support that, not even as a "side purpose".
ISTM that you do not understand capitalism.
> The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.
Really? It's evil to cut pay by the exact amount the government is giving out, thereby maintaining worker's salary, at a time when it's clear there's not really work for them to do, rather than cutting by an arbitrarily large amount? Or furloughing workers entirely?
We're not talking about capitalism, but corporatism, and corporations are social organizations and to understand them is not to understand supply and demand but humans and how we gather.
The decision to cut pay or lay off employees is never amoral. It's an example of the trolley problem. It is wholly irrational to think a business decision that impacts other human beings and their livelihood as amoral. If it were amoral, managers wouldn't lose sleep at night when they look at the org chart and make hard decisions when push comes to shove.
I don't think that this particular decision was evil. I think the attitude you express about how companies "should" or "do" operate is both wrong and at the heart of evil and immoral companies.
It's fine if you think I don't understand capitalism, because what I'm talking about is empathy.
It was both bad and dumb.
If rentals are being priced purely based on "what can renters afford", then your problem is with the housing market itself, not with UBI or anything else. Obviously UBI won't ameliorate a situation where housing is priced like that – in that case you would also need to ensure there is a larger supply of housing to make the market actually competitive, but it isn't a problem with UBI, it's a problem with housing.