[HN Gopher] Walt Disney Co to begin second wave of layoffs, cutt...
___________________________________________________________________
Walt Disney Co to begin second wave of layoffs, cutting several
thousand jobs
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 40 points
Date : 2023-04-24 16:58 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| muro wrote:
| I don't like that they basically treat employees as contractors -
| take on many employees when they need them to build something,
| then lay them off when the thing is built. This almost
| externalizes costs for companies, moving the risk away from them.
| This might be legal, but IMHO breaks a promise of "as employee,
| you earn less, but you lower your risk and the employer will do
| what they can to find a different role, as long as we stay
| profitable".
|
| All the big tech companies are thus encouraging their employees
| to unionize through these actions, even though many of their
| employees don't like unions.
| throwawayjs wrote:
| In some ways I feel like the trust between tech workers and
| companies started to break down when engineers for the past few
| years have been jumping ship every year or so to maximize TC.
| mydogcanpurr wrote:
| Why were they jumping ship to maximize TC? Was it because
| raises are dead?
| uni_rule wrote:
| A union would not be necessary if they already had any sort of
| corporate democracy. If such a thing does not exist the workers
| there will find other means to make their voices heard.
| bmitc wrote:
| It bothers me so much with these big companies laying people off.
| When you have over $80 billion in yearly revenue, in Disney's
| case, it's just pathetic that you treat your people as your main
| cost and liability.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| This is capitalism? It's ok though because the wealth will
| trickle down.
| chrisacky wrote:
| It's all relative. DIS has 200k+ employees. Thousands of
| employees could quite literally be less than 1% of their
| workforce.
|
| Is it reasonable for a company to make a change that effects
| 0.5-1% of their workforce? I think yes. How about 2%? At what
| point do the lines get blurred in your judgment?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| The problem with framing this as a threshold question is that
| it relies on Sorites Paradox to work. That invalidates it in
| my mind because it rules out 0, 100, and every number in
| between. There's no way to rationalize justification for a
| particular numerical threshold from non-numerical qualifiers.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So the alternative is that you don't lay people off - ever?
|
| Employees are the main cost in many companies.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Announcing layoffs can be good for employees. Let's say you're
| going to shut down some project-- something that every company
| must do, but big companies must do all of the time. If you do
| quietly without announcing any big shift, then the people
| affected must try to explain why they left to future employers.
| Now, at least, a future employer will say, "Oh yes, it was
| brutal at Disney back then."
|
| It's better not to lose your job, but if the economics dictate
| that you must go, public "layoffs" have some advantages.
| reset-password wrote:
| These companies know that AI agents are coming at them hard and
| fast. I think this and other layoffs are happening now so they
| can cut down the numbers before the question becomes "Are you
| replacing them with AI?".
|
| Which tracks with it not impacting "hourly frontline workers
| employed at the parks and resorts".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-24 23:02 UTC)