7 ms·

> He had a son with severe Autism and Microsoft's health benefits were very important to him. This really sucks for him. Through should Microsoft _not_ layoff

by frde_me 9mo ago

> He had a son with severe Autism and Microsoft's health benefits were very important to him. This really sucks for him. Through should Microsoft _not_ layoff specific people due to health conditions? Is that something we require from companies?

bowsamic 9mo ago
Yes I’d say that such people should get extra protections
- kwanbix 9mo ago
  In europe (at least in Germany), they do get extra protection.
  - CrimsonRain 9mo ago
    And that's why people think 5 times before hiring such. It's already super hard to fire people unless they make gross mistakes. It's nearly impossible to fire someone like that. It's stupid.
    - kakacik 9mo ago
      Its not stupid rather humane, just very ineffective from economical perspective. You want society where its everybody for themselves, fuck the rest, be lucky with ie your health so you and your family can have a decent life and one problem big enough can wipe you out? The benefit is more money, economy works better, is more agile to ever-changing situation. Just those extra money often go to that healthcare (since we all end up with various issues over time, the only exception is early death), or university for kids, or cost of properties. Or something glacial, without real pressure to improve, more poor, but with additional safety nets. I keep saying it over and over - EU should take over system (and mindset, good luck there) of Swiss folks. They strike the best balance between predatory capitalism that often grinds unlucky individuals and various safety nets (free top notch public education, almost free public healthcare, very good but not ridiculous social system etc). Unsurprisingly, mix of European competency and a bit of proper capitalism creates one of best stable living standards in the world, and arguably still The most free nation in the world (TM). Its a place that french or germans just can't swallow - neighbor showing them how much better a similar society can end up functioning with few rather minor tweaks.
      - rvba 9mo ago
        In a thread about US company firing QA (in USA) we see an anti EU rant that sounds like russian propaganda.
        kakacik 9mo ago
        Read my comment history if you care, you couldnt be further from the truth. What I wrote is reality about EU, whether you like it or not is another topic. I dont mention russia at all, that medieval shithole has (hopefully) no say in how European future will look like.
      - CrimsonRain 8mo ago
        it is stupid because it leaves the company holding the bag. The state can take over for such cases but instead, once a company hires such a person, they can become permanent leeches. Even when the company is having trouble with market/financials, it is difficult to cut. > You want society where its everybody for themselves Never said that. > be lucky with ie your health so you and your family can have a decent life and one problem big enough can wipe you out? How about working hard and taking care of health? How about not drinking/smoking, not doing drugs, and eating healthy? > fuck the rest Yes, fuck the ones who don't take care of health (and I'm not talking about homeless people) and then overburden the healthcare system. Why should we have to carry the weight of the trash humans? Why should one have to pay €1000+ every month for insurance, get cigarette smoke on face (of infant) while walking around in public places, and then watch these people drain healthcare?
- jasomill 9mo ago
  In the US at least, there are needs-based high-risk insurance programs run by states that do just that. Even so, while it's not a good argument against layoffs, the fact that it's even considered as such is in itself a reasonable argument against health care being tied to specific employment.
chrishare 9mo ago
Not at all - it's legal, but it doesn't garner goodwill either.
project2501a 9mo ago
How about you nationalize your healthcare, so people like that are not depended on their work to get the care they need?
- bagels 9mo ago
  What role did you specifically play in your country's nationalization of healthcare?
  - cheesecakejava 9mo ago
    Maybe not that person above, but I’ve continually voted in support of it and initiatives to expand it
- WalterBright 9mo ago
  Employer provided health care insurance came about during WW2 because Roosevelt froze wages. Companies discovered they could "raise" wages by paying for the insurance themselves. The practice persisted because employer paid health insurance is tax-deductible, while it isn't if a person pays it out of pocket. The obvious solution is to make it tax-deductible.
  - jagged-chisel 9mo ago
    I don’t see how this addresses the comment you replied to.
    - WalterBright 9mo ago
      I suggested an alternative solution to the one proposed by the comment I replied to.
      - jagged-chisel 9mo ago
        I don’t understand how “make it tax-deductible” is an alternative to “nationalize healthcare so it’s not tied to employment.”
dghlsakjg 9mo ago
Companies don’t have agency. People do. Compassion is a cross cultural value. Including amongst those that run companies. For the most part none of us has any “required” obligation to anyone else. Is it something we require of companies? No. But being a responsible, compassionate human being that considers the totality of circumstance is something I expect of that company’s leaders. Especially a company that has the money and need for technical skills elsewhere in the org. The golden rule does not stop being true just because you are at work. Preemptively: duty to shareholders is broader than short term profit maximizing. Avoiding bad PR like this is also in the service of MS shareholders. As a side note: Nadella moved his home to Canada, while working at MS, so his special needs kid could go to a specialist school. That is absolutely the right choice. The argument that MS should not consider the health of their employees children is horseshit when they allow the CEO to set up house hours away in a different country for that exact reason. At the end of the day, a kid suffered unnecessarily through no fault of his parents or his own.
mxkopy 9mo ago
Yes
mschuster91 9mo ago
> Is that something we require from companies? In Germany, yes. For mass layoffs, this absolutely has to be considered. In general, the older the employee is, or if the employee has dependents, the more difficult it gets to both fire them or lay them off.
- WalterBright 9mo ago
  Germany's GDP is shrinking. The regulations that make it hard to lay off someone have an equal and opposite effect of making companies very reluctant to hire. This impedes the efficient allocation of labor, resulting in a poorer GDP.
  - monocasa 9mo ago
    It looks like Germany's GDP has increased every year in recent memory except 2009 and 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany#Data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany#Data
    - WalterBright 9mo ago
      google [german gdb growth] says: "-0.2% annual change (2024)"
      - omnicognate 9mo ago
        The "GDP Growth (Real)" column in the wikipedia article GP linked agrees, but it doesn't tell a story that justifies "Germany's GDP is shrinking".
        WalterBright 9mo ago
        See the graph "G7 Real GDP % change compared to pre-Pandemic level": https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02... The US has 13.3% growth and Germany 0.1%.
eek2121 9mo ago
Legally, Microsoft, or any company, cannot use any personal factors in determining who to lay off. If they do, they risk a very real lawsuit. All one needs to do is show some evidence of discrimination, and the EEOC doesn't charge a dime, the worst they will do is deny to pursue. If that happens, most private lawyers will take the case on contingency. This is the reason you see sweeping cuts without regard to age, sex, etc. There have also been lawsuits in the past that have settled out of court where a company's layoffs appear to overly inflict damage on one class vs. another, even if the intent was not to do that. I am not defending these companies at ALL btw. I just have a bit of experience in this area due to the legalities, and I wanted to share it. I am also not saying that companies don't do this, but the smart ones don't, and the smart ones at least try to at least avoid making it look obvious.
- Terr_ 9mo ago
  > the EEOC Which—for the folks not following along aghast at everything—has been sabotaged by recent federal political changes. https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-is-making-it-easier-for-employers-to-discriminate-this-stifles-equity-and-hurts-economic-growth/ https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-is-making-it-easier-for-emplo...
wahnfrieden 9mo ago
It is, but more generally. In many other countries, it is not so easy to lay off employees as it is in the US. It is also not necessary that your access to healthcare be contingent to your employer's whims.

by frde_me 9mo ago

bowsamic 9mo ago

Yes I’d say that such people should get extra protections

kwanbix 9mo ago
In europe (at least in Germany), they do get extra protection.
- CrimsonRain 9mo ago
  And that's why people think 5 times before hiring such. It's already super hard to fire people unless they make gross mistakes. It's nearly impossible to fire someone like that. It's stupid.
  - kakacik 9mo ago
    Its not stupid rather humane, just very ineffective from economical perspective. You want society where its everybody for themselves, fuck the rest, be lucky with ie your health so you and your family can have a decent life and one problem big enough can wipe you out? The benefit is more money, economy works better, is more agile to ever-changing situation. Just those extra money often go to that healthcare (since we all end up with various issues over time, the only exception is early death), or university for kids, or cost of properties. Or something glacial, without real pressure to improve, more poor, but with additional safety nets. I keep saying it over and over - EU should take over system (and mindset, good luck there) of Swiss folks. They strike the best balance between predatory capitalism that often grinds unlucky individuals and various safety nets (free top notch public education, almost free public healthcare, very good but not ridiculous social system etc). Unsurprisingly, mix of European competency and a bit of proper capitalism creates one of best stable living standards in the world, and arguably still The most free nation in the world (TM). Its a place that french or germans just can't swallow - neighbor showing them how much better a similar society can end up functioning with few rather minor tweaks.
    - rvba 9mo ago
      In a thread about US company firing QA (in USA) we see an anti EU rant that sounds like russian propaganda.
      - kakacik 9mo ago
        Read my comment history if you care, you couldnt be further from the truth. What I wrote is reality about EU, whether you like it or not is another topic. I dont mention russia at all, that medieval shithole has (hopefully) no say in how European future will look like.
    - CrimsonRain 8mo ago
      it is stupid because it leaves the company holding the bag. The state can take over for such cases but instead, once a company hires such a person, they can become permanent leeches. Even when the company is having trouble with market/financials, it is difficult to cut. > You want society where its everybody for themselves Never said that. > be lucky with ie your health so you and your family can have a decent life and one problem big enough can wipe you out? How about working hard and taking care of health? How about not drinking/smoking, not doing drugs, and eating healthy? > fuck the rest Yes, fuck the ones who don't take care of health (and I'm not talking about homeless people) and then overburden the healthcare system. Why should we have to carry the weight of the trash humans? Why should one have to pay €1000+ every month for insurance, get cigarette smoke on face (of infant) while walking around in public places, and then watch these people drain healthcare?
jasomill 9mo ago
In the US at least, there are needs-based high-risk insurance programs run by states that do just that. Even so, while it's not a good argument against layoffs, the fact that it's even considered as such is in itself a reasonable argument against health care being tied to specific employment.

chrishare 9mo ago

Not at all - it's legal, but it doesn't garner goodwill either.

project2501a 9mo ago

How about you nationalize your healthcare, so people like that are not depended on their work to get the care they need?

bagels 9mo ago
What role did you specifically play in your country's nationalization of healthcare?
- cheesecakejava 9mo ago
  Maybe not that person above, but I’ve continually voted in support of it and initiatives to expand it
WalterBright 9mo ago
Employer provided health care insurance came about during WW2 because Roosevelt froze wages. Companies discovered they could "raise" wages by paying for the insurance themselves. The practice persisted because employer paid health insurance is tax-deductible, while it isn't if a person pays it out of pocket. The obvious solution is to make it tax-deductible.
- jagged-chisel 9mo ago
  I don’t see how this addresses the comment you replied to.
  - WalterBright 9mo ago
    I suggested an alternative solution to the one proposed by the comment I replied to.
    - jagged-chisel 9mo ago
      I don’t understand how “make it tax-deductible” is an alternative to “nationalize healthcare so it’s not tied to employment.”

dghlsakjg 9mo ago

Companies don’t have agency. People do. Compassion is a cross cultural value. Including amongst those that run companies. For the most part none of us has any “required” obligation to anyone else. Is it something we require of companies? No. But being a responsible, compassionate human being that considers the totality of circumstance is something I expect of that company’s leaders. Especially a company that has the money and need for technical skills elsewhere in the org. The golden rule does not stop being true just because you are at work. Preemptively: duty to shareholders is broader than short term profit maximizing. Avoiding bad PR like this is also in the service of MS shareholders. As a side note: Nadella moved his home to Canada, while working at MS, so his special needs kid could go to a specialist school. That is absolutely the right choice. The argument that MS should not consider the health of their employees children is horseshit when they allow the CEO to set up house hours away in a different country for that exact reason. At the end of the day, a kid suffered unnecessarily through no fault of his parents or his own.

mxkopy 9mo ago

Yes

mschuster91 9mo ago

> Is that something we require from companies? In Germany, yes. For mass layoffs, this absolutely has to be considered. In general, the older the employee is, or if the employee has dependents, the more difficult it gets to both fire them or lay them off.

WalterBright 9mo ago
Germany's GDP is shrinking. The regulations that make it hard to lay off someone have an equal and opposite effect of making companies very reluctant to hire. This impedes the efficient allocation of labor, resulting in a poorer GDP.
- monocasa 9mo ago
  It looks like Germany's GDP has increased every year in recent memory except 2009 and 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany#Data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany#Data
  - WalterBright 9mo ago
    google [german gdb growth] says: "-0.2% annual change (2024)"
    - omnicognate 9mo ago
      The "GDP Growth (Real)" column in the wikipedia article GP linked agrees, but it doesn't tell a story that justifies "Germany's GDP is shrinking".
      - WalterBright 9mo ago
        See the graph "G7 Real GDP % change compared to pre-Pandemic level": https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02... The US has 13.3% growth and Germany 0.1%.

eek2121 9mo ago

Legally, Microsoft, or any company, cannot use any personal factors in determining who to lay off. If they do, they risk a very real lawsuit. All one needs to do is show some evidence of discrimination, and the EEOC doesn't charge a dime, the worst they will do is deny to pursue. If that happens, most private lawyers will take the case on contingency. This is the reason you see sweeping cuts without regard to age, sex, etc. There have also been lawsuits in the past that have settled out of court where a company's layoffs appear to overly inflict damage on one class vs. another, even if the intent was not to do that. I am not defending these companies at ALL btw. I just have a bit of experience in this area due to the legalities, and I wanted to share it. I am also not saying that companies don't do this, but the smart ones don't, and the smart ones at least try to at least avoid making it look obvious.

Terr_ 9mo ago
> the EEOC Which—for the folks not following along aghast at everything—has been sabotaged by recent federal political changes. https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-is-making-it-easier-for-employers-to-discriminate-this-stifles-equity-and-hurts-economic-growth/ https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-is-making-it-easier-for-emplo...

wahnfrieden 9mo ago

It is, but more generally. In many other countries, it is not so easy to lay off employees as it is in the US. It is also not necessary that your access to healthcare be contingent to your employer's whims.