• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The CEOs are at it again:

https://kotaku.com/activision-blizzard-begins-massive-layoffs-1832571288
On the earnings call, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick told investors that the company had "once again achieved record results in 2018" but that the company would be consolidating and restructuring because of missed expectations for 2018 and lowered expectations for 2019. The company said it would be cutting mainly non-game-development departments and bolstering its development staff for franchises like Call of Duty and Diablo.

Spare me the "necessary cuts" bloviating.

(At least they're getting severance.)
 

Snack12367

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,191
I remember reading an interview somewhere where a CEO was asked about bonuses. His response was that refusing his bonus would have made it look like the company wasn't doing so well, so he was obligated to take it, regardless of what he thought. I remember thinking it was dumb bull, but knowing what I do now, I'm not supersized.
 

GSG

Member
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,051
Whatever the reason is(and I believe it's everything people have already posted), it should be illegal. If a company can save jobs by slashing bonuses of execs, they should be compelled to do so.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,980
The CEOs are at it again:

https://kotaku.com/activision-blizzard-begins-massive-layoffs-1832571288


Spare me the "necessary cuts" bloviating.

(At least they're getting severance.)

Once again, those record revenues are in the past, investors care about the future. Activision stock has dropped near 50% in the last 4 months. And, they've already announced they'll be operating at a loss in 2019. The cuts they made the other day are part of the fix. So yes, they were necessary to restructure Activision towards it's new business strategy.
 

BeforeU

Banned for use of alt account
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,936
taking a pay cut wouldn't solve the issue, trimming the unnecessary workforce and restructuring may.

Recently Era has just become bashing rich folks forum.
 

Dennis8K

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,161
taking a pay cut wouldn't solve the issue, trimming the unnecessary workforce and restructuring may.

Recently Era has just become bashing rich folks forum.
The CEO taking a $1 million pay cut would cover the salary of 10 workers earning $100,000.

10 people keeping their job, the CEO keeping his/her job. How about that for solidarity in rough times?
 

Winstano

Editor-in-chief at nextgenbase.com
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
1,828
The CEO taking a $1 million pay cut would cover the salary of 10 workers earning $100,000.

10 people keeping their job, the CEO keeping his/her job. How about that for solidarity in rough times?

Let's just remember as well, a worker earning $100,000 would have to work for SEVENTY THOUSAND YEARS without spending a PENNY to get to the point where they'd earned as much as Bobby Kotick's net worth.

"This forum has become a 'bashing rich folks' forum". I think it's more a "Fuck this noise, this is insanity" forum...
 

BeforeU

Banned for use of alt account
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,936
The CEO taking a $1 million pay cut would cover the salary of 10 workers earning $100,000.

10 people keeping their job, the CEO keeping his/her job. How about that for solidarity in rough times?

He is running a business not a charity, why would he pay to keep someone who the company doesn't need? CEO's compensation is related to company's performance. You are not just letting go 10 people but you are saving on lot of over head cost that comes with keeping those 10 people who you no longer need.
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,911
taking a pay cut wouldn't solve the issue, trimming the unnecessary workforce and restructuring may.

Recently Era has just become bashing rich folks forum.

Or this board heavily leans left and the dominant fiscal policy of the left wing moving forward is going to be socialism.

Fuck the rich. Fuck the logic of a system that puts 800 people's livelihoods at risk while having record profits and massive bonuses to executives that would have easily covered that salary.
 

Deleted member 9305

Oct 26, 2017
4,064
Recently Era has just become bashing rich folks forum.
RsI9t.gif
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
It's not that they need sympathy, but some people are just blindly talking out of their ass following trends while clearly having no idea what they're talking about.

And then when you clarify its just "why are you defending corporations"?

You can be mad at how Activision handled yesterday while having a basic understanding of what happened, who was fired and why.

Won't somebody think about the defenceless rich people? Must be hard having all that power and thinking up new and innovative ways to fuck over everyone else not rich.

See what I mean?
 
Last edited:

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,972
Scotland
Won't somebody think about the defenceless rich people? Must be hard having all that power and thinking up new and innovative ways to fuck over everyone else not rich.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,427
The CEO taking a $1 million pay cut would cover the salary of 10 workers earning $100,000.

10 people keeping their job, the CEO keeping his/her job. How about that for solidarity in rough times?

Except it does not work like that as an employee earning $100K costs a company more than that when including payroll taxes, general overhead and benefits. Also, if they aren't needed or generating revenue then why would you keep a liability/cost on the books?

They do sometimes. Iwata famously did following the relative failure of the 3DS early on.

"The deduction of the fixed compensation is what we volunteered to do in order to show our sincere attitude and to fulfill our responsibility"

Take Two's CEO did something similar.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,980
It's not that they need sympathy, but some people are just blindly talking out of their ass following trends while clearly having no idea what they're talking about.

And then when you clarify its just "why are you defending corporations"?

You can be mad at how Activision handled yesterday while having a basic understanding of what happened, who was fired and why.



See what I mean?

.

So much ignorance going on.
 

Vonnegut

Banned
May 27, 2018
1,082
Laying off people is considered a job duty for company executives. It's something that they are expected to do to secure a better financial and/or operational position for their company.

Executives likely don't view laying off people as a personal failure or even a business failure, but more as a rational response to the realities of a changing market.

If the changes in the market mean you no longer should employ 1,000 factory workers in, say, Detroit, should you, as an executive, take a pay cut so that you can continue to employ these factory workers, or should you do what is in the best interest of the company and lay them off?

Executives have a responsibility to their shareholders, not to the company's employees.
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
21,187
Whatever the reason is(and I believe it's everything people have already posted), it should be illegal. If a company can save jobs by slashing bonuses of execs, they should be compelled to do so.

This goes back to the taxation of the "rich" problem. So who should get their bonuses slashed? Execs? Programmers making over 100k? People who worked in successful divisions and did incredible work, justifying their bonuses, while other divisions are cut or faltered? I'm not saying that's the case at Activision (though it seems like it), but if your company had layoffs and you are above median level, are you taking a cut to save their jobs? Like taxes, that would probably save a lot more jobs. It would also mean people bolting as soon as they could in a decent job market, though.

Again with the Iwata thing, it's not just a cultural thing; in Japan, layoffs don't help your bottom line for a long, long time. It makes little sense to have massive layoffs in Japan. Cutting his salary was an awesome move and I'm not saying he wasn't a saint, but the CEO of an American company voluntarily slashing his bonus to save a handful of jobs that were on the cutting line doesn't make a ton of sense, despite the optics of the super rich. Even if the stock vested immediately AND he was allowed to sell it right away, it wouldn't be good for the company. If he just slashed his regular salary, people would still complain because his actual salary is comparatively small.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,229
IIRC Activision has projections for 2019 being far below 2018 actual revenue. So despite 2018 being a great year for them financially, they're anticipating huge losses for 2019.

Activision Blizzard expects first-quarter earnings per share of 20 cents— less than half of what Wall Street was looking for — on revenue of $1.18 billion. Refinitiv consensus estimates projected EPS of 46 cents on revenue of $1.45 billion for Q1 2019.

The company expects full-year 2019 earnings of $2.10 per share on $6.30 billion in revenue, compared with analyst estimates of earnings of $2.54 per share on $7.25 billion in revenue, according to Refinitiv.

The company's net bookings are expected to drop in 2019 to $6.30 billion, down from $7.26 billion during 2018 and $7.16 billion during 2017.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/activision-blizzard-earnings-q4-2018.html
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
He is running a business not a charity, why would he pay to keep someone who the company doesn't need? CEO's compensation is related to company's performance. You are not just letting go 10 people but you are saving on lot of over head cost that comes with keeping those 10 people who you no longer need.

The rich didn't get there by themselves. The workers are contributors. Ethically it's a really shitty thing to let go those whom help get the CEO that compensation. Business-wise workers confidence in the company will now be shaky whether it is employees that got to stay or future hires.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,427
Whatever the reason is(and I believe it's everything people have already posted), it should be illegal. If a company can save jobs by slashing bonuses of execs, they should be compelled to do so.

Why is a company obligated to keep employees on the books if they no longer need them or if the cost of keeping them on is too high to justify doing so?
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,006
All the people who keep saying Iwata took a temporary pay cut to avoid mass layoffs for his staff, I have to ask, how much was he getting paid? It's an incredible gesture unlikely to be done by any Western CEO, no doubt, but isn't it more of an apology and a gesture than an actual economic miracle to prevent mass layoffs? Unless he was being paid an outrageous amount in the first place.

Anyway, to the C-level people, the thousands of staff at the bottom are just numbers in a spreadsheet. They don't want to reward the masses too well if the company is succeeding either, in case they leave and form their own competing companies, yet they believe themselves and people at their level should be paid outrageous amounts because it's important to retain talent, like EA paying Patrick Soderlund $20M after some fuckups and before firing/pushing him out, and he's already set up a company to poach staff from DICE.
 

BeforeU

Banned for use of alt account
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,936
The rich didn't get there by themselves. The workers are contributors. Ethically it's a really shitty thing to let go those whom help get the CEO that compensation. Business-wise workers confidence in the company will now be shaky whether it is employees that got to stay or future hires.

and the workers wouldn't even have a job in the first place if the CEO didn't have a vision.
 
Oct 25, 2017
16,568
All the people who keep saying Iwata took a temporary pay cut to avoid mass layoffs for his staff, I have to ask, how much was he getting paid? It's an incredible gesture unlikely to be done by any Western CEO, no doubt, but isn't it more of an apology and a gesture than an actual economic miracle to prevent mass layoffs? Unless he was being paid an outrageous amount in the first place.
Its a completely different scenario anyway. If the jobs are dead, then the jobs are dead and it makes no sense at all to hang onto people doing things you don't need.
 

The Climaxan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,974
NC-USA
My company hit hard times last year and our higher ups took 75% pay cuts. A year later we're doing better than we ever have. And have added 30 additional employees. I felt karma paid our leadership back.

A little selflessness goes a looooong way in business.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,427
No. But our leaders aren't also making millions annually with million dollar bonuses on top. Executive pay cuts in hard times wouldn't save everyone, I'm not that naive. But they could save a large number of employees in tough times.

The more appropriate question is could they have cut staff and still survived as a company?
 

-2B-

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Sep 23, 2018
420
The company I work for had one of it's most profitable years ever last year. Out of billons in revenue we ended .02 billion short of "expectations". Layoffs are starting.

Meanwhile all the executives gave themselves massive raises last year...

The way things work is stupid and set with tons of unrealistic goals. Executives don't care because they get paid enough to last a lifetime in a short period of time.
 

The Climaxan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,974
NC-USA
The more appropriate question is could they have cut staff and still survived as a company?

They could have survived with cuts, but losing the people we had would have drastically altered our culture and work output. They valued our employee base as people vs. numbers on a sheet.

Now I understand that in large corporations leaders don't usually have a personal connection with their employees, but I also think that is part of the problem in corporate culture, those at the top can stack their money with no feeling towards those they have to step on or cut loose to reach their goals.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,427
They could have survived with cuts, but losing the people we had would have drastically altered our culture and work output. They valued our employee base as people vs. numbers on a sheet.

Now I understand that in large corporations leaders don't usually have a personal connection with their employees, but I also think that is part of the problem in corporate culture, those at the top can stack their money with no feeling towards those they have to step on or cut loose to reach their goals.

You aren't wrong. The folks at the bottom of the hierarchy are highly replaceable and that is what makes them so vulnerable. That said, I am willing to wager that there are project managers or heck even higher ups who have never met the executives at Activision, EA, Amazon, Apple etc. They are literally a number on the ledger.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I don't really care how "justified" the cuts are, I don't know why you people think you need to explain it to me.

I get it

Cuts are good for investors. Employees can get fucked as long as investors are happy. Wow, thanks for the insight. I would've never figured this out otherwise.

It's not like I care about workers more than investors or anything, and that my argument is a moral one and not a business one.

The system sucks because it makes vulnerable people replaceable and forces them to fight for scraps among themselves while enriching the rich.

Have you considered that business and shareholder happiness shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of our society's structure?

Shit, every institutional prejudice can be traced back to "good for business", you can use your much beloved "sound business strategy" to justify anything. Exploiting workers in developing countries? Good for business. Run away climate change? Good for business. Political collusion? Good for business. Housing shortage? Good for business. Predatory student loans? Good for business.
 
Last edited:

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,980
My company hit hard times last year and our higher ups took 75% pay cuts. A year later we're doing better than we ever have. And have added 30 additional employees. I felt karma paid our leadership back.

A little selflessness goes a looooong way in business.

But, were they a publicly traded corporation with their executives holding a fiduciary duty to their shareholders?
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,427
I don't really care how "justified" the cuts are, I don't know why you people think you need to explain it to me.

I get it

Cuts are good for investors. Employees can get fucked as long as investors are happy. Wow, thanks for the insight. I would've never figured this out otherwise.

It's not like I care about workers more than investors or anything, and that my argument is a moral one and not a business one.

The system sucks because it makes vulnerable people replaceable and forces them to fight for scraps among themselves while enriching the rich of the world.

Have you considered that business and shareholder happiness shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of our society's structure?\

Shit, every institutional prejudice can be traced back to "good for business", you can use your much beloved "sound business strategy" to justify anything. Exploiting workers in developing countries? Good for business. Run away climate change? Good for business. Political collusion? Good for business. Housing shortage? Good for business. Predatory student loans? Good for business.

What does this have to do with CEOs not taking a paycut?

Your point if I understand correctly is that the system sucks, corporations should stop being publicly owned and should be changed. Great, then we need to convince the masses to change it by voting for politicians that will protect their interests, change corporate laws and show a willingness not be bought by deep pocket donors. People also probably should vote to unionize, although in this instance it would have made little difference and the outcome very likely would have been the same.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
What does this have to do with CEOs not taking a paycut?

Your point if I understand correctly is that the system sucks, corporations should stop being publicly owned and should be changed. Great, then we need to convince the masses to change it by voting for politicians that will protect their interests, change corporate laws and show a willingness not be bought by deep pocket donors. People also probably should vote to unionize, although in this instance it would have made little difference and the outcome very likely would have been the same.
Because it frustrates me to no end when people argue from the point of business strategy as if all business strategy is per se justified.

You admit "we need to convince the masses to change it", well I'm trying to convince some very stubborn people that just because a business strategy is optimal in this market doesn't make it morally sound or justifiable.
 

Darknight

"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,834
Because it frustrates me to no end when people argue from the point of business strategy as if all business strategy is per se justified.

People argue about business strategy to explain why things work the way they do because some people don't understand why things function the way they do to begin with.