• Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Maybe look at this another way:

    The government should represent the interests of the people. If the people have shown interest in curbing these layoff behaviors, where thousands of people lose their jobs while management remains in place with no apparent cuts to the top billing, then why would lawmakers not want to translate these interests into legislation?

    I get a reasonable wariness of keeping the government out of private business, but if you have a town of 10 people, all employed by local business owner, and that business owner lays off two people, you have a large percentage of the population affected. If the townspeople enact a local ordinance to prevent this kind of behavior in the future, would they be in the wrong?

    • RadialMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      To prevent … what kind of behavior exactly? Firing people? I’m for the government protecting peoples interest, but also a business needs the freedom to hire and fire as they see fit, without beuaracy involved. Maybe you’re more referring to a union?

      how do you know management is not also being fired? Should the ‘people’ be given a list of potential fires and they vote on who the business can fire?