> But you’d have to convince me Twitter’s specific implementation of layoffs are more abusive than any other company’s.
Why? Does it need to be worse than any other company layoff to be considered abuse? Why is that your bar of "abusive"? It needs to be worse than any other company, so if other companies push this slowly it becomes progressively more ok to you?
Or should we consider other similar layoffs (buying a company, stripping it of workers to lower cost, increase gain for the capitalist) as abuse as well? I'm on the latter camp as it seems most on this thread are.
> From what I read, 3 months severance was offered, which they have no legal obligation to offer. That doesn’t seem abusive to me.
Does it become abusive for you when it's at scale? If you do that to 10-20 employees I might see it as less abusive. When you do that to 3k+ it is, morally, more abusive.
That's exactly the argument.
> But you’d have to convince me Twitter’s specific implementation of layoffs are more abusive than any other company’s.
Why? Does it need to be worse than any other company layoff to be considered abuse? Why is that your bar of "abusive"? It needs to be worse than any other company, so if other companies push this slowly it becomes progressively more ok to you?
Or should we consider other similar layoffs (buying a company, stripping it of workers to lower cost, increase gain for the capitalist) as abuse as well? I'm on the latter camp as it seems most on this thread are.
> From what I read, 3 months severance was offered, which they have no legal obligation to offer. That doesn’t seem abusive to me.
Does it become abusive for you when it's at scale? If you do that to 10-20 employees I might see it as less abusive. When you do that to 3k+ it is, morally, more abusive.