I wonder if it really is the case that employees have no rights (fire and hire mentality).remember that we are talking about the realities of the USA (not Europe), where an employee is thrown away like a used condom
Yes, I eventually chalked it down to stress, still it bothered me. Vivian is not a victim. I think she was expertly manipulated by Christian. In her effort to help and save the situation, she fell down a rabbit hole. Yet, you can see her progression due to Hutch’s inability to adequately address the situation. How much of an initial willing participate was she at the house? We would have to see what transpired on the patio to make that determination. By leaving it up to the viewers imagination, for the moment, the Dev is inviting us to guess at Vivian’s acquiescence.
Yes, it’s called “employment-at-will” which permits flexibility and a dynamic workforce. Both parties can terminate the employee/employer relationship. It is a concept that sprang into being initially for the benefit of the employee. Prior to employment at will, employees were almost indentured servants. Apprenticeship, typically for a 5-7 year stint depending on the trade, was basically servitude. If you broke your apprenticeship you were done in that trade or profession. Later, low skilled workers in the mining industry lived in “company towns” where their entire livelihood revolved around the company. Often they became indebted to the company for various living expenses - essentially servitude. If you are in a protected class as designated under US law it is more difficult to fire an employee by the way.
Sure it would have made sense. It makes sense because Hutch and Vivian are scared that the writing is on the wall and they're trying to stop it from happening. They're not trying to get his job back, they're trying to stop him from losing it.
The whole thing is a manipulation, it's still his blackmail plan, but he didn't put that plan together until at least the next morning, when he met Vivian. But even in his own words, Christian doesn't say he was going to fire Hutch, they have just made the assumption:
and, keyword in this one is "implied":
He's not going to fire Hutch (my interpretation), but letting them think he is plays right into his hands as far as Vivian goes.
How far would Addison go to make sure her uncle doesn't fire Hutch? (attachments aren't currently working, so I've quoted this one to at least enable the image to be reached via click):
Nahh, you are just assuming here. All signs point to Huutch getting fired after he lost those 2 clients because he forgot to reach out to them!
You are assuming that the loss was Hutch's fault... There may be a different factor at play reviled later.1. there were very serious grounds for releasing Hutch - so it was very easy to assume that he would be fired for that (I would think about it myself if I were Chris).
2. they couldn't allow for the actual firing, because it would be too late (Chris doesn't seem like a guy who changes his mind) - and they decided to act to convince Chris of Hutch's value
3. and judging from the reactions of his co-workers - firing an employee is not a problem for Chris
losing two important clients to competitors - due to failure to act is a serious matter and actually grounds for dismissal (even in Europe)
what else is there to think about?
end of story
Doesn't the game pretty heavily indicate that it was Hutch's fault due to his assumption that they were a done deal? That they left because Hutch wasn't proactive in ensuring that their needs were met and their desires were satisfied? Even if that turns out to not be the case they were still Hutch's responsibility and he failed to keep them on contract.
He lied to Christian when saying "I did..." then he facepalmed himself and corrected his statement "...I thought I had".
I'm not assuming, I'm just putting out a different interpretation - the assumption is when people look at what happened and say "that's it, he's getting fired" (just like Maxwell did in the office when it happened!). Or when you say he forgot to reach out to the clients, even when he has spoken to at least one of them in the last couple of days before this happened.
We know that he talked to (at least) one of the clients "a couple of days ago" but we don't know when he was told to shore up the clients. Nowhere are we told, or even really given the impression, that the instruction came the day before, for instance, therefore there is no indication that he didn't speak to them after he was warned about GSA poaching clients. That's just your assumption.
I mentioned this earlier but I don't think it got noticed could be worth a thought
That's not how weeks work
lets not forget how upper management always tries to blame middle management for their mistake and middle management blaming the workforce. and the workforce blame the upper management .... the ouroboros loop continues.1. there were very serious grounds for releasing Hutch - so it was very easy to assume that he would be fired for that (I would think about it myself if I were Chris).
2. they couldn't allow for the actual firing, because it would be too late (Chris doesn't seem like a guy who changes his mind) - and they decided to act to convince Chris of Hutch's value
3. and judging from the reactions of his co-workers - firing an employee is not a problem for Chris
losing two important clients to competitors - due to failure to act is a serious matter and actually grounds for dismissal (even in Europe)
what else is there to think about?
end of story
You should probably stop telling people not to make assumptions when your arguments are largely made up of assumptions themselves! Nowhere does it say that he didn't reach out to clients on Monday, nowhere does it say he spoke to them last week. You're just trying to twist things to fit your own narrative, which may be right but just as equally may be wrong. Sure he could have said "I spoke to them on Monday" if it was Monday, but if it was Friday, he could have said "I spoke to them last week," or "I spoke to them on Friday". And again, you don't know when it was that he was told to shore up his clients. That instruction could have been given two weeks ago, for all we know.
+10 points for use of “ouroboros.” Wait, is that an STD? ;-)
