4 ms·

What do you suggest then? They carry the employees even though it is no longer economically viable?

• marcamillion 16y ago
  Not in the least. I think Jason did the fiscally prudent thing. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders to respond in the way he did. Very tough call, but no doubt the necessary call to make, if he wants to turn Mahalo into a going concern. I suggest that he doesn't go around bragging about how he only wants 'winners' and he expects everybody to give 80 hour weeks and all that non-sense. Giving someone free food, and a 'free chef', doesn't make up for demanding 80-hour weeks no matter what they tell you. I think he should just shut up, and set an example through deeds - because at the end of the day, 10% of the staff can (and should) get cut when revenue tanks. Acting like it won't happen and they will have a big payday if the company gets bought or goes public is disingenuous at best, and deceitful/fraudulent at worst. That being said, I don't think he should discourage people from working that long - on the occasion when they have a deadline to hit or something. But just be more responsible with the rhetoric, is all I am saying. These are people with families that are likely depending on their livelihood.
  • throwit3211 16y ago
    And a lot of them are probably Gen Y people who, had this been a different company, upon applying to Mahalo would be discriminated against. Left their job in a year? Oh they were laid off? Well, in Calacanis' book they were the laziest, most selfish 10% of employees - they deserved it! Hopefully too many other businesses don't buy into that nonsense.