Always wondered this. They can actually afford to take a paycut or just don't get a 5 mil bonus that year to keep the company going and live pretty well. Why layoff people who need the money much more? Greed, Comfort of life, evil, apathy of life?
-
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.
Why don't company execs take a paycut instead of lying off employees?
- Thread starter Youngfossil
- Start date
Because most of the CEO's aren't married to where they work and could just go on to work somewhere willing to pay them a better rate. They'll never get any blame for their salary because it's accepted and normal so none are willing to work for less.
I remember Iwata lowering his own pay but that's a very rare situation.
I remember Iwata lowering his own pay but that's a very rare situation.
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"
"The deduction of the fixed compensation is what we volunteered to do in order to show our sincere attitude and to fulfill our responsibility"
Nintendo boss Satoru Iwata will cut pay in half after poor fiscal results
https://www.polygon.com/2014/1/29/5...-iwata-will-cut-pay-in-half-after-poor-fiscal
https://www.polygon.com/2014/1/29/5...-iwata-will-cut-pay-in-half-after-poor-fiscal
They live with the mindset that if they are not making every possible dollar that they can, they are failing. Bonus points if it comes at the expense of others
Basically
Basically
OP
OP
I wondered this while reading up on Activision's current situation- they have multiple execs getting multi million dollar bonuses while laying off 100s. it's baffling to me
Yeah I was going to mention this. Extremely rare case here though. Iwata was a good guy.
Greed.
They want to make money no matter how good or shitty the company is running.
Getting a fat bonuse for getting hired, one for doing your job and one to get out of it.
Why should they care about the people creating their products?
Most of them came from outside and have no fucking idea how the company works
They want to make money no matter how good or shitty the company is running.
Getting a fat bonuse for getting hired, one for doing your job and one to get out of it.
Why should they care about the people creating their products?
Most of them came from outside and have no fucking idea how the company works
a) Because they don't want to make less money but also
b) Because layoffs are often legitimately inevitable. If you lose a contract (like say, Bungie ditching Activision), anyone who was primarily working on that contract in-house is probably going to be let go because they're no longer needed. Same thing with declining sales.
b) Because layoffs are often legitimately inevitable. If you lose a contract (like say, Bungie ditching Activision), anyone who was primarily working on that contract in-house is probably going to be let go because they're no longer needed. Same thing with declining sales.
OP
OP
Yes, we all know he was the coolest ever. But thats and exception not the rule.
that is true and all, but at the end, everything is the executives fault, they make the calls in the company.
in Iwata's case, it is not fault of the developers, and the lower level eployees that Iwata thought the 3DS would be a mega hit.
Greed. Often CEOs are in a company to make money for 1. Themselves and 2. Shareholders.
Keeping a business running, or thinking about the livelihood of workers, are often distant thoughts.
In the case of Sears/K-Marts recent CEO, putting the company out of business while making a ton of money was the whole point.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/03/22/sears-holdings-ceo-eddie-lampert/99487518/
Keeping a business running, or thinking about the livelihood of workers, are often distant thoughts.
In the case of Sears/K-Marts recent CEO, putting the company out of business while making a ton of money was the whole point.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/03/22/sears-holdings-ceo-eddie-lampert/99487518/
Because they need the money to build their bomb shelters to prepare for the apocalypse they will directly be responsible for.
They have bills to pay too. Would you take a pay cut because some people under you fucked shit up?
Even when you are super rich this mentality still exists. Except now they can't make payments on their 3rd yacht instead of, you know, not being able to make a car payment or pay medical bills.
Even when you are super rich this mentality still exists. Except now they can't make payments on their 3rd yacht instead of, you know, not being able to make a car payment or pay medical bills.
Because for 95% of CEOs the point of being the boss isn't to see the company succeed it's to enrich themselves by any means possible.
If we're talking a publicly traded company, I think there's another factor involved, and that's how to convince investors that you're turning a corner. Cutting your own salary and keeping the same workforce isn't going to do the trick. Also not to be underestimated is that some of these CEOs have a lot of their compensation tied up in stock, so you can't just have Bezos sell a crapload of stock to pay his employees, that's going to cause somewhat of a panic.
It's similar to what happens when new management comes aboard. They rarely if ever just keep things the same, because otherwise what was the point of hiring them?
It's similar to what happens when new management comes aboard. They rarely if ever just keep things the same, because otherwise what was the point of hiring them?
OP
OP
unless "someone fucked up" is a employee burning down a whole warehouse or something. i dont think the "fuck up" of someone on a low level can affect the whole company.
everybody is just following the execs orders.
Union Pacific has hit pretty much record quarters for revenue and profit and has met this excellent news by laying off 1400 workers...It makes no sense to me that workers allow this stuff to happen.
OP
OP
10 execs not getting multi million dollars bonus for a year is a huge impact.
Greed and optics
A lot of these people answer to shareholders and such. Cutting your own salary to compensate for the shortcomings of the company as a whole looks weak in a strong capitalistic society like America
A lot of these people answer to shareholders and such. Cutting your own salary to compensate for the shortcomings of the company as a whole looks weak in a strong capitalistic society like America
but i mean, if they are laying off people it means they dont need them, what a union can do? threating with a strike? they would be terminated anyways