Businesses are in it for the money, employees tend to be one of the larger expenses, so maintaining some bullshit positions that would cost them money doesn’t make fiscal sense, so what’s up?

  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d have to disagree with this. Why would all companies just unilaterally agree to waste money so people can make a living. If that were the drive, they’d also pay thriving wages, etc.

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would all companies just unilaterally agree to waste money so people can make a living

      The motivations of the company are often very different to the motivations of senior staff within the company.

      Mid-level manager is obsessed with building his empire within the company. The bigger their division, the happier they are.

      Mid-level manager creates bullshit jobs and justifies them up the chain. “Our team is vital to the company and my staff is swamped. I need to increase my headcount”.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s fine. That’s my point though. The intentions are entirely different. I don’t think any company is actively worried about ensuring people are employed. The end result of a bunch of other motivations may be the same, but my statement is about the why.

    • scoutFDT@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the alternative is a bunch of hungry people with pitchforks and a large amount of free time.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the alternative. An alternative would be hiring people because it offers some benefit to the company.