| |||||||||||||
Was firing an over-reaction?Was firing an over-reaction?Posted Mar 24, 2013 8:29 UTC (Sun) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640)In reply to: Was firing an over-reaction? by deepfire Parent article: Blum: Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost
I'm curious, if you don't consider for example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_filing">Sec filing requirements</a> heavy regulation, what do you consider heavy regulation?
(Log in to post comments)
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 25, 2013 12:44 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Wow. SEC filings are required in order that the people who own the companies involved (these are public companies, so their owners can include just about anyone) have some idea what's happening inside the company they own. Without those regulations the market would be completely opaque and thus non-functional. If these bare basics are your concept of "heavy regulation" then you have no idea.
In more civilised places you can't just fire people on a whim like this. Capitalism is a very fast way to get somewhere, but without stringent controls both the journey and the place you get to may be very unpleasant.
It is no coincidence that the best big companies I've worked for treat their US employees more or less the _same_ as the EU arms of the same companies, even though US regulations don't require that. The EU isn't mandating anything unreasonable it's just prohibiting the worst excesses, so chances are if you (as an employer for this hypothetical) are doing stuff in the US that would be forbidden in the EU, it's because you're a jerk. (e.g. the US has no "transfer of undertakings" rules, but if you use the fact that you've bought a rival company as an opportunity to cut wages and benefits for all the acquired employees yes, you're a jerk).
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 26, 2013 7:32 UTC (Tue) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
SEC regulations used to be a much more lightweight than they are these days (post-enron). Also many other countries (such as UK) have much less regulation on public companies than what SEC imposes. And I'm not saying that these regulations are bad - I'm just saying that the are heavy - and that US is certainly not "unregulated capitalism".
Now we have of course deviated far from the original article.
Back to the topic, workers rights - it is correct that the US At-will employment is harsh for workers. But here at the "civilized side of pond", we have seen the rise of temporary employment agencies, and the end result is not any better for worker than being employed at will...
Was firing an over-reaction? Posted Mar 28, 2013 18:09 UTC (Thu) by union (subscriber, #36393) [Link]
No offense, but SEC regulations exist to protect owners (stockholders) and potential buyers of Companies. And the reason they exist is, that said owners went and cried for governments help, when ever they were scammed by some mangers.
If you run your own private businesses there is a lot less regulation.
|
|||||||||||||