While I can understand the sentiment, it should be expressed with less vulgarity, and frankly, workers should show more solidarity to one another, not because of “deserving it” or not, but simply because it’s the only way out of the pit they put us in. Otherwise we are forever dragging each other back in.

"Companies should be able to offer massively addictive and manipulative websites, since their users are free to not look at them" is not compatible with a decent society either.

Want them to stick through a 10 year lawsuit while they get fired anyways? Do you think there is a lot of hope of winning such a lawsuit? Metas CEO hangs out at the Pentagon and has bomb bunkers. They can do whatever they want to their employees

This line immediately brought various Dilbert images to my mind.

In the old days, before federally recognized unions and those things, when the company/boss did something terrible....

The workers would arm up with shotguns, rifles, Molotov cocktails. They'd then go to the bosses' house and have a "chat". If they didn't listen, they'd have their house shot up or burned to the ground.

It was the very bosses that hired Pinkerton's to go murder the union leaders as well.

Some of the railroad unionization got so bloody and violent that even the US military got in on the action, in favor of companies.

In the end, we got the NLRB and a whole host of rights. The violence did indeed work, but saying that is somehow breaking unforgivable speech.

And if violence isnt up to these meta engineers, perhaps they should look into CIA's own simple sabotage field manual techniques.

I agree and consider a lot of regulation to be useful but there are some examples of this where I think we just perpetuate bad companies into existing when they'dgo bankrupt or have to pay wild salaries to compensate being shitty. But it just doesn't seem practical to expect people to stop working for bad companies. In the country I'm from the average salary is super close to the minimum wage with low unemployment so technically employees could change easily and find another job with the same minimum wage and still people stay at bad companies. It'd be the best regulator if people quit, even unions wouldn't need to exist, under this light a union just perpetuates a bad boss, but human nature is not changing so protections are needed.

That's the crux. People aren't asking "Am I earning enough?" but "How can I earn more?", and it all spirals into whatever the current system could be called.

So employees should have plenty in the bank to fall back on while they found their own companies to compete … right?

Ok, so this spyware is another step in the "either they comply with what we force them to do, or they quit, whichever way, for us it's a win-win" strategy, after Return To Office? And, just to make sure the employees get the point, they concurrently announce a further 10% round of layoffs? Yeah, makes sense...

> They can currently scoop up an endless supply of developers that have memorized every single leetcode hard, system design and """behavioral""" interview question.

And will those help them get where they think they want to go?

And existing obligations. Most people I know, myself including, stretch our current situation as the paycheque grows.

Some of it is intentional. A lot of it is slow creep (“ah, I can afford a, b, c now..that Maserati/Porche Cayenne GTS/Urus-lol I’ve always wanted!”). While you’re doing this, your spouse and kids are doing it 2x - “oh dad got that fancy new car! I guess I can ask him for the special edition Jordans now..”). Out of guilt, you let your family join in on the buying frenzy.

Now you’ve landed yourself with new loans and obligations (more expensive car = higher maintenance cost, same with house, etc - higher expectation all around, keeping up with Joneses, charity events, …).

Getting out of all that is much more difficult than overcoming your own greed and discomfort - many are legal obligations and you basically need a multi-year plan to go back unscathed (assuming you and your family are pragmatic enough to readjust your comfort level). For some it can be leaving useful social obligations - you lose your social circle if you downgrade (may have to move further away, no more club or association memberships).

The only real remedy is to not let your expenditure go up when you get a raise. But it’s less about you and in equal measure about how your partner operates, kids, family, their expectations etc. All in all, odds are not in an average Meta employees favour no matter what they might personally think/feel.

If it’s company equipment it’s fair game. Literally everytime I sign in it states I have no expectation of privacy while using the equipment.

Claiming that developers and technology workers at Meta are working there because that's the only stable, well-paying job they can find, is extremely out of touch. People forget how comfortable us developers really have it, compared to almost any other field out there.

I wonder though if we're not approaching a time when even those who clung to their jobs will be joining those out of work. My wife, anecdotally, was just laid off from Agilent after having worked there for close to three decades. We were fortunate to see that as an opportunity for her to take her (albeit early) retirement.

I don't doubt there are plenty at Meta who, if not nearing retirement age, might have been harboring some desire to take some time off to hike the Big Three hiking trails in the U.S. Or perhaps write a novel.

Seriously.