> You go to work to earn a paycheck. I'm not sure how many people bought into the whole "we're a family" stuff, but obviously these are for-profit corporations and they are beholden only to their shareholders.
That's "You were used" with extra steps. Why are you trying to rebrand this?
> There was never the illusion otherwise, unless you truly believed that now that you're in, you're in.
Just because people knew it was happening doesn't mean it's consensual or okay. Workers know that a system beholden only to shareholders isn't good for them, but they can't exactly go work elsewhere.
> That's "You were used" with extra steps. Why are you trying to rebrand this?
Of course you were "used". You were used to get work done in exchange for a paycheck.
That's how work ... works. I am confused by the outrage ... did engineers think signing on to a company meant they were set for life? That once they were onboarded they were sheltered from future storms?
The tides turn, and right now the tide is going out. Eventually, this process will reverse and the cycle begins anew.
> "You were used" implies you didn't get anything in return.
It doesn't imply that you didn't get anything, it implies that you didn't get enough.
> But if you got paid, maybe you came out ahead on the deal?
Workers almost never come out ahead on the deal. Company sees 100% revenue growth (as a result of worker's labor), worker gets a 3% raise. Company sees 10% revenue loss, worker gets laid off. It's the same story every cycle: the people at the top reap benefits while the people at the bottom pay the losses.
It's only in the business echo chamber that anyone is even saying what you're saying. Everyone else knows that layoffs are bad for workers.
If the company saw 10% revenue loss, and the employee got 2 years' pay, then I would argue the employee definitely came out with the better end of that deal.
Of course layoffs are bad for workers.
I'm just taking the controversial position that on the other hand, jobs are good for workers.
So let me get this straight: jobs are good for workers, so when a worker loses their job, that's... somehow also good? Sure, they were depending on that job to feed their kids and pay their mortgage and now both those things are at risk. But the real story here is that they had a job for two whole years and should be grateful to have been generously paid a miniscule fraction of what their work gained the company for so long.
Is there any case where you'd ever admit that corporations can harm workers, or is it really just impossible for corporations to do any harm within your worldview?
Facebook had $40.7 billion cash on hand in 2022[1] and laid off 11,000 workers in the same year[2]. That's literally $3.7 million cash on hand per worker laid off, or $370K/year over the next 10 years, if the recession lasts that long. Meta could definitely weather this recession without laying off these workers.
But let me guess, they don't have any responsibility to workers. The only people companies are responsible to are shareholders, amirite? It doesn't matter who gets harmed, we just have to follow these arbitrary rules!
> If you feel your work is so incredibly valuable you can either start a company yourself or become a gold-ticket consultant.
> Either way you'll quickly learn that turning your hard work into revenue on your own with any decent amount of efficiency is not that simple.
I work as a consultant in part because it makes turning my work into revenue easier. :D
But, that's overly-glib--I'm aware that my career is somewhat of an outlier here. The more important point to be made is that "value", in the capitalist sense of "the value of something is what people are willing to pay for it", has nothing to do with actual value. The pandemic highlighted this when it became apparent that all our "essential" workers also happen to be our least paid. The very basics of human survival would cease to be available without these people: food, water, etc.--do you really think the software which allows you to post pictures of your brunch for your friends is more valuable than not starving to death?
The reason for the disconnect between pay and value is that pay is determined by the people at the top, who obviously have an incentive to decide their own work is valuable and therefore they deserve the most pay. Unsurprisingly, the people with the power to enforce their opinions on what is most valuable, have decided that "deciding what is most valuable" is the most valuable skill of all! The narrative that a CEO is more valuable than a farm hand exists because it's propagated by those who have the most to gain from it.
I won't accuse you of being one of those people, but at the very least you've bought into a story which isn't true.
The thing is, if you feel you're being paid too little for your work there are basically 3 reasons:
1 - you are wrong because you're not that good
2 - you are right, but the overhead necessary for the company to survive does not allow them to pay you as much
3 - you are right and they are exploiting you
The way to prove case 1 wrong is to start your own business or consultancy and earn more money than you did before. But to prove 2 or 3 you would have to create a very similar company and prove it can successfully operate while earning the employees much more money, which would be very difficult.
If, as you say, "there are basically 3 reasons", then disproving 1 should be sufficient to prove that 2 or 3 is true. You're just trying to place an unreasonable burden of proof on possibilities you disagree with.
There is no difference between possibilities 2 and 3. If the overhead necessary for a company to survive doesn't allow them to pay their workers, the company shouldn't survive. Mysteriously, companies that underpay their workers always have money to pay their execs and shareholders--you're just expecting workers to pay the overhead instead of the people at the top. All this is, is a shitty excuse for exploiting workers.
As for proving 1 incorrect: whenever essential workers unionize--analogous to starting their own consultancy--money suddenly materializes to pay them more. As it turns out, essential workers are essential, and the only reason they get paid less is that the people at the top can pay them less and keep more money for themselves.
That's "You were used" with extra steps. Why are you trying to rebrand this?
> There was never the illusion otherwise, unless you truly believed that now that you're in, you're in.
Just because people knew it was happening doesn't mean it's consensual or okay. Workers know that a system beholden only to shareholders isn't good for them, but they can't exactly go work elsewhere.