>If you create a company, you take care of it and all of its members.
Companies are not created to take care of their employees. They are created to make profit and/or accomplish a societal goal. If a company is non-profit then it's just the latter.
As someone from a post-communist state, it's plainly obvious to me that people on average don't work as well as they could if the threat of termination does not exist. My parents told me anecdotes about their coworkers who were reading books on the job, even playing videogames, and that's in an aero-space design bureau in the 80ies, in less elite organizations systematic alcohol consumption by groups of employees on the job was not something to be surpised by. And that pattern repeats itself in many countries where employment is semi-guaranteed.
The threat of randomly being fired will cause many focused workers to change how they act. They stop trying to help each other, blame increases and internal politics dominates.
If this continues the remaining employees try to hire new employees with a fatal flaw so when the next wave comes they will be the first out.
I'm not saying that N% layoff is a necessarily a good practice. My main objection was to the notion that companies are created to take care of the employees. To me it's the role of the state to take care of the people, the companies are here to be efficient for eveyone's benefit.
Termination due to non-performance on the job is entirely different from at will termination which can hit a performer and non performer alike.
You seems to imply employees are the resources to be used to achieve goals. I do not see an issue in this arrangement if Employees have the same negotiation power as the employer.
>Termination due to non-performance on the job is entirely different from at will termination which can hit a performer and non performer alike.
Termination due to non-performance can also hit a performer. Human beigns and hence their social systems are not perfect. N% layoff is performance related termination, because it's an impossibility that all employees pefrorm at the same level, are of the same value to the company. It's absurd to imply that N% layoff is absolutely random, that companies use lottery techniques to choose who to fire next.
>You seems to imply employees are the resources to be used to achieve goals.
They are. Within the constrains of culture and law.
> Termination due to non-performance can also hit a performer.
If everyone is meeting the success criteria, then still trying to fire lower 10% is Darwinian view of the world. This also means objective enough criteria exists to judge the poor performers. In reality, that guy in the corner with his head down get fired because he is too busy to make connections and show how valuable he is.
This specific case seems harsher because a lot of these people assembled under Mr. Musk's banner because they thought they were working for a cause. I am sure many of them have took paycuts, toiled above and beyond expectations because they thought they were working for a cause. In my view this is not a fair at all.
> They are. Within the constrains of culture and law.
Agreed but every lawful and culturally acceptable things are not right necessarily.
> Companies are not created to take care of their employees.
Says who?
Societies create the conditions under which companies are allowed to exist, therefore societies get to define what responsibilities companies have.
Also, who says that the right of the company to exist >> the rights of the employees?
Not allowing companies to easily shed workers is a way of putting extra fitness pressure on companies, meaning the less fit companies perish and the fitter companies thrive. This is of benefit to society. See Schumpeter, Creative Destruction:
You will note that some of the most highly efficient/competitive economies have pretty strong worker rights. Of course there has to be a balance, excesses in either direction are usually not good. However, in this particular case I don't think any of these SpaceX employees were systematically drunk on the job, or playing videogames instead of working.
Companies are not created to take care of their employees. They are created to make profit and/or accomplish a societal goal. If a company is non-profit then it's just the latter.
As someone from a post-communist state, it's plainly obvious to me that people on average don't work as well as they could if the threat of termination does not exist. My parents told me anecdotes about their coworkers who were reading books on the job, even playing videogames, and that's in an aero-space design bureau in the 80ies, in less elite organizations systematic alcohol consumption by groups of employees on the job was not something to be surpised by. And that pattern repeats itself in many countries where employment is semi-guaranteed.