• d00ery@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    But speaking last year, Dimon countered: “You’re going to be facing ethical decisions like that. Think for yourself.

    “How would you feel if you’re on the other side of that thing? Or do you want to be treated that way? Is it fair?”

    Ohh poor little fucker likes capitalism when he’s exploiting everyone but if the shoes on the other foot it makes him sad 😭😭😭

  • jarvis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Free market capitalist doesn’t want the consumers of his employment opportunities to be able to shop around

    • cm0002@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Lol that’s what I was thinking about the whole article, has Gen Z forgotten how to lie or something?

      • cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Happen to every generation tbh. When you start you think everyone is a friend even your boss and HR, then you learn.

  • TaldenNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you start a ‘permanent role’ with them, having already secured a next role, then it is unethical. That means you know, going in, that this is not effectively ‘permanent’.

    However. Having already started with them, if you find a better role, there is nothing unethical about taking that unless it contradicts an enforceable employment agreement. Maybe the role wasn’t what you thought, or someone else has valued you more highly (in remuneration, working conditions or other benefits). It goes both ways and incentivising retention is up to the business - it’s the flipside of lay-offs.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Roles are not “permanent”. They have a contract with agreed upon terms. If they want to lock in exclusivity for some time period, they can negotiate and pay for it. It’s a transaction. Unless there are mutually agreed upon terms, the opposing side saying they want something doesn’t make you planning not to give it to them unethical. If they had a contract term about this they’d be suing people, not whining about being treated unfairly by college graduates.

      • voxthefox@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        So much this. Fuck anyone calling positions “permanent” when they’d lay off your entire team post haste if it meant gaining 50 cents of profit.