No. That's not the social contract for employment. It's dangerous to think it is. There's a mutual need from both parties. When that need changes, both parties are free to respond. Forcing a company to keep someone would be just as bad as forcing someone to stay.

What we also don't know is the companies financial situation. Keeping people on when they can't be afforded can be a way to make a company completely collapse. I was in two startups that would have collapsed completely, without layoffs, around the time of the last recession. This is why the "keep x months of salary" are rules you strictly follow.

There's a difference between "someone will lose their livelihood because of this" and "that's entirely the employers fault."

Recognizing the impact of an action does not mean you're entirely responsible for it.

What are you responding to, exactly? That comment was claiming that we can't know for sure that "nobody" would lose their livelihood over this. And it's true, we can't know.

I think they are responding to the assertion that the employer is obligated to keep the employee just because the employee might have absolutely nowhere else to go. Especially in the competitive tech space neither you nor your employer are obligated to maintain your employment relationship.

This is besides Patreon giving their former employees a license to goof off on their dime for 3 months. I can’t imagine anyone at Patreon being so hard up that 3 months pay and insurance to look for new work is enough to break the camels back.

> We don’t know everyone’s unique situation

Those who are hired to Patreon and similar companies arent people who would end up unemployed if they are laid off. Those people already have to turn down recruiters who try to poach them every week.