4 ms·
On shareholder money? No thank you. If 1 person can do the job, why keep 2?
by PunchTornado 8mo ago
On shareholder money? No thank you. If 1 person can do the job, why keep 2?
- itake 8mo agoIf there are growth opportunities for the company, selectively choosing the top 90% YoY, minimizing backfills (in theory...) will result in a company full of high achievers that can execute on that growth vision. If the company is shifting into maintenance mode, cutting 40% of the staff is the right move, but definitely hurts shareholders b/c they valued the company as growth, not maintenance.
- agnishom 8mo agoI am just saying that the decision was not some kind of inevitable result of forces beyond their control. They just made a business decision to line their pockets better.
- pixelatedindex 8mo agoSometimes I feel like “shareholder first” mentality has gone a bit too far. Most of the majority shareholders are a handful of people who have too much money, they don’t really put in any work, but are more than happy to put people out of work if it meant they’d get a bit more money.
- RealityVoid 8mo agoIf you're a healthy company that is growing, you could do 2x as much stuff!
- wiseowise 8mo agoShareholders didn’t complain when those workers inflated their obscene capitals.
- ruszki 8mo agoBecause in such adversarial environments, your best employees leave, and quickly. And those people worth way more than half of your workforce.