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 that paragraph's statements one by one, but it gets old and I have better things to do.

 

Does the idea of a company wanting its workers to work 22 hour shifts offend you? Would you work for such a company? Would you buy products from a company that wanted their workers to work those hours? If your friends were buying from that company, would you encourage them not to?

If nobody was willing to work for that comapny, and nobody was willing to buy from that company, the company would not exist.

And it goes without saying that using a whip on someone is initiating force against them.

 

And of course, you continue to dodge answering the argument.

 

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And if people are not earning money, and so have no money to spend, who buys the company's products? If these layoffs had such drastic implications, then the State would not have to interfere, because the layoffs would cause a loss for the company, and so they would not make these layoffs. But you still haven't explained why this is the Company's responsibility.

This thread is funny, but:

 

1. I'm all for buisnesses having a social obligations (like workers won't routinely loose hands), but saying I can't fire someone for purely monetary reasons is kind of pushing it.

Does the idea of a company wanting its workers to work 22 hour shifts offend you?  Would you work for such a company?  Would you buy products from a company that wanted their workers to work those hours?  If your friends were buying from that company, would you encourage them not to?

If nobody was willing to work for that comapny, and nobody was willing to buy from that company, the company would not exist.

And it goes without saying that using a whip on someone is initiating force against them.

Excellent. More theoretical babble whose relation to the real world is... none.

No, if I had a choice I wouldn't work for such a company. If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy their products. If I had a choice. But I may not have it, you know. If my children's living was at stake, I might be forced to take the job, and I'd rather not have that happen.

 

And no, using a whip is not using force against them. This actually shows how little you know of anything. Back then when whips were used, workers weren't actually whipped since a whipping can severely diminish a worker's efficiency. Slavemasters still used them as 'encouragement', though. So please stop making stupid remarks.

 

 

And if people are not earning money, and so have no money to spend, who buys the company's products?  If these layoffs had such drastic implications, then the State would not have to interfere, because the layoffs would cause a loss for the company, and so they would not make these layoffs.  But you still haven't explained why this is the Company's responsibility.

Who buys them you say? Well, they can always export the products. Hadn't you actually thought of that? Wait, don't answer that. Damage to economy doesn't happen overnight, either. The company might not even exist anymore or it may have relocated elsewhere when the consequences of a massive layoff begin to be felt.

 

Let's get theoretical now, since you seem to like it. A company's responsibility is to generate wealth. That is their right and their responsibility in a free market economy. However, a wealth that nobody but a handful benefit from is a sure fire way to achieve economical collapse. The state can't allow that. So as long as the market works for everyone, the state won't be forced to take matters into their own hands. The alternative is a controlled economy, which has been proven to be, as any extreme idea, a failure.

Does the idea of a company wanting its workers to work 22 hour shifts offend you?  Would you work for such a company?  Would you buy products from a company that wanted their workers to work those hours?  If your friends were buying from that company, would you encourage them not to?

If nobody was willing to work for that comapny, and nobody was willing to buy from that company, the company would not exist.

And it goes without saying that using a whip on someone is initiating force against them.

Excellent. More theoretical babble whose relation to the real world is... none.

No, if I had a choice I wouldn't work for such a company. If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy their products. If I had a choice. But I may not have it, you know. If my children's living was at stake, I might be forced to take the job, and I'd rather not have that happen.

 

And no, using a whip is not using force against them. This actually shows how little you know of anything. Back then when whips were used, workers weren't actually whipped since a whipping can severely diminish a worker's efficiency. Slavemasters still used them as 'encouragement', though. So please stop making stupid remarks.

 

Tell me then, what does working a 22 hour shift do to a worker's efficiency? If the company wants efficiency, then the hours will have to allow time for the worker to recharge. And if the whip is not being used on people, and yet the workers are intimidated by it into working harder, then it is the workers that are stupid, not I.

 

With talk of whips and 22 hours shifts, you are being no less thoretical than I am.

 

And if people are not earning money, and so have no money to spend, who buys the company's products?  If these layoffs had such drastic implications, then the State would not have to interfere, because the layoffs would cause a loss for the company, and so they would not make these layoffs.  But you still haven't explained why this is the Company's responsibility.

Who buys them you say? Well, they can always export the products. Hadn't you actually thought of that? Wait, don't answer that. Damage to economy doesn't happen overnight, either. The company might not even exist anymore or it may have relocated elsewhere when the consequences of a massive layoff begin to be felt.

 

If the economy of Finland was badly damaged, do you really think that the consequences of that will only be felt in Finland? And do you think that Companies make financial projections based on the premise that they won't be around in five year's time?

 

Let's get theoretical now, since you seem to like it. A company's responsibility is to generate wealth. That is their right and their responsibility in a free market economy. However, a wealth that nobody but a handful benefit from is a sure fire way to achieve economical collapse. The state can't allow that. So as long as the market works for everyone, the state won't be forced to take matters into their own hands. The alternative is a controlled economy, which has been proven to be, as any extreme idea, a failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you think you are the only one who has thought of that? People who run companies usually don't get there by being as dumb as rocks. And those that do quickly find themselves sinking.

 

The people running these companies can no more allow economic collapse than can the state. So if economy damaging actions start getting out of hand, the people making these decisions will stop making them. They need people to buy their products.

Tell me then, what does working a 22 hour shift do to a worker's efficiency?  If the company wants efficiency, then the hours will have to allow time for the worker to recharge.  And if the whip is not being used on people, and yet the workers are intimidated by it into working harder, then it is the workers that are stupid, not I.

Well, if they stop being productive with 22 hour shifts, you just lay them off and hire a new, fresh batch. And it's slavery all over again! Yay!

And uh, you have never been under the whip, so again, quit making stupid sh1t up.

 

 

With talk of whips and 22 hours shifts, you are being no less thoretical than I am.

The difference is that you brought it about. I'm just following your logic to its own absurd ends.

 

 

If the economy of Finland was badly damaged, do you really think that the consequences of that will only be felt in Finland?  And do you think that Companies make financial projections based on the premise that they won't be around in five year's time?

Hello? Are you aware of how things are? Do you ever get out of that closet in which you seem to live? That is happening now. Companies relocate their production facilities to countries where they can bully the government around and practice effective slavery without many problems.

 

 

Do you think you are the only one who has thought of that?  People who run companies usually don't get there by being as dumb as rocks.  And those that do quickly find themselves sinking.

Your point? You are actually agreeing with me here, in case you don't realize. However, companies that go unchecked are bad for the economy. Mass layoffs are a perfect example of this.

 

 

The people running these companies can no more allow economic collapse than can the state.  So if economy damaging actions start getting out of hand, the people making these decisions will stop making them.  They need people to buy their products.

Wrong. If things start to get ugly, the company can just relocate to an area that suits their needs better.

I suggest you take some serious history lessons before comentating on this.

 

eople who run companies usually don't get there by being as dumb as rocks. And those that do quickly find themselves sinking.

 

The people running these companies can no more allow economic collapse than can the state. So if economy damaging actions start getting out of hand, the people making these decisions will stop making them. They need people to buy their products.

 

If you had even the slightest experience of the real world, or walked within 10ft of a history book youd realise what utter bs your talking. For an extreme example go look at 19th centuary working practices when governments did not interfere.

 

One of the reasons for the failings of British manufacturing domanance at the start of the 20th centuary was poor pay for workers.

 

ould you buy products from a company that wanted their workers to work those hours?  If your friends were buying from that company, would you encourage them not to?

If nobody was willing to work for that comapny, and nobody was willing to buy from that company, the company would not exist.

 

There is this little company called Nike, they make trainers i think, but theyre not very popular because of the near slave conditions their Asian workers experience. If these CHILDREN do not work, they will die. Good job everyoen boycotts their products then!

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've been laid off because a company was not "performing as expected." I went through 2 years of being paid 2/3 what my actual payrate was, watching people be let go all around me. I was kept aboard because I worked hard, always met and exceeded my quota, and maintained an "excellent work ethic" through it all.

 

When you are an asset to a company they keep you around. When you are not they fire you. That is how it should be.

 

You are not entitled a job, you earn it.

Well, there are two ways of reading that. Either you stopped performing as well as you say you used to, and then the company had every reason to give you the boot, or you were still performing above what was expected from you, and even despite that, you still got fired.

 

In the first case, the example you use has no actual relation with what we're talking about here, because in personnel reduction instances, the actual worker efficiency is not the deciding factor, seniority is.

I'll say it again since it seems I'm not getting through: I'm all for getting rid of the bad workers.

 

If we're talking about the second case, then you are contradicting yourself when you say that you have to earn a job. You must have seen incompetents around you. Those are everywhere. Did they earn their job? Not really. You worked your ass off, and you were given the boot anyway. Sorry, but no. You don't earn a job. You keep your job or lose it on a shareholder's whim. And that is not nice.

Hmm, I'm not that well versed with business and management, but wasn't the last time companies never laid off workers in the Soviet Union, and other similar communist states? All that resulted in was disguised unemployment. As for larger companies having social responsibilities, well, they do already, in a manner of speaking. They have unions to worry about and laws to abide, but to have a responsibility to their workers that involves a garuanteed job for a period of time up to the workers? That eventually leads to inefficiency as technology progresses. Sometimes the only way to keep a company going is layoffs. Sure, it isn't that nice to the workers, but keeping them would in some cases bring the company to bankruptcy which would then, usually, make some form of negative impact on the economy. The question is, will the company be able to get back on its feet if it lays off workers or if it doesn't? If it does, then you have short period of negative impact on economy, followed by an upswing when the company gets going again. If it doesn't, well, recession. Now, if the company hadn't laid off its workers, I'm not sure about this, but I'm guessing that the economy would experience a greater negative impact until things get straightened out. If things don't get straightened out, recession. As for mass layoffs to increase revenues when the company isn't at an economic crisis, I don't know of any such scenarios. If there are any, tell about em, could be good fuel for the discussion!

As for mass layoffs to increase revenues when the company isn't at an economic crisis, I don't know of any such scenarios.  If there are any, tell about em, could be good fuel for the discussion!

Uh, that's what the topic was about at the beginning...

Well, there are two ways of reading that. Either you stopped performing as well as you say you used to, and then the company had every reason to give you the boot, or you were still performing above what was expected from you, and even despite that, you still got fired.

 

In the first case, the example you use has no actual relation with what we're talking about here, because in personnel reduction instances, the actual worker efficiency is not the deciding factor, seniority is.

I'll say it again since it seems I'm not getting through: I'm all for getting rid of the bad workers.

 

If we're talking about the second case, then you are contradicting yourself when you say that you have to earn a job. You must have seen incompetents around you. Those are everywhere. Did they earn their job? Not really. You worked your ass off, and you were given the boot anyway. Sorry, but no. You don't earn a job. You keep your job or lose it on a shareholder's whim. And that is not nice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said I was fired.

 

I effectively walked off the job.

 

Since your whole post revolves around the assumption that I was fired, your entire post is bunk. You must EARN your job. Its a fact. Whether or not the company was profiting should have nothing to do whether they keep the 1.5 million employees or not. Did you stop to consider that maybe the sections laid off were not performing as expected? Or maybe that despite a profitable quarter/year that they were losing money for the COMING quarter by keeping them around?

 

No. You didn't, at least judging all your posts you didn't. You're too busy spouting off about a "social obligation" that simply doesn't exist. If I own a company I'll hire and fire whomever I want, whenever I want. If you don't perform as I think you should, you're gone. If you meet my expectations you stay. If you exceed them, you get promoted.

 

The ONLY obligation is as follows. If you are employed, you are expected to do your job. The employer is expected to pay you. Unless you sign a work contract which specifically states you have a certain tenure within the company, you can be fired any time, for any reason.

 

Thats how business works, that is how is should work. Socialism does not work.

I never said I was fired.

Huh? Can't you remember what you just wrote or is it you're just lying?

I've been laid off because a company was not "performing as expected."

 

 

Since your whole post revolves around the assumption that I was fired, your entire post is bunk.  You must EARN your job.  Its a fact.  Whether or not the company was profiting should have nothing to do whether they keep the 1.5 million employees or not.  Did you stop to consider that maybe the sections laid off were not performing as expected?  Or maybe that despite a profitable quarter/year that they were losing money for the COMING quarter by keeping them around?

Well, that's just a mixture of assumptions and plain lack of reading comprehension skills. There were no such 1.5 million employees. 1.5 billion were the profits of the company. Feeling confused, are we?

But don't worry about all that stupid real world nonsense. All you should care about is the little world you have made up in your head in which you run your company as you like and don't give a f*ck about anything else.

 

 

If I own a company I'll hire and fire whomever I want, whenever I want.  If you don't perform as I think you should, you're gone.

No, in Finland, you don't. Let's just hope the example will be followed by more countries. You lose.

 

 

If you meet my expectations you stay.  If you exceed them, you get promoted.

Do you really believe that? Boy, you're even more gullible than I thought. The actual worker efficiency is only one of the many factors that come into play when deciding who is to be fired. And it's definitely not the one with the most weight.

 

 

Socialism does not work.

Get a clue. Socialism does work. Europe is the living proof of that.

I never said I was fired.

Huh? Can't you remember what you just wrote or is it you're just lying?

I've been laid off because a company was not "performing as expected."

 

There is a HUGE difference between being laid off and fired.

 

Or do you not know the difference?

 

Fired = bad. If you're fired it means you were singled out for bad performance.

Laid off = Less bad. If you're laid off it means you're let go because your division wasn't performing well, the company can no longer afford you, etc...

 

If you're fired you won't get a good summary when applying for a future job. If you're laid off you very well could.

 

 

Since your whole post revolves around the assumption that I was fired, your entire post is bunk.  You must EARN your job.  Its a fact.  Whether or not the company was profiting should have nothing to do whether they keep the 1.5 million employees or not.  Did you stop to consider that maybe the sections laid off were not performing as expected?  Or maybe that despite a profitable quarter/year that they were losing money for the COMING quarter by keeping them around?

Well, that's just a mixture of assumptions and plain lack of reading comprehension skills. There were no such 1.5 million employees. 1.5 billion were the profits of the company. Feeling confused, are we?

But don't worry about all that stupid real world nonsense. All you should care about is the little world you have made up in your head in which you run your company as you like and don't give a f*ck about anything else.

 

*chuckles*

 

This is what happens when people have no leg to stand on. Rather than posting evidence or support for their position they point out minor, insignifigant mistakes in the other persons post.

 

Big. Deal.

So I didn't get the number of people who were let go right. That matters HOW?

 

I'm sorry I didn't bother to memorize the numbers, feel free to remove the thumb from your posterior.

 

 

If I own a company I'll hire and fire whomever I want, whenever I want.  If you don't perform as I think you should, you're gone.

No, in Finland, you don't. Let's just hope the example will be followed by more countries. You lose.

 

Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland.

 

BTW - It doesn't say the employees WON the law suit, it just says they're filing suit. Try again.

 

 

If you meet my expectations you stay.  If you exceed them, you get promoted.

Do you really believe that? Boy, you're even more gullible than I thought. The actual worker efficiency is only one of the many factors that come into play when deciding who is to be fired. And it's definitely not the one with the most weight.

 

Every job I have worked at I have been promoted. I am not charismatic. I am not social. I work hard. I get the job done. I get the job done well. I get the job done fast.

 

In less than a year I was promoted from data entry clerk to head of the division, and then again to database manager.

 

Hell, in that job for the first 3 monthes of my employment I was in and out of the office because of a personal problem I had. My attendance was horrible, but despite this I was still promoted because of my work ethic and performance.

There is a HUGE difference between being laid off and fired.

 

Or do you not know the difference?

 

Fired = bad.  If you're fired it means you were singled out for bad performance.

Laid off = Less bad.  If you're laid off it means you're let go because your division wasn't performing well, the company can no longer afford you, etc...

 

If you're fired you won't get a good summary when applying for a future job.  If you're laid off you very well could.

Right. But that difference doesn't change the fact that you said you were forced to leave your job. That was the only assumption I was making, and judging from your original post, that's what anyone would understand. You later changed that because it was convinient to you, but that's irrelevant. So your point is moot.

 

 

*chuckles*

 

This is what happens when people have no leg to stand on.  Rather than posting evidence or support for their position they point out minor, insignifigant mistakes in the other persons post.

 

Big. Deal.

So I didn't get the number of people who were let go right.  That matters HOW?

It doesn't really matter. It's just an example of how 'solid' your posts are. You dodged the other part of my post though, in which I said you were just making assumptions. I only spoke about the facts, that is, a company which has had benefits this quarter, is enacting mass layoffs. Then you went on mumbling corporate excuses I couldn't care less about, because for starters, your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland.

Anti-freedom? You have a rather amusing concept of freedom. Freedom is not a state of mind in which you do whatever you please whenever you feel like it. Surprised yet?

Funny how people associate freedom with the level of despotism one can be subject to in his job, but then overlook things as individual rights and liberties, that incidentally, are being reduced every day in the very place where you are allowed more 'freedom' from a business standpoint.

 

Oh but that's right. You aren't discussing the real world. It's your world we're talking about, and that one changes whenever it's convenient for you.

 

 

BTW - It doesn't say the employees WON the law suit, it just says they're filing suit.  Try again.

I never said they had won. But anyway, with their law on their side, they stand a good chance of winning the lawsuit. You would know those things if you had actually read something in this thread. Oh well, better luck next time.

 

 

Every job I have worked at I have been promoted.  I am not charismatic.  I am not social.  I work hard.  I get the job done.  I get the job done well.  I get the job done fast.

 

In less than a year I was promoted from data entry clerk to head of the division, and then again to database manager.

 

Hell, in that job for the first 3 monthes of my employment I was in and out of the office because of a personal problem I had.  My attendance was horrible, but despite this I was still promoted because of my work ethic and performance.

Great job at dodging the issue! I wasn't talking about promotions, but about layoffs. You already knew that but you'd rather give me the astounding tale of a honest worker in the land of meeting room sharks, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Please, next time you feel you are about to go off on a tangent, make a clear warning, so I can skip it altogether and not waste my time reading the product of your mental diarrhea.

Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh my god! Somehow the truth has been let out! We must quickly silence this traitor!

 

I will personally try to find the mole among our ranks. This sort of thing will not go unnoticed by our great leaders Jorma Ollila and Tarja Halonen.

Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh my god! Somehow the truth has been let out! We must quickly silence this traitor!

 

I will personally try to find the mole among our ranks. This sort of thing will not go unnoticed by our great leaders Jorma Ollila and Tarja Halonen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget the Supreme Commander Vanhanen.

Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh my god! Somehow the truth has been let out! We must quickly silence this traitor!

 

I will personally try to find the mole among our ranks. This sort of thing will not go unnoticed by our great leaders Jorma Ollila and Tarja Halonen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget the Supreme Commander Vanhanen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Mystary music]

 

"Halonen

Ollila

Vanhanen

 

Together they are THE DYNAMIC TRIO!

No one will be safe!"

 

[/Mystary music]

Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland.

 

**** we best get George on the phone WE MUST BOMB THOSE FREEDOM HATING FINS NOW!!!!!!!

 

 

Maybe someone should give Tony a call, i reackon he'd be up for it if you guys sell Finland some WMDs like you did with Iraq. Just remember not to destroy them before invading this time!

 

 

 

 

Next Germany and then France, we shall not tolerate these FREEDOM HATING Euroes with their shorter working hours,better working conditions, welfare systems and employee rights!!!!!

There is a HUGE difference between being laid off and fired.

 

Or do you not know the difference?

 

Fired = bad.  If you're fired it means you were singled out for bad performance.

Laid off = Less bad.  If you're laid off it means you're let go because your division wasn't performing well, the company can no longer afford you, etc...

 

If you're fired you won't get a good summary when applying for a future job.  If you're laid off you very well could.

Right. But that difference doesn't change the fact that you said you were forced to leave your job. That was the only assumption I was making, and judging from your original post, that's what anyone would understand. You later changed that because it was convinient to you, but that's irrelevant. So your point is moot.

 

No, I was forced to leave a job. Maybe your reading comprehension isn't as high as you proclaim. The difference between being fired and being laid off isn't small.

 

"That was the only assumption I was making, . . ."

 

No you made the leap from "forced to leave" to fired. Huge difference.

 

I've been laid off because a company was not "performing as expected."

 

Instance one. I was laid off because the company was folding.

 

I went through 2 years of being paid 2/3 what my actual payrate was, watching people be let go all around me.

 

Instance two. Simply because something is in the same paragraph doesn't mean they share exact instancing.

 

 

It doesn't really matter. It's just an example of how 'solid' your posts are. You dodged the other part of my post though, in which I said you were just making assumptions. I only spoke about the facts, that is, a company which has had benefits this quarter, is enacting mass layoffs. Then you went on mumbling corporate excuses I couldn't care less about, because for starters, your guess is as good as mine.

 

I dodged nothing. The only thing that is being dodged is the WHOLE issue, and its being dodged by you. Any moron can read a thread that says employees were fired despite an OVERALL COMPANY GAIN. Any moron can take the stance of "being laid off sucks."

 

Oh my god. Epiphany. Thats not the issue.

 

The issues here are:

a) Should a company be permited to hire or fire people they wish?

b) What are the whole facts leading up to this lay-off? Was the division(s) laid off profiting or signifigantly involved in the profit? Were entire divisions laid off? Was it a few people from a variety of divisions?

 

You guys aren't looking at the whole issue, you're spouting off about "social obligations" which simply ARE NOT there.

 

"Then you went on mumbling corporate excuses I couldn't care less about, because for starters, your guess is as good as mine."

 

This is called a dodge, folks.

 

Those aren't excuses, they are signifigant and important pieces of a puzzle. For short-sighted argumentative people, like yourself, the only pieces that matter to you are the ones that belong in the corner you're working on. In reality, you should worry about your corner and the rest of the puzzle that the other people are working on.

 

 

Anti-freedom? You have a rather amusing concept of freedom. Freedom is not a state of mind in which you do whatever you please whenever you feel like it. Surprised yet?

Funny how people associate freedom with the level of despotism one can be subject to in his job, but then overlook things as individual rights and liberties, that incidentally, are being reduced every day in the very place where you are allowed more 'freedom' from a business standpoint. 

 

Oh but that's right. You aren't discussing the real world. It's your world we're talking about, and that one changes whenever it's convenient for you.

 

You are making less and less sense as time goes by.

 

Free-dom

n.

The condition of being free of restraints.

 

If you own a company it is your property. You should be able to do whatever you want with your property. If you want to fire someone from your company you should have the freedom to do so.

 

Individial rights and liberties? What does that have to do with a job?

 

Again, you are NOT entitled to a job. You earn one. You have the right, and are free to work. If you lack the skills or motivation to work, you will be fired, laid off, or simply not hired at all.

 

 

I never said they had won. But anyway, with their law on their side, they stand a good chance of winning the lawsuit. You would know those things if you had actually read something in this thread. Oh well, better luck next time.

 

Your posts have insinuated it. You don't know the law is on their side, because as you have GENEROUSLY shown, you not only don't know the whole picture, you're only looking at small pieces and taking your stand. All well and good in your world (which btw - its funny you keep making comments about people not being in the real world when you clearly have your head in the clouds when it comes to business).

 

I don't know the whole scenario either. Never claimed to, nor do I care to. My stance is simple and doesn't need facts. Companies should have the right to hire or fire whoever they want. Your stance is strictly based on the assumption that these people a) are ENTITLED to working and b) they gave the company no reason to fire them.

 

A is just plain wrong.

B you cannot possibly stand on from this:

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.

 

Welcome to the real world, where you have no knowledge of what you're saying, but take a stand anyway.

 

 

Great job at dodging the issue! I wasn't talking about promotions, but about layoffs. You already knew that but you'd rather give me the astounding tale of a honest worker in the land of meeting room sharks, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Please, next time you feel you are about to go off on a tangent, make a clear warning, so I can skip it altogether and not waste my time reading the product of your mental diarrhea. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its not dodging the issue, yutz.

 

The point of it was that despite being essentially useless for the first 3 monthes I then showed them that I was an asset to the company and that they should keep me around. Low and behold, I was.

 

Workers rights should be things like disability, safe work environs, freedom from harassment, vacation time, minimum wage. Workers rights are not job security.

Socialism does not work.

Get a clue. Socialism does work. Europe is the living proof of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

actually, it's not socialism. it's called social democracy. there's a difference...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

I dodged nothing.  The only thing that is being dodged is the WHOLE issue, and its being dodged by you.  Any moron can read a thread that says employees were fired despite an OVERALL COMPANY GAIN.  Any moron can take the stance of "being laid off sucks."

Eh? That doesn't change anything. They were laid off despite an overall company gain. No matter how much you try to simplify things, the facts are there.

 

 

The issues here are:

a) Should a company be permited to hire or fire people they wish?

b) What are the whole facts leading up to this lay-off?  Was the division(s) laid off profiting or signifigantly involved in the profit?  Were entire divisions laid off?  Was it a few people from a variety of divisions?

a) No.

b) I told you before, but I'm a patient person. Don't make up corporate excuses that nobody cares about. You don't know if any of that crap is true, and even if it was, it's not justification enough.

 

 

You guys aren't looking at the whole issue, you're spouting off about "social obligations" which simply ARE NOT there.

I already explained and backed this. On the other hand you provide, uh, nothing except 'that's BS cause I say so'. Your debating skills would be unparalelled if this was a kindergarten nap room.

 

 

This is called a dodge, folks.

I guess you know what you're talking about since you've already proven you're the dodge master around here.

 

 

Those aren't excuses, they are signifigant and important pieces of a puzzle.  For short-sighted argumentative people, like yourself, the only pieces that matter to you are the ones that belong in the corner you're working on.  In reality, you should worry about your corner and the rest of the puzzle that the other people are working on.

I do. However, those aren't good enough reasons to enact mass layoffs, no matter how loud you cry.

 

 

If you own a company it is your property.  You should be able to do whatever you want with your property.  If you want to fire someone from your company you should have the freedom to do so.

That's probably your stupidest argument yet. However, I'm convinced you will outperform yourself in the future, though. If there's something you have shown is talent for inane coments.

 

So, if you own something you can do whatever you want with it, is that so?

Ok. I own this nice aluminium baseball bat. Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it, such as crack someone's head open with it. Hey, it's mine. Don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot do with it.

Individial rights and liberties?  What does that have to do with a job?

That's what freedom is all about. But I suppose that's a wee bit past beyond your grasp. When you are done with Sesame Street, ask your daddy to explain it to you.

 

 

Your posts have insinuated it.  You don't know the law is on their side, because as you have GENEROUSLY shown, you not only don't know the whole picture, you're only looking at small pieces and taking your stand.  All well and good in your world (which btw - its funny you keep making comments about people not being in the real world when you clearly have your head in the clouds when it comes to business).

I'm discussing based on the info I have, nothing more. Unlike you, I don't make up excuses or imaginary arguments that may or may not be true to justify my claims. If you read the first post (yeah, I know, reading too much might cause you an aneurysm) it clearly states:

According to these new laws, a company cannot fire personnel unless there is substantial economic or production-related reasons behind the decision.

 

 

I don't know the whole scenario either.  Never claimed to, nor do I care to.  My stance is simple and doesn't need facts.

Heh. So, again, you're proving you're arguing about something whose actual relation to reality is totally random. Yeah, you really do know how to craft compelling arguments.

 

 

Welcome to the real world, where you have no knowledge of what you're saying, but take a stand anyway.

So says the guy who doesn't need facts to back his claims. Priceless.

 

 

Socialism does not work.

Get a clue. Socialism does work. Europe is the living proof of that.

actually, it's not socialism. it's called social democracy. there's a difference...

Social democracy is a form of socialism.

All I can say is, this is what they get for staying in Finland. They should have sold the Finnish operations and started a new company with plants in the U.S. Or China, while we're at it.

As usual in a debate, when the opposition has nothing to stand on, they resort to "na-uh" debate style.

 

213374U, Way to go, you've proven nothing, other than you lack the intelligence to maintain a civil and productive debate.

 

The only loser here is anyone bothering to read this thread. Yutz.