Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more

Re:Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more by product50 on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @07:17PM (#23025732)

What risk is an accountant sitting in SF City Hall taking? High risk positions - sure give them more security. Otherwise, treat them like everyone else. Also, people goto govt jobs because of job security as well - which is also a factor in lower income.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more by hemantv on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @07:27PM (#23025805)

if you are going to cherry-pick, then so be it.

what about the police, fire department?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more by product50 on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @07:29PM (#23025827)

Read my comment. Don't be ignorant. I literally said that for high risk positions, give them more pension.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more by treis on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @07:38PM (#23025878)

I don't think the police or fire are taking "unprecedented" risks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more by otterley on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @07:57PM (#23026031)

Perhaps not, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a risk premium in your compensation. If you're more likely to die or be critically injured earlier than someone else of the same age solely because of the work you do, and your family depends on your income, it's not unreasonable to expect to be paid more to make up for the lost expected lifetime income.

(This is true for all dangerous professions, BTW - not just law enforcement and medical personnel.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lyft lays off 17% of workforce, furloughs hundreds more by pbourke on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @11:51PM (#23027243)

Would you say that to the police or firefighters who responded to 9/11?

There are outsized risks involved in both occupations.

[ Parent | on HN ]