Should hard work be irrelevant?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Netflix is (at least in theory) laying off anyone no longer useful correct? (“Firing” these days usually implies you did something wrong. “Lay off” means you did nothing wrong when you were removed from the payroll).

So, if you NEED X number of workers to build a house you don’t remove 1/3, you hire/pay all you need until the job is done. Likewise for paving roads. If the workers are needed they are employed.

Supposedly, the people removed from payroll are given “generous” or “fantastic” severance pay, right? What, exactly, does that mean? If it really is enough to retrain/upgrade then that’s not necessarily the worst of all worlds.

Maybe I’m cynical, but even as an office worker I had no illusions my employer was in any way loyal * to me*, even as the employer expected loyalty from me. When I was no longer needed I would be shown the door, unless I could make an argument I was fully qualified to move elsewhere within the organization. Netflix just seems more honest and up front about this.

22

ok

23

So the executive in charge of firing people the company didn’t need went around doing her job so efficiently that one day the company had fired all the people it could. And at that point the company didn’t need an executive in charge of firing people anymore…

24

The thing I found interesting about the Netflix story was that people who did a great job, the best job humanly possible were completely irrelevant if the wind started blowing in a slightly different direction.

This is different from the company needing to lay people off if there is a downturn in business, it is different than someone who works hard and gets subpar results. If the company can find any way to do your job cheaper, they will - and they will not bother to retrain you for any other position. The idea that you can have no value in a company that is doing well and where you are performing well is a bit of a new idea for many people.

What it is, to me anyway, is the company being a professional sports team needing star players, but not necessarily paying the type of salaries that are anything close to what real stars get paid. It means a rethinking of a lot of things to me.

25

Yes, except,it sounds like she actually was involved in a lot more than just hiring and firing people… also kind of an efficiency expert I guess. The podcast is actually pretty interesting…

26

Seems like a not so good business strategy, but I would hesitate to tell someone else how to run his business-- especially someone who ran a company as successful as Netflix. I am thoroughly amazed that Netflix has been able to pivot and thrive in the midst of such a competitive environment with such fast changing technology.

When I worked in mega-corporate Silicon Valley, the company I worked for made a huge (one could say UUUUUUUUUGE!) effort to relocate people within the company when their jobs (usually an entire division) were eliminated. I like to think that if I ran a large company, I’d do the same thing. But who knows? Things always look different when you’re the guy at the top who has to actually make the decisions.

27

This isn’t surprising or shocking to me at all. This has been the attitude everywhere I’ve worked in the last 15 years.

Oh, sure, companies might move a favored employee (always at a management or higher level) into another position, but everyone else? Nice knowing you, old chum. Here’s your COBRA paperwork; hope you don’t mind paying $1000 a month for your plan, no really, we pay that much for your insurance! And don’t look for a reference; we’ll only confirm you worked here and your title.

The longer I work, the more I take what I can from the company and get what I want, because I know I can be gone tomorrow.

Loyalty to the company? Does not exist. This isn’t the 1950s, and no one gets the gold watch after 35 years of service. They will throw you to the curb when you are no longer “useful”, or a drag on their bottom line. You should feel the same and always have other options in your back pocket.

28

Make a shittier house/crappier road.

29

I agree 100%. Netflix should do whatever is good for Netflix, without hesitation. Their responsibilities are to the shareholders and to obey the law.

The broader thing I’m getting at really is that if this is is the new business environment, if this is the new paradigm for business operation and success, then is this good for society as a whole?

For better or worse one of the strongest pillars of the foundation of our social contract is that if you take certain steps - get an education, work hard at your job, get along with people then you will have a good chance of having financial success and middle class financial stability.

The problem with the Netflix model, as I see it the broader implications. For example, the whole student loan system, which is supported by the government, meaning us, meaning our tax dollars, is based upon the assumption that college students are a good gamble, that they will have very good odds of having substantial and somewhat predictable career growth and will be able to pay the student loans back. If career growth for highly educated, highly leveraged people is now very stunted, fractured and erratic it could have a disruptive effect in that market. Another example would be housing, the 30 year mortgage is a staple of the housing industry, but if careers and incomes are so erratic, then that is an outdated model as well.

So, in large part we have built a substantial and significant cultural and financial system around the assumption of large corporations as well as other businesses being able to provide financial stability to a very large portion of the population. When these businesses no longer provide such stability, what will take that place?

30

The prevalence of amoral, profit-driven business practices justify the need for a strong social welfare net. I agree with you, Mr. Nylock, that if all businesses start operating like Netflix, that wouldn’t bode well for our society. But the thing is, how do we regulate against something like this? We can’t.

But we can mitigate the ravages of unemployment.

31

Yes, but what if

What if Netflix moved their company to a large private island that had no laws, it is way way out in the ocean somewhere. I know it is going to be kind of hard to ship DVD’s from there, but, they are smart, they will figure it out. What if… what if it to help motivate their employees, they threw newborn babies into a pit with ravenous hungry wolves. Which is more important in this situation, their responsibilities to their shareholders, ie, profit, or the new born babies being thrown to ravenous hungry wolves?

32

Pretty much. I don’t like where the times have taken us, either, but yes, it’s a sign of the times. And, to be fair, it’s a sign of the times that is going back to how things were for most of human history.

There was a “blip” in human history from about 1930(ish) to 1970(ish) when, if you got a white collar job with a stable company, and you managed not to screw up too badly, you could rely on having a job with them for life, and then retire with a gold watch and a nice pension. My grandfather and father worked under this model. They were classic “company men.” The culture of their company (Johnson & Johnson) was such that, when the company moved to another state, they were invited to move with them to keep their jobs. (Dad said yes, Granddad said no, and since he was so close to retirement, they gave him early retirement with his full retirement package anyway.) These men (mostly men, rarely women) worked with the full realistic expectation that they were going to have one single career with one single company.

But this isn’t how it always was. When most people worked in agriculture, you only had a job for a season, unless you owned the farm. When the merchant middle class arose, then you might get a job in a shop when business was good, and lose that job when business slowed and the owner’s family was sufficient to keep it running. When work shifted to factories, you only had a job for as long as your body held out and orders came in, and then you got the boot when you couldn’t do the work or there wasn’t enough work to do, whether you were on the floor making the stuff or you were the foreman giving orders.

With the weakening of unions and the realization that pensions are really expensive liabilities, we’re back to the bad old days, and it’s reaching the white collar class. The company has no loyalty to you, and generally employees have less loyalty to the company. You can find all sorts of advice on job boards (and here on the SDMB) that “two-weeks notice is just a courtesy” and “screw them, they’d screw you,” when people ask about leaving for another job.

Between 1978 and 2008, the average American had 11 jobs in a lifetime, and educational achievement (which roughly correlates to “blue collar” vs. “white collar”) doesn’t have much of an impact. https://www.mindflash.com/blog/2011/05/how-many-jobs-do-americans-hold-in-a-lifetime/

The average worker today spends just 4.4 years at one job, meaning the Millenials are on track to hold 15-20 jobs over the course of their life. The Future Of Work: Job Hopping Is the 'New Normal' for Millennials

Yes, this is the new normal. “Jobs,” not “careers,” or at least, not careers with a single, loyal employer.

33

What I found disturbing about this story was that Netflix had built the narrative such that the company (and its representatives) are scoffing at people who cry or are upset about losing a job at which they were performing well. There is an intentional attempt to remove compassion and consideration for the employees. You’re upset you lost your job? That’s your problem; don’t be such a pussy! You should be thankful we let you put our company on your resume. Now get the fuck out.

Maybe it makes the deciders at Netflix feel better about themselves to trivialize the feelings and experiences of their employees, but just saying that the employees should be content with being fired doesn’t make it so.

34

<snip>

What I’m saying isn’t scientific, just a feeling:

Of the 4.4 years, how many months until an employee is “broken in” enough to be “good” at their job–3 months? 6? A year? How long to leave a job (assuming it’s on your terms)?

I guess I took the long way around to ask: How much work is actually getting done with turnover rates like that?

35

I see what you’re saying, but any company known to operate in this way would be banned from doing business in the US; this would not meet the second part of my statement in regards to the responsibility to comply with the law - In this case it is against US law to throw babies into a pit with ravenous wolves. And I’m not sure about this, but I think that it would also be against the law to confine wolves in such a manner - it would probably violate some animal cruelty laws.

If you are supposing that because they are not on US soil they can do what they want; think again. There are a whole host of trade agreements, laws etc. which would effectively prohibit any company like this from doing business in the US, and probably every other developed country. Of course these laws haven’t succeeded in maintaining 100% compliance, but that is a whole nuther issue . . .

36

Good question. I’m going to assume that it depends a lot on the job in question. In mine (home health nursing), I’m 2 months shy of four years, and I feel like I’m finally starting to get good at it.

I also suspect a lot of this job hopping is from job to job within the same career, but again, that probably depends on the job. If/when I leave my current company, it may well be for another home health company. My current job therefore took on the cost of training me and getting me “good,” and another company may end up benefiting from that.

(Note if my boss is reading this: I have no intention of quitting. But we should probably talk soon about a raise. It would save you the expense of training another nurse. :wink: )

37

I know, I’m just giving you a hard time. A more apt analogy would be that knows that the jeans they buy at Wal Mart and the sneakers they buy at Foot Locker are made in sweatshops, but, nobody cares*. So, how far do we carry this “responsibility to the shareholder thing”? At what point, if ever, do you think mortality comes into play?

  • Actually I haven’t bought any jeans in over 3 or 4 years but the next pair I am going to get I will get made in America. I don’t think that is really an option with sneakers.
38

I think that’s a good point and speaks to the broader issues I have mentioned upthread. These are highly skilled workers, they have been trained - just not by Netflix. They spend many years in school, the first 12 of which is completely funded by the taxpayer. After that, they are must go to 5 years of college, where they most likely have loans backed by taxpayer dollars, or grants provided by taxpayers or well meaning donors who want to offer an individual an opportunity to succeed. After that they are trained in an internship or coop where they are paid nothing or very little - and often probably need parental support. After all that, Netflix (or a similarly run company) will offer them a job if they have the right amount of experience where they need next to no training.

Therefore, as you can imagine, this relationship between white collar, highly skilled workers and companies operating at maximum “efficiency” has a slightly parasitic feel to it. Sure it is efficient for Netflix to operate this way, but is it efficient for society as a whole to provide these resources if the return from business is less and less as well as increasingly fickle, chaotic, and unstable?

39

Again, sounds like the Soviet Union :smiley:

Which isn’t just a joke. Upper-level managers and directors think you can get something for nothing, and that the worker-employer relationship is entirely one-way. But the workers will get theirs one way or another.

40

I didn’t really mean that as a Homer Simpson retort, simple math would say 40 workers times 20 days = 1 decent house; 30 workers times 15 days = substantially inferior house (yes, I know efficiency formulas are nowhere near that linear.) Just saying it physically can’t be done.