3 ms·

Hell, they’d probably be easier and less expensive to reassign than to hire anew for other roles because they’re already on the payroll, aware of policies, have

Hell, they’d probably be easier and less expensive to reassign than to hire anew for other roles because they’re already on the payroll, aware of policies, have their access provisioned, vetted for trustworthiness, etc.

credit_guy 2y ago
And you think those CEO's are not aware of that? Maybe we should invite them to read hacker news. Sometimes you can reshuffle people inside a company and find jobs where they are more productive. But sometimes you can't. The OP did not care about these distinctions. If a CEO fires people, he should get a pay cut.
- eschaton 2y ago
  The behavior of many CEOs engaging in mass layoffs certainly doesn’t demonstrate that they’re aware of it. That’s why requiring massive CEO pay cuts when they engage in mass layoffs would be a good thing. It would help remind them that layoffs are a failure and the buck stops with them.
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  They're aware of it but importantly, they don't care.
  - credit_guy 2y ago
    First of all, they shouldn't care. But second, they do care. Even if they shouldn't. I was laid off 2 years ago. I was given all the opportunities to find another internal job. I send my resume to a number of managers. I didn't hear back. Why? Because the CEO told the managers to ignore me? I doubt that. The managers, knowing about all the likely advantages of internal hires (I was familiar with the infrastructure, with the culture, I had a network, etc) decided to not hire me. The company went out of its way to improve my experience. They know it's not fun for people to be laid off, so they did the best they could to soften the blow. I was paid for 4 months, and I was officially still on the pay-roll for 3 months (i.e. I was still covered by the health insurance, I did not need to get COBRA). I received free coaching from a consulting company, to assist me with improving my resume and interviewing skills. The company pays for former laid-off employees to come and tell their story to the freshly laid-off. The company even continued to match my 401k for the 3 months I was not working, but officially still on the payroll. My experience was very positive. Of course, I can't generalize, I'm sure other people felt differently. But here I am. A guy who had gone through the experience of being laid off, and who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company. Again let's be clear, no one's saying CEOs don't have the right to lay off people. You're arguing against a strawman. Even the article doesn't say that. It says the CEO should not personally benefit financially immediately after a layoff. It's a clear conflict of interest. Not just with other employees but, more importantly, with other shareholders. Do you believe in good corporate governance, free of corruption and self-dealing? CEOs in particular must always act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, even when it's contrary to their own interests. This is one such example. The type of person who won't lay people off when it's necessary solely because they'll lose their bonus, is fundamentally a bad CEO. You don't ever want that person in charge. A company that would appoint that kind of person deserves to fail.
      - eschaton 2y ago
        I’ll go ahead and say it then: The CEO shouldn’t have the right to arbitrarily lay off people. They should have to go through substantial formal procedures to do so, much more than the United States makes them go through now. Furthermore, _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision at either a federal or state level, and we need to stop treating it as such—and we need to stop treating it as morally correct, too, since it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way.
        triceratops 2y ago
        > _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision AFAICT it wasn't any kind of decision. Are you thinking of Dodge v Ford? > it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way Dodge v Ford held that companies are run for the benefit of shareholders. Future court decisions further clarified that "benefit" isn't the same as profit. As I wrote in this comment 8 months ago: > The Supreme Court said as recently as 2016: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not...More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452
- triceratops 2y ago
  > The OP did not care about these distinctions. If a CEO fires people, he should get a pay cut. If the CEO fires more than 5% of the people. If a business needs to move some people around or eliminate a handful of jobs sometimes, it's no big deal. Beyond a certain threshold, it becomes a big deal. It means the company has missed the boat on something, or the economy has turned, or something else equally bad. Whatever the reason, it means the company needs to reduce expenses and everyone who is still at the company needs to work harder, with redoubled vigor, so that the company can get back on track. This is exactly the worst time to give the CEO outsize rewards both financially, and due to what it does to everyone else's morale. Instead freeze all C-suite pay increases, eliminate their bonus, no new stock grants, and no selling stock they already own for at least a year. If their efforts work out that stock will be worth even more later. If they don't, can they argue that it was unfair?

credit_guy 2y ago

And you think those CEO's are not aware of that? Maybe we should invite them to read hacker news. Sometimes you can reshuffle people inside a company and find jobs where they are more productive. But sometimes you can't. The OP did not care about these distinctions. If a CEO fires people, he should get a pay cut.

eschaton 2y ago
The behavior of many CEOs engaging in mass layoffs certainly doesn’t demonstrate that they’re aware of it. That’s why requiring massive CEO pay cuts when they engage in mass layoffs would be a good thing. It would help remind them that layoffs are a failure and the buck stops with them.
bigfatkitten 2y ago
They're aware of it but importantly, they don't care.
- credit_guy 2y ago
  First of all, they shouldn't care. But second, they do care. Even if they shouldn't. I was laid off 2 years ago. I was given all the opportunities to find another internal job. I send my resume to a number of managers. I didn't hear back. Why? Because the CEO told the managers to ignore me? I doubt that. The managers, knowing about all the likely advantages of internal hires (I was familiar with the infrastructure, with the culture, I had a network, etc) decided to not hire me. The company went out of its way to improve my experience. They know it's not fun for people to be laid off, so they did the best they could to soften the blow. I was paid for 4 months, and I was officially still on the pay-roll for 3 months (i.e. I was still covered by the health insurance, I did not need to get COBRA). I received free coaching from a consulting company, to assist me with improving my resume and interviewing skills. The company pays for former laid-off employees to come and tell their story to the freshly laid-off. The company even continued to match my 401k for the 3 months I was not working, but officially still on the payroll. My experience was very positive. Of course, I can't generalize, I'm sure other people felt differently. But here I am. A guy who had gone through the experience of being laid off, and who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > who defends the rights of CEO's to lay off people, if that's in the best interest of their company. Again let's be clear, no one's saying CEOs don't have the right to lay off people. You're arguing against a strawman. Even the article doesn't say that. It says the CEO should not personally benefit financially immediately after a layoff. It's a clear conflict of interest. Not just with other employees but, more importantly, with other shareholders. Do you believe in good corporate governance, free of corruption and self-dealing? CEOs in particular must always act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, even when it's contrary to their own interests. This is one such example. The type of person who won't lay people off when it's necessary solely because they'll lose their bonus, is fundamentally a bad CEO. You don't ever want that person in charge. A company that would appoint that kind of person deserves to fail.
    - eschaton 2y ago
      I’ll go ahead and say it then: The CEO shouldn’t have the right to arbitrarily lay off people. They should have to go through substantial formal procedures to do so, much more than the United States makes them go through now. Furthermore, _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision at either a federal or state level, and we need to stop treating it as such—and we need to stop treating it as morally correct, too, since it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > _Chrysler v Ford_ was not actually a precedential legal decision AFAICT it wasn't any kind of decision. Are you thinking of Dodge v Ford? > it’s not morally correct to put profit-seeking above all other concerns in any way Dodge v Ford held that companies are run for the benefit of shareholders. Future court decisions further clarified that "benefit" isn't the same as profit. As I wrote in this comment 8 months ago: > The Supreme Court said as recently as 2016: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not...More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39643452
triceratops 2y ago
> The OP did not care about these distinctions. If a CEO fires people, he should get a pay cut. If the CEO fires more than 5% of the people. If a business needs to move some people around or eliminate a handful of jobs sometimes, it's no big deal. Beyond a certain threshold, it becomes a big deal. It means the company has missed the boat on something, or the economy has turned, or something else equally bad. Whatever the reason, it means the company needs to reduce expenses and everyone who is still at the company needs to work harder, with redoubled vigor, so that the company can get back on track. This is exactly the worst time to give the CEO outsize rewards both financially, and due to what it does to everyone else's morale. Instead freeze all C-suite pay increases, eliminate their bonus, no new stock grants, and no selling stock they already own for at least a year. If their efforts work out that stock will be worth even more later. If they don't, can they argue that it was unfair?