News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job by falcolas on Saturday March 24, 2018 @10:52AM (#16666850)
I keep seeing this "supposed to do" tossed around when it comes to companies abusing their employees (and yes, changing an employees contract without more consideration than "keep working" is abusing an employee) like it's some kind of divine directive that drives capitalist corporations.

It's not. A company can treat its employees well and still be profitable. There is no law that says the only job of a company is to maximize profits for shareholders; in fact, this has gone to court and judged to not be the case. So, no, a company is not "supposed" to do these kinds of underhanded things. Just because they can - just because it's legal - doesn't mean they should.

Re:Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job by AnthonyMouse on Saturday March 24, 2018 @04:18PM (#16668672)
> and yes, changing an employees contract without more consideration than "keep working" is abusing an employee

How is it abuse when it's entirely voluntary? The employee is not a slave. They can walk away at any time, or threaten to in exchange for concessions.

> There is no law that says the only job of a company is to maximize profits for shareholders

Nobody is claiming that here. You're assuming the only reason companies ever do this is to screw people over, when just as often it's caused by the company's revenues declining or costs increasing, requiring the company to do more with less or go out of business.

If the company can't keep paying you the same money for the same work, the only available options are to take what they're offering or leave your job. It doesn't help anybody to take away the first option.