28
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 19 points 2 days 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 😭😭😭

[-] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago

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

[-] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago

JPMorgan talking about ethics ?

[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So funny. These fuckers have been busted for both mass quantities of cocaine and sex trafficking. Pay a fee get off scot free.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ship-seized-in-1-3-billion-cocaine-bust-is-owned-by-jp-morgan-chase/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/jpmorgan-to-pay-75-million-for-role-in-epstein-sex-trafficking-operation

Jamie Dimon is a real piece of shit 💩

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Threatening to fire people who already have their next gig confirmed is so fucking goofy.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago
[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

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

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Its absolutely not unethical, companies usually have someone to replace you before they even know if they'll fire you.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

The only permanence is change.

this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
28 points (96.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2953 readers
1168 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS