I don’t get this line of argument.<p>Sales force believed their business will do better with Matthew Mcconaughey as opposed to those 8k employees. They may be wrong, but it’s for them to figure out if they’re wrong.<p>I understand the argument that workers should not be disposable, and workers shouldn’t be fired at will, even with at-will contracts, and companies have responsibilities towards their workers. In fact, that argument is popular enough that most countries, including the U.S. until recently, gave workers and their unions privileges that wouldn’t be afforded in a different scenario. And if you want to argue that workers rights have been diluted far too much in with you.<p>My problem is instead of making this straightforward argument, when you’re trying to compare the firing of workers to spending on a completely different situation. There’s no possible way for an outsider to know what the value of having McConaughey sit around is, what the contractual details are, what the cost, both monetary and otherwise of splitting from him, etc is.<p>My response to this headline isn’t to be more sympathetic to the workers. It’s to wonder what the hell McConaughey getting contractually paid has anything to do with the poor treatment of workers by Salesforce.