If I was in charge and it was my company and I was comfartable, yes, why not?
If I was in charge and it was my company and I was comfartable, yes, why not?
If I was in charge and it was my company and I was comfartable, yes, why not?
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.
I guarantee you that you are unlike 99% of the people on this planet.If I was in charge and it was my company and I was comfartable, yes, why not?
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.
In a company with thousands of employees? Not really.10 execs not getting multi million dollars bonus for a year is a huge impact.
It's almost if this was a discussion board...
You purposely being dense? If you are laying off 100 employees that would keep at least half of those if not more.
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.
Of course. This isnt an absolute. I know layoff can be unavoidable sometimes.A lot of times layoffs are the results of restructuring where the company is changing strategy. So if you're a person on product A that is being phased out as the company will now focus on product B, you have specialized employees that unfortunately have to be cut.
Obviously it's still shitty but there are cases when layoffs aren't just executive greed.
Your response is for us to empathize with people who have three yachts. Am I reading this correctly? I want to assume this is sarcasm but...
Yeah, this isn't some big mystery...
If I was in charge and it was my company and I was comfartable, yes, why not?
Yeah. This is a big reason.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
That is some anti union propaganda doing its work.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
It's a bit more complex than some comments make it sound, but a good answer is psychopathology. Several studies have shown that corporate CEOs, particularly male, tend to show clear symptoms and traits of being psychopaths. While this makes up a tiny portion of the general population, it makes up a surprising percentage of CEOs. Same in politics. It explains that huge lack of empathy that their decisions exemplify.
Your response is for us to empathize with people who have three yachts. Am I reading this correctly? I want to assume this is sarcasm but...
Do you know how much employing a single person costs? Hint: it's more than their (already considerable) salary.You purposely being dense? If you are laying off 100 employees that would keep at least half of those if not more.
Do you know how much employing a single person costs? Hint: it's more than their (already considerable) salary.
That sounds about right, depends a bit on the field as well.As a grad student, I would cost the sponsor about 3 times what my stipend was. As a worker, it is now about 2-2.5 times my salary.
You can start with this Wikipedia article, it's full of interesting links. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace?wprov=sfla1Do you have a link to relevant studies? This is interesting, but not entirely surprising. At some high up level, even if you are the most benevolent man in the world and donate 90% of your earnings to charity, you're going to have to make a decision that lays thousands of people off or negatively affects someone else.
You purposely being dense? If you are laying off 100 employees that would keep at least half of those if not more.