Finland vs. Capitalism 1-0

[Kaftan Barlast]

I have not been able to find any english language articles about this but what has occured is that Finnish unions, supported by new labour laws is suing the Telecom giant Telia-Sonera for enacting mass layoffs despite a record profit of 1.5 billion Euro(almost 2 billion dollars). According to these new laws, a company cannot fire personnel unless there is substantial economic or production-related reasons behind the decision.

 

 

 

Now lets just hope the rest of the world follows in Finlands footsteps and maybe this world could be made a better place for regular people to live in.

[Volourn]

Utter garbage. If I own a company; i should be able to fire and hire anyone I so choose. Period.

[213374U]

No, you shouldn't. People aren't disposable goods.

[Volourn]

Did I say they were? No. Once again, I said, if I own a business I should be able to run it as I see fit. Period.

[Musopticon?]

Damn you, Telia-Sonera. Shouldn't start megacorporation-like plans if you don't own half the country. You're no Weyland-Yutani after all.

[213374U]

Did I say they were? No. Once again, I said, if I own a  business I should be able to run it as I see fit. Period.

That's right. After all, it's your business. However, mass layofss to increase profits are wrong.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I said, if I own a  business I should be able to run it as I see fit. Period.

 

 

Yes, but there are obvious differances between a small company an a major corporation whose actions have severe reprecussions on national economy. In the case of the latter, it is essential for the good of society to regulate and enforce ethical behaviour.

[Volourn]

"That's right. After all, it's your business. However, mass layofss to increase profits are wrong."

 

Perhaps; but totally irrelevant.

 

 

"In the case of the latter, it is essential for the good of society to regulate and enforce ethical behaviour."

 

WTH? Does no one believe in freedom anymore?

[213374U]

"That's right. After all, it's your business. However, mass layofss to increase profits are wrong."

 

Perhaps; but totally irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant when, as company owner, you have certain social responsibilities.

 

 

WTH? Does no one believe in freedom anymore?

No, I don't.

[Mosaic]

To much of any thing is bad. Freedom included, sorry but that's just how it is. People are greedy, I think we can all agree with that right? Especially people in power.(Power corrupts). So, therefore, for the better interest of everyone these things should be regulated. So that people who are either too greedy for their own good don't go laying off tons of people just because they want to give themselfs a raise or make a little more.

 

They should restrict how many people a company can lay off, depending on how much they are making. Of course they can still fire people who aren't doing there job or disruptive. But massive layoffs when they aren't needed should be against the law.

[Shadowstrider]

No, you shouldn't. People aren't disposable goods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, but what does that have to do with employment? I am not buying, nor selling, nor throwing away people. I am employing them. If they do not perform as I feel they should whether or not I am making money, people can expect to be fired.

 

If 5 people can do the work of the 10 people I have employed, you had better bet I'll fire five of them, ESPECIALLY, if the 10 are only meeting the same value that 5 people should be.

 

The companies profit should have nothing to do with whether or not people are hired or fired.

[Volourn]

"But massive layoffs when they aren't needed should be against the law."

 

Shouldn't how many employees a company needs be up to said company? The way I see it; if I only need 10 employees to accomplish my company's goals why should I be FORCED to keep 20? That seems a waste, and those people's talents are better off being used elsewhere.

 

I think the problem is people want all companies to be run like the government - huge, bloated, and unneeded mess of masses.

 

Whatever.

 

P.S. Strider wins.

[Mosaic]

Maybe to help people out? It's not all about money, greed is a bad thing. I don't mean to say that you shouldn't fire people who can't do their job. That's all fine and dandy and that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that some CEO shouldn't lay off 10,000 or whatever workers just so he can make more profit if he is doing alright now. I'f your making enough money, why should you lay off thousands of people? What's the point?

 

Those are real people with real families who are trying to make a living and if they are providing you with profit and a service and your company is making money and doing fine. Then don't fire them.

 

You say if 5 people can do what 10 people can do, then fire the 5? Well, what does that do to the 5 that stay? Do they work harder? Are they working more hours? I mean, you can't look at people as just numbers. The 5 people who got layed off are real people, if the company can support them and they can do their job they should not be fired.

 

It is NOT about money, it's about people. The bloat you call it is actual people, people with families and babies and they need to eat. In this day and age when it is so hard to find a job (in america at least) job security is important and I think the ceo's and higher ups should think of the people instead of just "money,money, make more money, think I'll give myself a raise."

 

EDIT:And imho companies only think of one thing when they make decisions about anything, money. They usually don't think of the people they employee. And if it was up to me, no comapnies wouldn't make the decisions like this, because you would need a unbiased person to objectively make these sorts of decisions.

[213374U]

Ah, it's funny to hear people defending unwarranted mass layoffs when their living isn't being threatened. I would like to see you keep your 'all hail rampant capitalism' attitude if you had just been fired because your employer thought the revenues weren't high enough.

Funny, in a sad kind of way.

[Zhadow]

WTH? Does no one believe in freedom anymore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh my god! You still belive in freedom?!

[Reveilled]

No one has the right to force people to do things. People do not have the right to force others to live their lives in a certain way, nor to run their businesses in a certain way. If one of the people who got laid off doesn't like the way the company is run, he should go start his own company, or organise a boycott of that company's services. But he should not force the company he used to work for to give him money. That's stealing.

 

When somoene works for a company, he is providing a service. The company in turn pays for that service. When the company has no need of that service, it shouldn't have to pay for that service any more. When you buy something from a company, it is providing you a service, and when you don't need that service any more, you stop paying for it. Yet when you do this, the company does not sue you. If said company was large enough, it would have major repercussions on the economy if everyone stopped buying from them. In that case, should people be forced to buy from them?

[213374U]

Okay. Now get back to Earth.

[Reveilled]

Okay. Now get back to Earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, of course. When one wishes to avoid answering, one makes a personal attack. Very mature of you.

[Volourn]

"Those are real people with real families who are trying to make a living and if they are providing you with profit and a service and your company is making money and doing fine. Then don't fire them."

 

Um. But, they're not providing the company a sevrice. They're excess baggage. The company doe snot require their services. A company should never have more employees than it needs to complete it goes.

 

There is no logic whatsoever for a company to have 100 people on its payroll if 50 is all they need to get the job done.

 

That's just plain retarded. I guess you are one of those who think the NBA should have 24 players on each team required to suit up as obviously the company can afford it even though it only needs 12.

 

Whatever.

 

 

"would like to see you keep your 'all hail rampant capitalism' attitude if you had just been fired because your employer thought the revenues weren't high enough."

 

Been there; done that. It sucks; but it's part of life. Nice try though.

 

It's better than you trying to tell others how to run their company. The next time you want some carpentry work done on your house; I'll require to hire 2 carpetners even though you'll probably only need one because the humane thing to do is give a job to those who need it.

 

 

R00fles!

 

 

"Oh my god! You still belive in freedom?!"

 

Yes. But, I don't believe in cold blooded murderers so i don't believe in God. Next.

[Reveilled]

"Oh my god! You still belive in freedom?!"

 

Yes. But, I don't believe in cold blooded murderers so i don't believe in God. Next.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do you know his God is a cold blooded murderer? I know my Goddess isn't...

 

On a similarly light note, have you heard of the Free State Project? You seem like the sort who might consider signing up.

[213374U]

Okay. Now get back to Earth.

 

Ah, of course. When one wishes to avoid answering, one makes a personal attack. Very mature of you.

Nope. It's not that I don't want to answer. It's just you are talking about an ideal world, an utopia, and I'm talking about the real world here. When you open your eyes, then perhaps I'll give you a better reply than personal attacks.

 

 

"would like to see you keep your 'all hail rampant capitalism' attitude if you had just been fired because your employer thought the revenues weren't high enough."

 

Been there; done that. It sucks; but it's part of life. Nice try though.

Nah. I ain't buying it Volo, sorry.

 

 

It's better than you trying to tell others how to run their company. The next time you want some carpentry work done on your house; I'll require to hire 2 carpetners even though you'll probably only need one because the humane thing to do is give a job to those who need it.

You're still dodging the issue. Companies have a social responsibility towards their workers. There are ways to conduct personnel reductions that don't entail mass layoffs. Those are probably slower and more cumbersome, though. I agree that it's not competitive to keep more employees than you need. But you hired them, you deal with them.

[Reveilled]

Okay. Now get back to Earth.

 

Ah, of course. When one wishes to avoid answering, one makes a personal attack. Very mature of you.

Nope. It's not that I don't want to answer. It's just you are talking about an ideal world, an utopia, and I'm talking about the real world here. When you open your eyes, then perhaps I'll give you a better reply than personal attacks.

 

How exactly am I talking about a utopia? You don't even explain that, you just make a blind statement and dismiss my argument. You have done nothing to prove I am not talking about the real world.

 

You're still dodging the issue. Companies have a social responsibility towards their workers. There are ways to conduct personnel reductions that don't entail mass layoffs. Those are probably slower and more cumbersome, though. I agree that it's not competitive to keep more employees than you need. But you hired them, you deal with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You also haven't given evidence as to why companies have a "social responsibility". Or even explained what you mean by "social responsibility".

[Volourn]

"Nah. I ain't buying it Volo, sorry."

 

Wouldn't be the first time someone's called me a lair on the 'net... and, been wrong yet won't prove it.

 

 

"You're still dodging the issue. Companies have a social responsibility towards their workers. There are ways to conduct personnel reductions that don't entail mass layoffs. Those are probably slower and more cumbersome, though. I agree that it's not competitive to keep more employees than you need. But you hired them, you deal with them."

 

I'm not dodiing.l Ahh.. so, you don't believe any reason is worth a firing. Ok. An employee steals form the company. Company cna't fire tham accoridng to you, because... they hired that person so they deal with them. That's lame, and you know it. A company shouldn't be forced to hire/keep more employees than they actually need. That's just plain stupid, and its actually inhumane foricng peopel to do something that they don't want.

[213374U]

How exactly am I talking about a utopia?  You don't even explain that, you just make a blind statement and dismiss my argument.  You have done nothing to prove I am not talking about the real world.

Okay, you asked for it.

No one has the right to force people to do things.  People do not have the right to force others to live their lives in a certain way, nor to run their businesses in a certain way.  If one of the people who got laid off doesn't like the way the company is run, he should go start his own company, or organise a boycott of that company's services.  But he should not force the company he used to work for to give him money.  That's stealing.

That is the kind of theoretical gibberish that doesn't cut it in the real world. 'No one has the right to force people to do things'? Please. What's this, elementary school? That's not freedom you're proposing. That's anarchy. True, people don't have the 'right' to tell others what to do, but they do. The same way that 'all human beings are equal', but they are not. If the state can't enforce certain rules about how businesses have to be run, soon 22 hour work shifts and overseers with whips will be commonplace. I could go on and on destroying each of your statements one by one, but it gets old and I have better things to do.

 

 

You're still dodging the issue. Companies have a social responsibility towards their workers. There are ways to conduct personnel reductions that don't entail mass layoffs. Those are probably slower and more cumbersome, though. I agree that it's not competitive to keep more employees than you need. But you hired them, you deal with them.

 

You also haven't given evidence as to why companies have a "social responsibility". Or even explained what you mean by "social responsibility".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Companies have a social responsibility, specially the big ones. Being part of the economic tissue of a country, the state can't risk to have companies laying off massively whenever they feel like it because that is bad for the economy. You see, the economy is a whole. It's a wee bit more complex than buying and selling. People have jobs, earn money, and then spend that money. The more money they earn, the more the have to spend, strengthening the economy.

The bigger the layoffs, the greater the damage to economy, and the more unrest among the medium classes. People that doesn't have a job can't pay their taxes, which in turn is bad for the state, and therefore bad for everyone else.

 

Is that a detailed enough explanation for you? Do you want me to explain some other obvious concept you have trouble grasping?

[213374U]

"Nah. I ain't buying it Volo, sorry."

 

Wouldn't be the first time someone's called me a lair on the 'net... and, been wrong yet won't prove it.

No, I don't expect you to prove it. I wouldn't either. However, I'm still not buying it.

 

 

I'm not dodiing.l Ahh.. so, you don't believe any reason is worth a firing. Ok. An employee steals form the company. Company cna't fire tham accoridng to you, because... they hired that person so they deal with them. That's lame, and you know it. A company shouldn't be forced to hire/keep more employees than they actually need. That's just plain stupid, and its actually inhumane foricng peopel to do something that they don't want.

No, that's not what we're talking about here. If somebody is caught stealing from their employer they should be laid off instantly. But in this case, I don't think they wanted to fire all of those people because they were thieves.