5 ms·

I wish CEOs would resign when layoffs happen. It should be like some governments where the whole cabinet resigns. If layoffs are a necessity, then the CEO and t

I wish CEOs would resign when layoffs happen. It should be like some governments where the whole cabinet resigns. If layoffs are a necessity, then the CEO and the top management should show the example and take responsibility for taking the company into the wrong direction, leading to layoffs. That would be fair and more understable than a "thank you for your hard work and commitment".

guax 3y ago
Jack Welch school of business made students for eternity. The first to pay will always be the employees.
danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Business decisions are difficult. If the result of everyone that didn't pan out was "you are fired", no one would take any risk, decisions would take forever. It's so hard to fire people in France, that some large companies simply have a policy of "no france office".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ep103 3y ago
  And yet companies are founded every day in France, and their economy is doing just fine. If a business cannot afford to do business in a country, then that business should not be allowed to do business in that country.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    Nope. The french economy been flatlining for 15 years: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location... US GDP per person is now 50% higher than france: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ It wasn't like that 15 years ago. There doesn't need to be another rule. The existing rules are doing just fine keeping companies out.
    - alfnor 3y ago
      France's debt-to-GDP is lower though.
      - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
        Maybe they should try spending a little more. Whatever they are doing now isn't working.
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
Wouldn't this result in CEO's never doing a layoff or admitting the business needs one?
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Almost every suggestion to help employees doesn't consider the second order effects.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Well said, that's probably a better way of framing my concern.
expazl 3y ago
That's like demanding that anytime a F1 driver takes a pit stop he should be fired. Obviously the pit stop itself doesn't improve the time, and he's just sitting still. Imagine if a driver was sitting still after the race started!? Layoffs are not desirable for a company, but sometimes they are required. The fact that a CEO decides to go with layoffs when it's the right thing to do shouldn't be seen as a failure of the CEO. It's the pit stop that keeps the company from exploding if you just ignore all financial health markers and keep everyone employed until the money runs dry and you have to gut the business and sell of part to cover the bankruptcy.
- ttymck 3y ago
  That has to be one of the least applicable analogies. Laying off 1/5 of staff is not a "pit stop" to refuel. It's an admission of staggering mismanagement.
HereBeBeasties 3y ago
Lay-offs aren't necessarily a sign of failure or bad strategy, so your logic does not compute. Lay-offs happen for all sorts of reasons. It may be very reasonable to have X number of people one year, but changed market conditions, or financing rates, or whatever else mean it no longer does the next year. People don't have magic crystal balls. But even if they did, it may still make sense to hire people while financing such a thing is cheap, and to lay those same people off when it isn't any more. Make hay while the sun shines, and all that. You may not like the fact, but getting rid of poor performers makes businesses stronger and better. Rounds of lay-offs undeniably make such decisions easier to make and justify in large companies. CEOs who do the same (or more) with fewer resources are generally rewarded. As a shareholder in the company you'd want them to do more with less and make you more value, right? You might as well argue that any CEO who needs to hire more people has failed. That sounds obviously silly, but it's genuinely an almost equivalent argument. All of this may not be pleasant for those involved and especially those who are losing their jobs, but that's capitalism for you. Big business doesn't tend to optimise for people's feelings - it cares more about the bottom line and being competitive. In this case there is an obvious and pressing need. The streaming music scene may be a tremendously complex place to operate a business in, with all it's licensing and labels and countless jurisdictions and legal complexities, but both Apple and Google are sitting there ready to eat Spotify's lunch if they can't figure out profitability.

guax 3y ago

Jack Welch school of business made students for eternity. The first to pay will always be the employees.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago

Business decisions are difficult. If the result of everyone that didn't pan out was "you are fired", no one would take any risk, decisions would take forever. It's so hard to fire people in France, that some large companies simply have a policy of "no france office".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ep103 3y ago
And yet companies are founded every day in France, and their economy is doing just fine. If a business cannot afford to do business in a country, then that business should not be allowed to do business in that country.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Nope. The french economy been flatlining for 15 years: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location... US GDP per person is now 50% higher than france: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/ It wasn't like that 15 years ago. There doesn't need to be another rule. The existing rules are doing just fine keeping companies out.
  - alfnor 3y ago
    France's debt-to-GDP is lower though.
    - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      Maybe they should try spending a little more. Whatever they are doing now isn't working.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago

Wouldn't this result in CEO's never doing a layoff or admitting the business needs one?

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Almost every suggestion to help employees doesn't consider the second order effects.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Well said, that's probably a better way of framing my concern.

expazl 3y ago

That's like demanding that anytime a F1 driver takes a pit stop he should be fired. Obviously the pit stop itself doesn't improve the time, and he's just sitting still. Imagine if a driver was sitting still after the race started!? Layoffs are not desirable for a company, but sometimes they are required. The fact that a CEO decides to go with layoffs when it's the right thing to do shouldn't be seen as a failure of the CEO. It's the pit stop that keeps the company from exploding if you just ignore all financial health markers and keep everyone employed until the money runs dry and you have to gut the business and sell of part to cover the bankruptcy.

ttymck 3y ago
That has to be one of the least applicable analogies. Laying off 1/5 of staff is not a "pit stop" to refuel. It's an admission of staggering mismanagement.

HereBeBeasties 3y ago

Lay-offs aren't necessarily a sign of failure or bad strategy, so your logic does not compute. Lay-offs happen for all sorts of reasons. It may be very reasonable to have X number of people one year, but changed market conditions, or financing rates, or whatever else mean it no longer does the next year. People don't have magic crystal balls. But even if they did, it may still make sense to hire people while financing such a thing is cheap, and to lay those same people off when it isn't any more. Make hay while the sun shines, and all that. You may not like the fact, but getting rid of poor performers makes businesses stronger and better. Rounds of lay-offs undeniably make such decisions easier to make and justify in large companies. CEOs who do the same (or more) with fewer resources are generally rewarded. As a shareholder in the company you'd want them to do more with less and make you more value, right? You might as well argue that any CEO who needs to hire more people has failed. That sounds obviously silly, but it's genuinely an almost equivalent argument. All of this may not be pleasant for those involved and especially those who are losing their jobs, but that's capitalism for you. Big business doesn't tend to optimise for people's feelings - it cares more about the bottom line and being competitive. In this case there is an obvious and pressing need. The streaming music scene may be a tremendously complex place to operate a business in, with all it's licensing and labels and countless jurisdictions and legal complexities, but both Apple and Google are sitting there ready to eat Spotify's lunch if they can't figure out profitability.