Yes, Laura would be a great hire for any company.

At the same time, I don't think what Netflix did was evil - all I know is that it wasn't good. And the HBR piece trumpeting such behaviour is just plain silly.

Thanks - great post!

What's the disassociation being put into law about?

Good on you! :D They met their needs, and you met yours.

Your example is fair enough.

In the US. There, severance isn't just generosity (though it may be); its also an arrangement for the company to 'reach beyond the grave' and prevent you being a true free agent (i.e getting a job with the competition, contacting your company's customers, writing about problems with the company and its products)

See AC's post here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4595209&cid=45781805 for another perspective.

I'm thankful to work in another nation where my severance (close to half my annual salary at this point) is mandatory by law. And I don't have to sign away my rights to get that money.

Yea, folks. Remember it for whatever reason - just remember it.

This may sound funny to you, but I actually consider myself both fortunate and an optimist. I've worked a decade and a half in my current job, in a country with a good economy, am well paid, am personally at low risk of layoff, and will get about 1/2 year's severance - by law - if laid off.

But being fortunate does not mean I lose my eyes and ears - I can hear and see what happening. Companies _are_ getting harsher; jobs harder to find and to keep.

If you think you think you can just work with no backup plan for wealth creation, you're not optimistic, you're naive.

Good for your friend with the 3/4 salary severance - he was fortunate. And I have a similar anecdote about my friend with similar severance too. But you see, a $30K severance on a $45K pay-packet doesn't last that long. There are some fundamental costs to living (rent, petrol, utilities.) If you can't get a job again soon, that happiness (and money) evaporates. Hence this advice:

> Or rather, both sides are correct even though they are in direct disagreement.

Ah, the usual AC handwringing recipe -- "it all hopeless... no one's right" -- along with a dash of zesty "job creator" myth thrown in.

> People with an employee mindset naturally want job security, and consider the provision of such to be a moral obligation of employers. The reasons are obvious.

No, its not, Capn. obvious! Most employees actually want to work hard AND realise that there are limits to their employment.

> Employers, [...] morally obligatory that they hire the best and get rid of people who are becoming dead weight.

There. Now you've defined your own morality. Perhaps you think of yourself as an employer with such a 'moral obligation'. All the best not disgusting your 'good' employees who know how you treat 'deadwood' and wonder when their time will come.

From the article:

Folks - remember the snippets above in your dealings with any company. This is the nature of the employer-employee contract these days.

A spectacular severance supposedly balances out any disquiet at 'pump-and-dump' treatment of employees. Of course, "spectacular" may mean they pay $4,000 instead of $2,330.02 legally due - i.e. 200% of something which probably won't get you very far in the first place. And 'extra' documents they have you sign as a quid pro quo, also sign away review rights regarding unfair dismissal, etc.

Everyone working for someone - and I mean everyone - needs a backup plan to create wealth. Not an MLM - something where you get paid to create actual value. This could be selling cupcakes off your Facebook page, freelancing on guru.com, selling artwork on odesk.com, tutoring math classes, mowing lawns... Even if you make only $10/month, its a skill kept sharp for when you really need to depend on that next arrow in your quiver.

Before doing this, check your work contract - and speak with your attorney. Many jobs - specially IT roles - have a catchall 'all your efforts/patents/ideas/code belong to us' clause. Even for what you do on your own time and dime. Such clauses may or may not be lawful.

Also, while we are still in 'appeal to authority' mode, the coauthor of the paper is Adi Shamir, the 'S' in RSA.

I don't knock their work ... :)

All that needs doing is adding a helium ballon with additional battery payload. As long as the entire system is neutrally bouyant, this could hover for hours, streaming video. Even follow its owner around... Kinda like the "kino" orb in the Stargate Universe TV series, but with wings :)

Grasshoppers can be swept up in updrafts, you know.

Trees and children aren't.

> I'd rather have a competent driver in a bare-bones sports car on the road with me than a clueless housewife ...

"Roger Rodas was a highly skilled driver who would not have taken a risk with his friend and client Paul Walker’s life, an engineer for Rodas’ race team said Tuesday."

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/12/03/paul-walker-roger-rodas-porsche/

...offering employment contracts which don't bind employees in intellectual slavery. Some employers - especially tech employers - lay claim to every thought, word and deed of value that the employee creates during his term of employment - even if done in his own time and on his own dime.

Do 'em a good turn... you will.

Whether its real call for violence or not, its indicates an attitude problem with the owner. And attitude is everything in hospitality - it informs everything: the staff you hire, the ingredients you procure, how kind you are to customers that make a mistake, or disagree with you ... This guys attitude is Not that of a hospitable restauranteur.

I see the problem with GG in restaurants. I support the ban. After all, its for the benefit of the OTHER patrons in the place. But I still prefer not to eat at venues where attitudes like this flow from the top down.

Feel free to disagree - just remember its your ass kicking he may call for tomorrow because of a bad tip or Yelp review.

What about wearing your GG in the restaurant bathroom, urinating in the stalls? Is that a freedom you cherish too? I don't.