Maybe I'm a big capitalist, but 5 months of severance seems very generous; a job hasn't been a commitment that the company will take care of you forever in several generations. Covering you until the middle of this year should go a long way, and yeah the job market is messed up, but at least it's not mid-November where holidays mean hiring falls off the rails.
Most people in tech still think people who are getting laid off deserve it and that they themselves are immune to it. People won’t change until they experience it first hand.
Not really, no. I was underemployed for 6+ months at the start of my career, but it's easier to take whatever is available at that point. I did some data entry and then first tier ops desk restart the server when the light turns red stuff, before I got a "real job". Doing that mid career and keeping a good attitude would be difficult.
But I would think 5 months paid time before you have to go on state unemployment is significantly better than the WARN act minimum of 60 days of notice or pay or the alternative of a campaign to raise attrition. Looks like recent google/meta layoffs are 4 months, so it's 25% better than that. I always thought I wanted to get a package, but I recognize that I would probably not have been happy if it happened.
So does being dumped from a relationship. You might not be able to find another relationship in 6+ months. But I don't think people would seriously propose that people should therefore not be able to leave a relationship.
A lot of people would focus on the many obvious differences, and use those to deflect attention from the important similarity I was highlighting: That they are both things that ought to exist only so long as both parties want them to.
I know they might sound superficially similar, if you're 12 years old, so let me breakdown a little bit why your analogy is a bad one.
Relationships are between two people, not between a human and a public entity like a company.
My partner doesn't have extremely disproportionate leverage over me, if tomorrow I leave – company will chug along just fine, if I'm laid off tomorrow – I might lose my home, relationship, well-being, never recover from the layoff (meaning I won't contribute back to economy and go on well-fare, and potentially start a revolution if there are millions of me) or ultimately die.
I know it's a difficult concept for 20 year old tech-bros who sucked VC money with the milk of their mother to grasp, but money does dry out. You might think you're invincible right now and that it's you and companies against them (lazy, stupid coworkers), but you're the same cattle to them as the rest of us. As you can see by the topic of the thread.
Back to the analogy: Main goal of a company is to produce value for society, not making money for VCs. It's a difficult pill to swallow, I know, tech bros been taught for decades that job security, health insurance, taxes, value creation – all of those are commie concepts aimed to undermine our God given right to make money, and we – temporary embarrassed millionaires – need to fight it with every ounce of our existence by working 60 hours a week.
Labor IS the main input that turns capital + IP into products and services. Without those people Block would be nowhere near the current position it is in. But when business is strong, though, VCs and C level get obscene bonuses while employee compensation stays flat. Go figure.
I could go on and on, talk about tax reliefs [0], that countries and companies exist for people and not the other way around, but this should be enough to understand that THIS IS NOTHING LIKE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A HUMAN BEING.
> My partner doesn't have extremely disproportionate leverage over me
This is the most... hinged... thing you said. I totally agree that bargaining power is usually far more skewed in the employment case. I think unequal bargaining power is the root of much unfairness in the world, and that the only way to really counteract this is through organising, i.e., unionisation. It's far from a panacea, mind you.
With all that said: Fundamentally, I don't think that an employer should be obligated to employ someone indefinitely. If you do: Think about whether regulations enforcing this would make an employer more likely, or less likely, to hire someone they are on the fence about.
Everybody realises this. That said, a huge number of people around the world are financially dependent on their partner. (One of the main goals of feminism has been to normalise relationships where this is not the case.)
The fundamental question is: Should employers be obligated to employ the people they hire forever?
