3 ms·
On one hand, that’s shitty and shows how much loyalty corporations typically have to their people (zero). On the other, they were associated with a flip, and c
by electric_mayhem 3y ago
On one hand, that’s shitty and shows how much loyalty corporations typically have to their people (zero).
On the other, they were associated with a flip, and corps are known to be all about $ and ‘what have you done for me lately’.
On a third hand, because why not, job security is being able to find another job and with their track record of saving the day in a big way and operating at that level for twenty years, they’re hopefully already pretty set and if they want to keep working should have little trouble finding a new team who’d be excited to have them.
Which isn’t in any way to diminish how much it sucks. Wish them the best.
- atonse 3y agoI mean she worked for Pixar for an additional 20 years after that incident, right? (not counting who knows how many years she worked for Pixar before the incident) There doesn't seem to be any correlation with that concept of loyalty here – it is absolutely unfortunate, but if they are laying people off because the numbers aren't making sense, unfortunately, they would be focusing on the mix of people they need moving forward, regardless of loyalty. Both things could be true, they likely had a great symbiotic relationship (20 years after the incident, who knows how many years before, for people at the talent level of working on Pixar movies, they could leave and work anywhere else, but they chose to stay at Pixar for a reason), AND this person's position just didn't make it when determining how to make cuts. It's just an unfortunate situation but seems to not really line up cleanly with the "was this loyalty" question.