>we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving.

In my country, this action would be literally illegal.

Even in countries where it isn’t, it feels highly immoral. “I’m not in any kind of pressure to do this but I’m choosing to shed the people who created my wealth for greater personal gain”.

▲

atleastoptimal 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is part of the reason why American tech companies are so successful though. Being unable to lay off workers causes stagnation at companies where fast-development is paramount.

▲

pembrook 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is also why your countries social welfare systems are teetering on fiscal insolvency and deficits are ballooning.

Your inefficient and non-competitive private sector isn't growing fast enough to fund your growing demand for free stuff in the public sector.

Maybe if companies and entrepreneurs were allowed to shift more rapidly to meet market demand your legacy giants (and social welfare meal ticket) wouldn't be sitting ducks for the Chinese to swoop in and kill.

▲

groundzeros2015 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your country also pays less and has fewer jobs.

Increasing the cost to fire, increases the cost to hire.

▲

kace91 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And yet we live longer and with higher quality of life, by most standards (chronic and mental illnesses, life expectancy, etc).

No need to turn it into a dick measuring context, we have plenty of flaws of our own.

Just pointing out that legal or not, under most morals systems, loudly proclaiming that you’re willing to screw your people for no clear necessity will get you socially ostracized.

▲

groundzeros2015 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> No need to turn it into a dick measuring context

Yes, which is why it’s not helpful to bring up a completely different economic system with an unfamiliar culture.

Why are you saying this in the next sentence:

> yet we live longer and with higher quality of life

▲

kace91 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>If the business is not able to be profitable everyone is screwed.

Sure, we agree there. It’s not like needing profitability is a weird quirk of the American system. I am not criticizing the layoffs, but the layoffs while mentioning business is booming and they have no reasons forcing their hand.

I’m curious about your point of view, would you applaud and support your employer taking this attitude? Firing half the workers while agreeing that there is no pressure to let anyone go looks good to you?

	▲	groundzeros2015 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> would you applaud and support your employer taking this attitude? I don’t see my employer as an owner or steward of me. I think we are in business relationship where both sides win. If circumstances change I understand I may need to find a new job.

▲

acchow 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you point to the laws in your country that would make this illegal? I’m skeptical

▲

iddan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is America. Like it or not.

▲

boxingdog 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

nailer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What government makes it illegal for management to manage their company?

▲

kace91 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Many European countries, including mine (spain) only accept mass firings when the company proves it’s a necessity. Usually this means showing losses or the effect of force majeure events like natural disasters.

You can manage your company just fine, by not overshooting your hiring by 2x if workers were anctually unneeded for example.

▲

acchow 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But in your country (Spain), Telefónica de España laid off 3649 workers in Dec 2023 (about 40% of that unit) despite growing net income by 17% that year.

▲

kace91 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Nice googling, but that’s just an example that proves my point.

They had to go through a process extensively justifying losses (mostly that certain jobs were no longer relevant as they were pre-digital workforce), negotiate with unions and offer voluntary leaving conditions.

The resulting offer was good enough that more workers applied to be fired than were necesssary. For context, the deal was basically to pay them 70% of their current salary from the dismissal moment until their retirement at 63.

	▲	Klonoar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What was the average age of the worker that took that deal?

▲

121789 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

spain has the highest unemployment rate in the EU. maybe you are ignoring important tradeoffs and are a little too confident about your own opinion on what it means to "manage your company just fine"

	▲	kace91 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe, or maybe you’re about to find out what happens to the consumer side when a large percentage of companies decide they no longer need half their workforce judging on linkedin vibes.