CEO/Staff reductions

[Fester]

Is anybody else paying attention to these tech companies such as Twitter, Meta/Facebook and the staff reductions they are implementing? Dorsey and Zuckerberg both say it’s there fault but the real people having to pay the price are the people being let go. Does anybody feel like in certain situations these executives/ upper management should be held responsible in some way?

 

[gonefshn]

It’s their companies. They can do what they want. Work for good solid companies with good worker reputations if you want/need stability. Seems to me it’s just basic capitalism?

 

[Fester]

It’s their companies. They can do what they want. Work for good solid companies with good worker reputations if you want/need stability. Seems to me it’s just basic capitalism?

Very true. Just hard to figure out how a company ends up having to let go of over half their staff. Horrible deal for those being let go. You are right it’s there choice to work at those companies. The only issue would be at a lower level… how would you know what’s taking place at the company. I believe I work at a pretty stable company….but you just never know.

 

[Freedom]

Punishing poorly run companies for being run poorly? More government involvement? Not following the logic here

 

[Fester]

Punishing poorly run companies for being run poorly? More government involvement? Not following the logic here

Who determines it’s poorly run? An example GM that was bailed out by the Govt and I am no way saying these tech companies should be. My point is the people making these decisions can cost tax payers big time in the long run. Is there anything that can be done to stop some of these issues where the CEO makes millions off of poorly run companies. Should the boards implement contracts that pull money from them etc. that would not require govt intervention. It’s amazing that people jump to govt intervention right away. The question was holding execs responsible for something we the tax payer may end up paying for in the long run.

 

[Freedom]

Who determines it’s poorly run? An example GM that was bailed out by the Govt and I am no way saying these tech companies should be. My point is the people making these decisions can cost tax payers big time in the long run. Is there anything that can be done to stop some of these issues where the CEO makes millions off of poorly run companies. Should the boards implement contracts that pull money from them etc. that would not require govt intervention. It’s amazing that people jump to govt intervention right away. The question was holding execs responsible for something we the tax payer may end up paying for in the long run.

So a business punishing itself? I understand what you are trying to get at but there's little to no means unless you want more government involvement

 

[Fester]

So a business punishing itself? I understand what you are trying to get at but there's little to no means unless you want more government involvement

I don’t know what the answer is. I just hate seeing these CEO’s leaving a company they ran into the ground with millions and no repercussions while the tax payers having to pay for it in one way or another.

 

[Zogman]

So if they can do the same jobs with less employees is that bad? Everywhere I look there are non productives employees/bureaucrats.

 

[Petras]

I don’t know what the answer is. I just hate seeing these CEO’s leaving a company they ran into the ground with millions and no repercussions while the tax payers having to pay for it in one way or another.

The repercussion for these CEOs is that they got fired... the ones with Twitter, shitcanned.... that doesn't look good on a resume... Do they care? probably not cuz they were paid out due to the employment contracts they had with their former employers.

As far as letting these people go costing taxpayers money, I assume your referring to unemployment? If not please explain.

Privately owned and operated businesses are just that, PRIVATE. They can operate however they want. If Elon Musk thinks Twitter will be better off shitcanning everyone from the top down and then starting fresh with new hires, thats his business. If he wants to shut the doors and burn the whole damned thing down to the ground, he can...

 

[SDMF]

I don’t know what the answer is. I just hate seeing these CEO’s leaving a company they ran into the ground with millions and no repercussions while the tax payers having to pay for it in one way or another.

Mandatory separation of a company's executives and the BOD's might help a little. If nothing else, not allowing a CEO to also be on, much less Chairman, of the BOD could be a step in the right direction.

Lack of oversight/accountability from executive leaderships is the one downside I see resulting from 401K/403b/IRA accounts invested in the stock market. The ownership pool becomes so diffuse that there's no counterbalance/opposition voice. Couple that with the BOD "crossbreeding" and there's just very little accountability to anyone.

 

[Fester]

The repercussion for these CEOs is that they got fired... the ones with Twitter, shitcanned.... that doesn't look good on a resume... Do they care? probably not cuz they were paid out due to the employment contracts they had with their former employers.

As far as letting these people go costing taxpayers money, I assume your referring to unemployment? If not please explain.

Privately owned and operated businesses are just that, PRIVATE. They can operate however they want. If Elon Musk thinks Twitter will be better off shitcanning everyone from the top down and then starting fresh with new hires, thats his business. If he wants to shut the doors and burn the whole damned thing down to the ground, he can...

More than likely it will not just be unemployment. There are probably a number that will be on food stamps, welfare etc. which will effect the tax payer.

 

[Petras]

More than likely it will not just be unemployment. There are probably a number that will be on food stamps, welfare etc. which will effect the tax payer.

So are you saying that the owner of a company shouldn't fire a shitty employee just because they might be a draw on the system?

I get it that it's messed up that a shitty ceo can be fired and still get the money they were promised in their employment contractor. In the case of Twitter, that's not Elon Musk's fault. Those guys being fired apparently had very favorably contracts with Twitter that guaranteed them X amount of dollars regardless of whether or not they completed out the terms of the contract or were fired. Blame that on the previous owners....

The fact of the matter is that all those lower level employees will be able to find new jobs, if they want to... Will their new jobs be as cushy as the Twitter or Meta jobs they had? Probably not... I've seen some videos posted on youtube by twitter employees showcasing a "typical day at work" and I gotta say, I'd have fired every last one of them. The way that craphole was being run looked like it was basically a 2 hours of work, 6 hours of dayspa relaxation "workday" for those folks.

There are plenty of jobs out there for the lower level folks to go work. Tech is the way of the future... If they are worth their salt at all, it should be easy to find new employment.

 

[Fester]

So are you saying that the owner of a company shouldn't fire a shitty employee just because they might be a draw on the system?

I get it that it's messed up that a shitty ceo can be fired and still get the money they were promised in their employment contractor. In the case of Twitter, that's not Elon Musk's fault. Those guys being fired apparently had very favorably contracts with Twitter that guaranteed them X amount of dollars regardless of whether or not they completed out the terms of the contract or were fired. Blame that on the previous owners....

The fact of the matter is that all those lower level employees will be able to find new jobs, if they want to... Will their new jobs be as cushy as the Twitter or Meta jobs they had? Probably not... I've seen some videos posted on youtube by twitter employees showcasing a "typical day at work" and I gotta say, I'd have fired every last one of them. The way that craphole was being run looked like it was basically a 2 hours of work, 6 hours of dayspa relaxation "workday" for those folks.

There are plenty of jobs out there for the lower level folks to go work. Tech is the way of the future... If they are worth their salt at all, it should be easy to find new employment.

Well that was twisted a little. A singular employee or a few fo that matter being fired because they are a shit worker is different then 11,000 people that were just laid off by Facebook. If your a bad employee and you are fired to dam bad become a better employee. The question was in regards to mass layoff due to a shit CEO. I for one don’t think the average joe should have to pay for it, which we will.

 

[SDMF]

Well that was twisted a little. A singular employee or a few fo that matter being fired because they are a shit worker is different then 11,000 people that were just laid off by Facebook. If your a bad employee and you are fired to dam bad become a better employee. The question was in regards to mass layoff due to a shit CEO. I for one don’t think the average joe should have to pay for it, which we will.

If an employee can't see a 75% stock price drop as a warning sign for serious contraction and that they should be looking elsewhere then it's pretty much their own fault.

 

[Fester]

If an employee can't see a 75% stock price drop as a warning sign for serious contraction and that they should be looking elsewhere then it's pretty much their own fault.

Right I agree. The problem lies with us the tax payer ending up paying for this.

 

[johnr]

Most folks are not going to be living off of unemployment, the employer and the employee paid into that system for this very reason, it runs out eventually, most typically the person drawing it will find gainful employment long prior to the benefits ending.
Food stamps, and other assistance programs are likely not going to go to these folks either, or at least for a long period, however if they do, we all pay into this for the sake of one day maybe needing it.

I understand what you are saying, however big companies laying off staff is a daily thing here in western ND. The patch is hiring and firing on a constant basis.

Collecting on a benefit you have been paying in to is okay in my mind. Never thankfully had to use it, hope to never use it, but glad its there.

 

[DakotaGreg]

Who determines it’s poorly run? An example GM that was bailed out by the Govt and I am no way saying these tech companies should be. My point is the people making these decisions can cost tax payers big time in the long run. Is there anything that can be done to stop some of these issues where the CEO makes millions off of poorly run companies. Should the boards implement contracts that pull money from them etc. that would not require govt intervention. It’s amazing that people jump to govt intervention right away. The question was holding execs responsible for something we the tax payer may end up paying for in the long run.

The consumers decide if its poorly run by voting with their wallet. No company should be funded by taxes to even cause such a societal issue.

Not that it matters, but funding companies is not a delegated power of the tenth amendment.

 

[Zogman]

I think this fits here. These giant Tech companies are dumping these out into the real world.
3 1/2 minutes.

 

[Shane H]

Just like the old Twitter told the keystone workers.
You can always get a job in the green energy.
Carma's a bitch.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I think this would have been much more gradual, but it is likely they were holding out until after the midterms. Politically motivated to make things look good for a few months then boom they have to dump even more to survive.