Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ulorian - Agent of Chaos" data-source="post: 9241409" data-attributes="member: 16668">Well, duh! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> If you, mamba, were personally caught in a contract that benefited the other party more than it did you, I would fully support your right to renegotiate as well. As I said earlier, this was a short-sighted move on Hasbro's part, because I think the contract actually benefited them.A company owns a property. That property is being used for free by other companies, who are making money largely on the fact that they are borrowing IP from the initial company. It is not wrong for the initial company to negotiate for compensation if the initial landscape has changed. The terms of that compensation come out of negotiation between all of the companies involved. No company owes another company anything. The business that is being 'threatened' only exists because the larger company exists. If the two companies can't come to an agreement, the smaller company is free to disband or strike out on its own. Its employees can choose to stick around or find other employment. I think you might be conflating a personal attachment to a hobby or perhaps some sort of perceived harm to an individual with the way having a job in general works. Obtaining a job is not an entitlement. You have employment with a company as long as it's successful, meaning you are working in an industry that company founders see as profitable and the folks running that company aren't otherwise messing things up. If a company goes under and you lose your job, you go out and find a job with a company that lines up with what society has a need for. If there is a particular job you have an interest in, you work to obtain the skills needed for you to land that job. If putting in the time and effort to do that doesn't interest you, that's fine too, but the consequences of that are you end up with a job you are not as satisfied with. Neither path is wrong; it's all about what's more important to you, as an individual.I have worked for nearly 20 companies over my career. I have been a part of larger company layoffs and startups that have gone under. Sometimes I change jobs or careers because of personal interest or finding I'm on a career path that is a dead end. I've never complained or cried because I lost a job... I just went out and found another one. Adults working at jobs is what greases the (economic, not social) wheels of society. The economic framework works (for the most part... there are exceptions): jobs appear, then disappear, without there being heroes and villains. So much for neutrality! What discussion amongst friends? This was a company which owned a property which they had been giving away for free to other companies. All of whom were trying to make money. There is no 'faceless corporation vs. hapless human beings' situation here. This was just a fight between companies over who was going to make the most money.I would consider telling someone that they are 'misrepresenting' something as a personal attack, yes. Let's just chalk this up to a poor choice of words on your part, and that you didn't actually mean what you said (I don't believe that you did mean that, honestly).</blockquote>

Verification