17 ms·

This is probably the best you can hope for in terms of fairness right now. You'll never see executives put themselves financially in the same situation as the l

This is probably the best you can hope for in terms of fairness right now. You'll never see executives put themselves financially in the same situation as the lowest level people they are letting go. This is actually a pretty big step, but the move will need some benefit to the company for it to become more common-place. They might roll these bonuses into subsequent bonuses, but that may actually end up being a motivator if these bonuses are truly forfeit until things are improved by the executives.

HollywoodZro 4y ago
The big thing would be for Mr. Yuan to forgo his equity grant for FY23 and also take his equity grant from FY22 and distribute that as severance for the employees who lives are impacted negatively due to the decisions of executives in the organization. That truly means "taking ownership" of what happened. The individuals leaving were not the ones who hired or authorized the hires without the evaluation of long-term viability for the organization. They were just doing their jobs.
- jo6gwb 4y ago
  I think the reason we don't see other CEOs acting like Mr. Yuan is because of this sentiment. Whatever you do, it will never be enough.
  - neon_electro 4y ago
    Perhaps "we" need to do a better job defining what "enough" is, then? So that we don't allow the goalposts to be moved. People lost their livelihoods, and in the US, their access to affordable healthcare until they figure out a new solution or get a new job.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    We tell ourselves perfect is the enemy of good and then try anyways. But it seems like they get to say, perfect is the enemy of good, so I'll give up before I start. It's this difference in character that creates greater division rather than lessening it.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > Whatever you do, it will never be enough. To be fair, it's only a pair of random internet forum posters who are complaining that this is not enough. There are plenty of people in this discussion arguing otherwise.
- lazide 4y ago
  That isn’t taking ownership, that’s falling on your sword. There is a difference.
  - orangesite 4y ago
    Falling on your sword is literally exactly what accountability used to be. …and the stakes are even higher today if you count the number of people impacted by poor decisions.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Cite? Accountability means (from every definition I’ve found!) taking responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences. Falling on one’s sword has, from what I’ve always read, has been portrayed as someone accepting too much responsibility, to the point they actually avoid dealing with the consequences of their actions and make the situation worse overall by killing themselves. After all, no need to actually work hard making amends or doing better if you’re dead, eh? And it can even make the person doing it somewhat of a martyr, even if they created the whole situation to begin with, as it can make it look like those calling for it or pushing for retribution were actually just looking for a scapegoat and the dead one is actually a victim.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I have never heard your definition. My connotation has always been ritual suicide. E.g. Seppuku in Japan, captains going down with the ship, ect. The origin of the phrase in the west stems from the roman practice of military ritual suicide following defeat. It was more a matter of honor than seeking victimhood. A captured general represented an embarrassment to the empire, provides the enemy with a hostage, and would likely be tortured to give up information. Suicide in defeat was honorable as it served the empire and denied the enemy leverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Roman_military_personnel_who_committed_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Roman_militar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorinus_(died_53_BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorinus_(died_53_BC) https://www.jstor.org/stable/43830420 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43830420
- fatnoah 4y ago
  They haven't released 2022 financials, but for 2021 base + bonus for Mr. Yuan was about $313,000 and he received ~8400 RSUs (about $670k at today's price), which fully vest on April 8. Additionally, it looks like he received an RSU grant of 612,000 shares on July 8, that vest quarterly over 4 years. So, for those keeping track, Mr. Yuan is giving up about $300k in cash, but still receiving about $13M in stock. That's a 2.3% level of "accountability".
  - nazka 4y ago
    Wow ok.. Your comment should be on the first node all the way up. That’s really different from what I was imagining!
    - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      I feel like this is a weird comment. There has basically never been a CEO taking meaningful accountability for a company failing. Taking a reasonable chunk of one's wealth and giving it to fired employees is actually remarkable, even if it's not as large as it could be
      - nickff 4y ago
        Laying off employees is not 'the company failing'; he reports to investors, not employees. The employees have very little on the line with respect to the company.
        SQueeeeeL 4y ago
        Damn, whoever made a comment has probably has never had a job that's genuinely engaged them (and certainly has never been unexpectedly laid off). What a sad reality most people's jobs are :(
        lrvick 4y ago
        Working for someone else's company means you are a tool to generate profit. That does not mean you cannot enjoy it, and your team, and even make some friends. Still it is vital to understand the business itself is not a family. Companies that pretend to be families seek to build stockholm syndrome which will make you unwilling to look for a better deal for your talent. It also makes it hurt more when you are laid off and the illusion is broken. You only ever work for yourself. A single employer means you have a single client. It also means you only have one source of income. That is always risky, because work done for others is always temporary. Honestly full time employment is way way -more- risky than being an independent contractor with a few small predictable retainer contracts. Also key to remember is that no matter how rewarding and interesting the work is you will eventually lose access to that too unless you fought hard enough for it to be open source.
stronglikedan 4y ago
> executives put themselves financially in the same situation as the lowest level people they are letting go Except, lately anyway, those people were probably already living close to paycheck-to-paycheck, as many low six figure earners are in this horrible economy. Whereas, the CEO and other execs will likely not even miss the money.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> probably the best you can hope for The cynic in me suspects that this is going to trickle down - there will be 20% salary reductions for everybody, and this will become a trend just like the layoffs did.
speby 4y ago
Seriously? What 'fairness' exactly is it people want when companies do layoffs? "Hey, we are laying off 3,000 people. Because of that, I am firing myself and the company will no longer have a CEO and will have to find someone else, starting immediately. In addition, I plan to donate all of my life's savings and file for unemployment like everyone else and, if needed, live in my van down by the river. I hope this makes everyone feel vindicated and that the scales of justice remain balanced. God Bless."
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  zoom is profitable despite layoffs. workers want some of that profit rather than a layoff, contracts be damned.
- memonkey 4y ago
  Who is saying that?
  - riceart 4y ago
    Implied in the second sentence of the comment being replied to.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  "Because of that, I am firing myself" A team does terrible for awhile -- should the coach be removed? A company does terrible -- should the CEO be removed? This is what accountability means. Just this year I was hired by a Board Of Directors, of a startup with 150 people, to do an evaluation of the technology and code, and I found epic levels of tech debt and irresponsible decision making. When I gave my report to the Board Of Directors, the Board responded by firing both the CTO and the CEO. This seems normal to me.
  - frellus 4y ago
    That seems like the call of the board, no? Certainly, CEOs at any substantial level are accountable to a group of people. Everyone answers to someone.
flappyeagle 4y ago
The best you can hope for is for the CEO to have his incentives aligned fully with the company. Given his enormous ownership stake, that's already true. This is a rounding error compared to the billions of book value he lost and the billions he still retains. Any CEO in his position is accountable by default. They lose a literal fortune when the company doesn't perform. This meme of "but how are you taking accountability" confuses the heck out of me given this context.

HollywoodZro 4y ago

The big thing would be for Mr. Yuan to forgo his equity grant for FY23 and also take his equity grant from FY22 and distribute that as severance for the employees who lives are impacted negatively due to the decisions of executives in the organization. That truly means "taking ownership" of what happened. The individuals leaving were not the ones who hired or authorized the hires without the evaluation of long-term viability for the organization. They were just doing their jobs.

jo6gwb 4y ago
I think the reason we don't see other CEOs acting like Mr. Yuan is because of this sentiment. Whatever you do, it will never be enough.
- neon_electro 4y ago
  Perhaps "we" need to do a better job defining what "enough" is, then? So that we don't allow the goalposts to be moved. People lost their livelihoods, and in the US, their access to affordable healthcare until they figure out a new solution or get a new job.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  We tell ourselves perfect is the enemy of good and then try anyways. But it seems like they get to say, perfect is the enemy of good, so I'll give up before I start. It's this difference in character that creates greater division rather than lessening it.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Whatever you do, it will never be enough. To be fair, it's only a pair of random internet forum posters who are complaining that this is not enough. There are plenty of people in this discussion arguing otherwise.
lazide 4y ago
That isn’t taking ownership, that’s falling on your sword. There is a difference.
- orangesite 4y ago
  Falling on your sword is literally exactly what accountability used to be. …and the stakes are even higher today if you count the number of people impacted by poor decisions.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Cite? Accountability means (from every definition I’ve found!) taking responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences. Falling on one’s sword has, from what I’ve always read, has been portrayed as someone accepting too much responsibility, to the point they actually avoid dealing with the consequences of their actions and make the situation worse overall by killing themselves. After all, no need to actually work hard making amends or doing better if you’re dead, eh? And it can even make the person doing it somewhat of a martyr, even if they created the whole situation to begin with, as it can make it look like those calling for it or pushing for retribution were actually just looking for a scapegoat and the dead one is actually a victim.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I have never heard your definition. My connotation has always been ritual suicide. E.g. Seppuku in Japan, captains going down with the ship, ect. The origin of the phrase in the west stems from the roman practice of military ritual suicide following defeat. It was more a matter of honor than seeking victimhood. A captured general represented an embarrassment to the empire, provides the enemy with a hostage, and would likely be tortured to give up information. Suicide in defeat was honorable as it served the empire and denied the enemy leverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Roman_military_personnel_who_committed_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Roman_militar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorinus_(died_53_BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorinus_(died_53_BC) https://www.jstor.org/stable/43830420 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43830420
fatnoah 4y ago
They haven't released 2022 financials, but for 2021 base + bonus for Mr. Yuan was about $313,000 and he received ~8400 RSUs (about $670k at today's price), which fully vest on April 8. Additionally, it looks like he received an RSU grant of 612,000 shares on July 8, that vest quarterly over 4 years. So, for those keeping track, Mr. Yuan is giving up about $300k in cash, but still receiving about $13M in stock. That's a 2.3% level of "accountability".
- nazka 4y ago
  Wow ok.. Your comment should be on the first node all the way up. That’s really different from what I was imagining!
  - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
    I feel like this is a weird comment. There has basically never been a CEO taking meaningful accountability for a company failing. Taking a reasonable chunk of one's wealth and giving it to fired employees is actually remarkable, even if it's not as large as it could be
    - nickff 4y ago
      Laying off employees is not 'the company failing'; he reports to investors, not employees. The employees have very little on the line with respect to the company.
      - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
        Damn, whoever made a comment has probably has never had a job that's genuinely engaged them (and certainly has never been unexpectedly laid off). What a sad reality most people's jobs are :(
        lrvick 4y ago
        Working for someone else's company means you are a tool to generate profit. That does not mean you cannot enjoy it, and your team, and even make some friends. Still it is vital to understand the business itself is not a family. Companies that pretend to be families seek to build stockholm syndrome which will make you unwilling to look for a better deal for your talent. It also makes it hurt more when you are laid off and the illusion is broken. You only ever work for yourself. A single employer means you have a single client. It also means you only have one source of income. That is always risky, because work done for others is always temporary. Honestly full time employment is way way -more- risky than being an independent contractor with a few small predictable retainer contracts. Also key to remember is that no matter how rewarding and interesting the work is you will eventually lose access to that too unless you fought hard enough for it to be open source.

stronglikedan 4y ago

> executives put themselves financially in the same situation as the lowest level people they are letting go Except, lately anyway, those people were probably already living close to paycheck-to-paycheck, as many low six figure earners are in this horrible economy. Whereas, the CEO and other execs will likely not even miss the money.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> probably the best you can hope for The cynic in me suspects that this is going to trickle down - there will be 20% salary reductions for everybody, and this will become a trend just like the layoffs did.

speby 4y ago

Seriously? What 'fairness' exactly is it people want when companies do layoffs? "Hey, we are laying off 3,000 people. Because of that, I am firing myself and the company will no longer have a CEO and will have to find someone else, starting immediately. In addition, I plan to donate all of my life's savings and file for unemployment like everyone else and, if needed, live in my van down by the river. I hope this makes everyone feel vindicated and that the scales of justice remain balanced. God Bless."

wahnfrieden 4y ago
zoom is profitable despite layoffs. workers want some of that profit rather than a layoff, contracts be damned.
memonkey 4y ago
Who is saying that?
- riceart 4y ago
  Implied in the second sentence of the comment being replied to.
lkrubner 4y ago
"Because of that, I am firing myself" A team does terrible for awhile -- should the coach be removed? A company does terrible -- should the CEO be removed? This is what accountability means. Just this year I was hired by a Board Of Directors, of a startup with 150 people, to do an evaluation of the technology and code, and I found epic levels of tech debt and irresponsible decision making. When I gave my report to the Board Of Directors, the Board responded by firing both the CTO and the CEO. This seems normal to me.
- frellus 4y ago
  That seems like the call of the board, no? Certainly, CEOs at any substantial level are accountable to a group of people. Everyone answers to someone.

flappyeagle 4y ago

The best you can hope for is for the CEO to have his incentives aligned fully with the company. Given his enormous ownership stake, that's already true. This is a rounding error compared to the billions of book value he lost and the billions he still retains. Any CEO in his position is accountable by default. They lose a literal fortune when the company doesn't perform. This meme of "but how are you taking accountability" confuses the heck out of me given this context.