corporate america: we had a record 2018, so we're cutting 8% of the workforce

[Guest]

9 hours ago, RPM said:

Hyperbole much?

No more hyberbolic than the notion that the common man getting paid less than someone else will lead to revolution in this country/ society.

 

We tolerate far greater crimes against humanity every day.

Edited February 14, 2019 by slorch

[El Diablo 4232]

17 hours ago, UTGrad98 said:

They need to make diablo 4 ASAP. 

I wasn't even aware of Diablo 3, do we need to talk?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

At the macro level, there is zero loyalty between employers and employees.   Company is doing great but have a need for fewer employees:  layoffs.  Competitors are paying more, employees leave.  Hell, usually at the micro level, there can be very little loyalty or it at least doesn't run deep.  You gotta look out for yourself.

[Eastwood 4394]

2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

I wasn't even aware of Diablo 3, do we need to talk?

It's been out for 6 years, I think.

[Pato del Muerto 52495]

19 hours ago, hornbri said:

Yeah - I am not sure you can make broad statements about corporate America using this example. (Unless you just want this thread to be about broad generalizations). 

Activation likely hired many of these people anticipating future growth, with that grown not materializing or being seen in the short term they are cutting back. It had nothing to do with the current quarters profits as seen by the stock price. It is really not that hard to understand. 

It’s been my experience that companies want to realize growth on the backs of their staff before they consider head count increases. Expected growth is not a sufficient reason to increase the workforce. 

But like with activision here, they are more than willing to cut back based on forecasts. 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Pato del Muerto

[tucker 238]

13 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I think a lot of it has to do with the employees too.  We have a misguided belief that loyalty to a corporation is a thing.  I work with a lot of older guys who complain that their pension has been frozen.  Their benefits have been taken but they are still there.  I have made it clear to my bosses that I'm a mercenary and I will go to whoever pays me the most.  I recently asked and got a huge raise.  The bosses think it was fair, but the backlash I received was actually from my coworkers who feel like I'm fleecing the company because I haven't "done" my time and have no right to ask for a pay raise.  That mindset is pretty prevalent out there and the employers know this and that's what drives the employee pay low.  The CEOs do a helluva lot more than I do.  I also know that with market fluctuations I can get chopped anytime so I demand a higher salary.  The company isn't showing loyalty to me why am I supposed to show any back.  This isn't a charity.  

1234. I probably look like I job hop, but I know that if my services aren't needed then the company won't keep me so why have any loyalty to a company. It has resulted in me advancing faster than my peers and being paid more. Never have I had someone question why I made so many moves during a interview process. 

And lulz on CEOs being held accountable. I have seen so many execs blame the market, industry, etc on their poor performance while cashing in millions.

[Hugh G. Rection 156]

Sure, a board of directors' goal is to maximize shareholder value.

[hornbri 1398]

18 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

It's been my experience that corporations are beholden to the stock holders before all else, including but not limited to clients, product quality and employees.

Yeah - they essential report to the stock holders so that makes sense. 

[hornbri 1398]

52 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s been my experience that companies want to realize growth on the backs of their staff before they consider head count increases. Expected growth is not a sufficient reason to increase the workforce. 

But like with activision here, they are more than willing to cut back based on forecasts. 

Sometimes, I am sure in a growth period companies can risk over hiring. In the story here though people were literally going to work with nothing to do, why they were laid off should not shock anyone. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

15 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I think a lot of it has to do with the employees too.  We have a misguided belief that loyalty to a corporation is a thing.  I work with a lot of older guys who complain that their pension has been frozen.  Their benefits have been taken but they are still there.  I have made it clear to my bosses that I'm a mercenary and I will go to whoever pays me the most.  I recently asked and got a huge raise.  The bosses think it was fair, but the backlash I received was actually from my coworkers who feel like I'm fleecing the company because I haven't "done" my time and have no right to ask for a pay raise.  That mindset is pretty prevalent out there and the employers know this and that's what drives the employee pay low.  The CEOs do a helluva lot more than I do.  I also know that with market fluctuations I can get chopped anytime so I demand a higher salary.  The company isn't showing loyalty to me why am I supposed to show any back.  This isn't a charity.  

Yep.  There's been a major shift on how people are compensated.  It used to be that value was based on tenure/level: Older employees received more.  Now more companies are valuing employees based on what they can deliver today.  And as organizations become flatter there is less need for middle-managers.  Many become corporate worker bees or individual contributors.   Just because you have been sitting in the same cube for 20 years, it doesn't mean you deserve more money than they guy who started yesterday.

Now there is value in the 20 year experience guy in that he probably has an internal network.  That can be worth a lot.  The new guy may have other fantastic experience but he can also stumble trying to understand how to do things.

I also don't think we're far away from where individual contributors may start to earn more than their managers, in some cases.  I'm sure this happening today where much of the workforce is contract.

['stache 21814]

15 hours ago, slorch said:

 

When CEO pay fails to yield the desired goal, it will be adjusted or they will be relieved of their duties.

 

Oh, bless your heart.

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

15 hours ago, RPM said:

Hyperbole much?

 

What should they be paid? Is $1M enough? How about $10M? Where do you draw the line? And what industries are allowed to highly compensate their CEO's or employees? Pro athletes? Coaches? Doctors? Accountants? Teachers? Janitors?  

Who do you feel should be able to be highly compensated? 

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s been my experience that companies want to realize growth on the backs of their staff before they consider head count increases. Expected growth is not a sufficient reason to increase the workforce. 

But like with activision here, they are more than willing to cut back based on forecasts. 

Yeah, this is true of even pretty small outfits.  You want to be very confident about future workloads before adding capacity.  And it's not just a profit issue, it's an issue of not having to shitcan people if you are wrong.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

2 hours ago, Hugh G. Rection said:

Sure, a board of directors' goal is to maximize shareholder value.

The real question becomes or is, though, for the next two quarters or the next two years, or decades.  It is increasingly short term.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

54 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

What should they be paid? Is $1M enough? How about $10M? Where do you draw the line? And what industries are allowed to highly compensate their CEO's or employees? Pro athletes? Coaches? Doctors? Accountants? Teachers? Janitors?  

Who do you feel should be able to be highly compensated? 

I'll hang up and listen.

 

I do question when a CEO is paid some exorbitant amount but there isn't any known reason why they should receive it other than that is what other CEOs are making. 

I'm reminded of baseball arbitration when another pitchers had previously received a large contract but then underperforms.  Starts to get 10 wins and 4.50 ERA.  Then every pitcher that does better expects the same salary as the underperforming pitcher because they are better than that pitcher.  But it shouldn't matter. 

I guarantee that if a board of directors actually owned 100% of the company, they would act differently towards CEO compensation.  As the full owners and not just the representation, the board would hold the CEO to be more accountable. Instead there is too much quid pro quo.

[GringoSalado 1651]

17 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I work with a lot of older guys who complain that their pension has been frozen.

Damn, what industry are you in that still has pensions?

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

52 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I do question when a CEO is paid some exorbitant amount but there isn't any known reason why they should receive it other than that is what other CEOs are making. 

I'm reminded of baseball arbitration when another pitchers had previously received a large contract but then underperforms.  Starts to get 10 wins and 4.50 ERA.  Then every pitcher that does better expects the same salary as the underperforming pitcher because they are better than that pitcher.  But it shouldn't matter. 

I guarantee that if a board of directors actually owned 100% of the company, they would act differently towards CEO compensation.  As the full owners and not just the representation, the board would hold the CEO to be more accountable. Instead there is too much quid pro quo.

 I completely agree with this. But the problem always comes down to it's easy to disagree with something and then never explain why or HOW someone would change it. A lot of time people just get angry about shit because it's easy without actually digging into why things are the way they are. Are some CEO's overpaid? Sure. Do they get sweetheart golden parachutes when they leave or are let go? Absolutely. But to each person "overpaid" to one person could be $500K and to another could be $20M, I just chalk this up as CEO's being an easy target to those outside the business world just as coaches salaries are to people that don't like/watch sports. 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

Right or wrong, I've also viewed CEO salary as incentives to the next X top leaders of that company.   The Board pays the CEO 10m salary plus huge stock options.   Another exec is making 10% of that but wants the big bucks.  Now he sees the prize at the end of the tunnel.  And so does everyone else.  It creates a competition between them to see who might get that top level next.  It can drive the performance of the entire company because each group leader wants that $10m+ comp.

Now you also have CEOs and execs that do little but drain as much as the revenue as they can into their own pockets while feigning poverty to the rest of the employees.  They work the company and their contracts only as a means to enrich themselves.  They may not even do what's right for the owners.

[RPM 26320]

2 hours ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

What should they be paid? Is $1M enough? How about $10M? Where do you draw the line? And what industries are allowed to highly compensate their CEO's or employees? Pro athletes? Coaches? Doctors? Accountants? Teachers? Janitors?  

Who do you feel should be able to be highly compensated? 

I'll hang up and listen.

 

CEO's should receive a fair compensation. 100+ times what your workers make isn't a fair compensation. Golden parachutes when you tank the company isn't a fair compensation. Firing workers to cut costs and not cutting your own pay isn't a fair compensation.

[wildcat09 29354]

21 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

The poorest 10% have never had such a high standard of living though.

French peasants prior to breaking out the guillotines had it better than hunter-gatherers. Didn't stop them from chopping off a whole lot of heads.

[Pato del Muerto 52495]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Right or wrong, I've also viewed CEO salary as incentives to the next X top leaders of that company.   The Board pays the CEO 10m salary plus huge stock options.   Another exec is making 10% of that but wants the big bucks.  Now he sees the prize at the end of the tunnel.  And so does everyone else.  It creates a competition between them to see who might get that top level next.  It can drive the performance of the entire company because each group leader wants that $10m+ comp.

Now you also have CEOs and execs that do little but drain as much as the revenue as they can into their own pockets while feigning poverty to the rest of the employees.  They work the company and their contracts only as a means to enrich themselves.  They may not even do what's right for the owners.

Yeah, those poor guys in your example only making a million dollars a year, looking for their break into real money. 

[The People’s Elbow 707]

12 hours ago, slorch said:

We tolerate far greater crimes against humanity every day.

Like your posts. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

French peasants prior to breaking out the guillotines had it better than hunter-gatherers. Didn't stop them from chopping off a whole lot of heads.

What slorch and Johnny don't understand is that fed people don't revolt. If they did understand that, they'd be trying to bolster welfare rather than kill it. Hungry people are dangerous just like any other animal. "Let them eat cake" means something because the people had nothing to eat. Slorch says our poor people have it "good" while wanting to take that "good" away from them. 

You can make 500x the janitors salary so long as the janitor can feed his kids.  And you even get clean floors out of it.  As soon as he can't feed his kids, he is gonna come take it from you. 

[bluto 4928]

Holy shit, 3+ stops and out? That's absurd. Early/mid 30s white collar peer group and I can count the number of friends that would pass that test on one hand. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, bluto said:

Holy shit, 3+ stops and out? That's absurd. Early/mid 30s white collar peer group and I can count the number of friends that would pass that test on one hand. 

Yeah. No shit. 4 years is a long time in my field unless you are the one doing the hiring. 10 to 15 can be stagnant.  I never liked hiring job hoppers either, but I put that cut off at 1 year per job in a young career and 3 in an established one. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

What slorch and Johnny don't understand is that fed people don't revolt. If they did understand that, they'd be trying to bolster welfare rather than kill it. Hungry people are dangerous just like any other animal. "Let them eat cake" means something because the people had nothing to eat. Slorch says our poor people have it "good" while wanting to take that "good" away from them. 

You can make 500x the janitors salary so long as the janitor can feed his kids.  And you even get clean floors out of it.  As soon as he can't feed his kids, he is gonna come take it from you. 

quote, please?

[FartingMonk 3606]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yeah. No shit. 4 years is a long time in my field unless you are the one doing the hiring. 10 to 15 can be stagnant.  I never liked hiring job hoppers either, but I put that cut off at 1 year per job in a young career and 3 in an established one. 

Yeah.  I went 2 at my first one after the military realized I was topped out at two years and the only way I could earn more money was working more hours.  They were unwilling to budge so I left.  I'm at 2 at this one I got hit up by a headhunter after I got my NERC RC stuff done and told my boss they gave me a better offer.  They countered with a higher offer so I stayed.  If they wouldn't have.  I would be out the door.  I continue furthering my education to make myself more valuable so I only feel that it's right that they pay me more.  

[Guest]

11 hours ago, The People’s Elbow said:

Like your posts. 

my abortions of posts don't end lives, but yeah, i see where you're coming from.

 

Now get back in there and run your idiotic class warfare playbook...

Edited February 15, 2019 by slorch

[deadshank 24652]

15 hours ago, RPM said:

CEO's should receive a fair compensation. 100+ times what your workers make isn't a fair compensation. Golden parachutes when you tank the company isn't a fair compensation. Firing workers to cut costs and not cutting your own pay isn't a fair compensation.

Here is the notion of "fair" compensation again. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your post.  

What is "fair?"  Who defines "fair?"  Who adjusts "fair?"  Will everyone observe and recognize "fair?"

I do agree with cutting holes in golden parachutes.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

What poor people in our country are hungry?  Because our poor are fat as shit.  

[bluto 4928]

Besides that, I'm of the opinion your professional growth/expertise is stunted if you don't move around early on. If you spend the first 10 yrs of your career with the same company you miss out on learning so much from other corporate cultures/colleagues. 

 

It's actually kinda like dating/marriage, gotta throw the bone around early on to see what you wanna settle into. 

[RollLeft 5045]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What poor people in our country are hungry?  Because our poor are fat as shit.  

imgur

[TwiceHorn 31463]

So let's talk about ways CEO compensation might be limited to something fair.

Multiples of lowest-paid employee makes no sense, other than some envy-related feeling.  Percentage of payroll?  Profit?  Not revenue.  Tying it to stock price is no bueno.  Making the compensation mostly stock with looong options (several years) makes some sense.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

22 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Thats amazing. Zero Fucks given.

I'm out Jerry.

I'mma do what I'mma do, fuck the ramifications.

Actually cheese might be one of the better options for that lardo.  It's the hot cheetos and other carbs and sugars that are her problem.  And, of course, her valve.

Edited February 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[RollLeft 5045]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

So let's talk about ways CEO compensation might be limited to something fair.

Multiples of lowest-paid employee makes no sense, other than some envy-related feeling.  Percentage of payroll?  Profit?  Not revenue.  Tying it to stock price is no bueno.  Making the compensation mostly stock with looong options (several years) makes some sense.

This would be too rational, productive and thought-provoking.  It might even lead to agreement.  Why do that when we, here at the Surly, could just pick a side and besmirch the other.  I hate you.  

[Archer 474]

12 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

If you’re hopping around and people interviewing you aren’t asking questions that’s truly odd and points to some sort of industry where turnover isn’t harmful to a company. 

You are correct that changing employers is the fastest way to bolster your income. But you have to balance looking out for yourself with loyalty to a good company - knowing that company’s return loyalty will never always be there. Never. But if you constantly job hop, you WILL get labeled as a malcontent or high maintenance and it will bite you in the ass. I’d never hire a job hopper. I’m looking to hire a 10-15 year guy now and pay him/her a lot of money. If they have more than 3 stops on their resume, it’s a nonstarter. 

 

I’m curious about this. I believe we are in the same industry based on another thread. 

 

Are you using any additional information to vet the job changes? I’m 13 years into my career with 3 different companies. My tenures were 8 years, 9 months and currently 4 years. The 9 months looks bad but it was a company that relocated my office and I elected not to move.  I’m interested to see if the 9 months raises a red flag for you or if the other tenures balance it out. 

[Incredulity 11669]

15 minutes ago, Archer said:

 

I’m curious about this. I believe we are in the same industry based on another thread. 

 

Are you using any additional information to vet the job changes? I’m 13 years into my career with 3 different companies. My tenures were 8 years, 9 months and currently 4 years. The 9 months looks bad but it was a company that relocated my office and I elected not to move.  I’m interested to see if the 9 months raises a red flag for you or if the other tenures balance it out. 

 

13 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

You have a sufficient explanation. If that happened again, I’d start to wonder about that explanation or your decision making. You are fine. 

This.

multiple 1-2 year switches is a huge red flag.  Unless you are of course looking for a defined skillset on a short term basis.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

With a well run HR dept, they have clearly defined job roles and titles.  Then they can compare those roles' compensations across the company, industry, city, etc.   then you know are your employees being underpaid, overpaid, just right.  It's probably hard to define the role and compare compensation for a CEO.   A CEO from Company A may do their job very differently from Company B.   Do they also take on the President role.  Some CEOs may take on a handful of decisions per year.    They're extremely important decisions but they may be more of a PR role and helping to steer the other execs.  

I would hope that a CEO has a fair amount of their compensation tied to goals.  Give them a very nice guaranteed salary.  Then be clear on what is expected of them and their goals.    And be clear on what comp gets clawed back if the goals are found to have been missed at a later time.

[GringoSalado 1651]

21 hours ago, RPM said:

CEO's should receive a fair compensation. 100+ times what your workers make isn't a fair compensation. 

Who is the arbiter of what is fair?

[po elvis 2070]

9 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

Who is the arbiter of what is fair?

the market.

[RollLeft 5045]

8 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

Who is the arbiter of what is fair?

In public companies the stockholder.

[RollLeft 5045]

14 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

With a well run HR dept.... they have clearly defined job roles and titles.  Then they can compare those roles' compensations across the company, industry, city, etc.   then you know are your employees being underpaid, overpaid, just right.  It's probably hard to define the role and compare compensation for a CEO.   A CEO from Company A may do their job very differently from Company B.   Do they also take on the President role.  Some CEOs may take on a handful of decisions per year.    They're extremely important decisions but they may be more of a PR role and helping to steer the other execs.  

I would hope that a CEO has a fair amount of their compensation tied to goals.  Give them a very nice guaranteed salary.  Then be clear on what is expected of them and their goals.    And be clear on what comp gets clawed back if the goals are found to have been missed at a later time.

1

I stopped there.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

3 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

I stopped there.

ha.  I had the same thought when I typed that.  Perhaps we have identified one goal of our hypothetical CEO earning $10M/year:  fix your HR.

[Pato del Muerto 52495]

5 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

What poor people in our country are hungry?  Because our poor are fat as shit.  

The ones that smoked a joint a half hour ago

[elfenix 34238]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So let's talk about ways CEO compensation might be limited to something fair.

Multiples of lowest-paid employee makes no sense, other than some envy-related feeling.  Percentage of payroll?  Profit?  Not revenue.  Tying it to stock price is no bueno.  Making the compensation mostly stock with looong options (several years) makes some sense.

that's a strong risk-averse incentive.  that's bad for shareholder value, that's probably bad for the enterprise as a going concern independent of the shareholders expectations (because it leads to stagnation), etc.  that's the factor that they didn't think about when they started paying execs in company stock back in the 70s.  the exec doesn't align with shareholders - shareholders can diversify to manage risk, but the exec can't do that.  since you think you can't get exec talent without paying all those shares, in order to get the exec to take risks they should be taking you now have to guarantee that they make the money regardless of whether the risks work out.  so now you've got massive CEO pay followed by a massive golden parachute.

UT's James K. Galbraith ponders the question:

Quote

A new report from the Economic Policy Institute calls attention to the hardy perennial of how much America’s corporate titans make: bosses of the top 350 firms made an average of $18.9m in 2017. That’s a ratio of 312-1 over the median worker in their industries. Big bucks to be sure. And a big change since 1965, when the ratio was just 20-1. But what does it mean? And if there’s a problem, what is it, exactly?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Other than jealousy, why is CEO pay an issue for anyone besides the board and stockholders of a company?

I don’t particularly love Wall Street.  Because I’m not on the inside.  I prefer investing my non qualified assets in real estate.  But why should I care if a CEO is overpaid.  For every overpaid ceo there are plenty of non CEO types who aren’t worth a fuck.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Other than jealousy, why is CEO pay an issue for anyone besides the board and stockholders of a company?

I don’t particularly love Wall Street.  Because I’m not on the inside.  I prefer investing my non qualified assets in real estate.  But why should I care if a CEO is overpaid.  For every overpaid ceo there are plenty of non CEO types who aren’t worth a fuck.  

I imagine that the average Surly poster owns some shares in practically every major company via their 401ks, so do they a right to state their opinions?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I imagine that the average Surly poster owns some shares in practically every major company via their 401ks, so do they a right to state their opinions?

Sure.  But if ceo pay is so bad, maybe don’t invest in a mutual fund where you have no voting rights.  Or buy individual stocks and vote how you want.  Or buy funds who have similar beliefs.  No one forces you to buy equities where you can’t vote.  

Again, I don’t like investing in Wall Street.  I prefer something like rental properties that I know and understand.  And is tangible.  I have my own headaches with them, but I understand them and accept them. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Other than jealousy, why is CEO pay an issue for anyone besides the board and stockholders of a company?

I don’t particularly love Wall Street.  Because I’m not on the inside.  I prefer investing my non qualified assets in real estate.  But why should I care if a CEO is overpaid.  For every overpaid ceo there are plenty of non CEO types who aren’t worth a fuck.  

because you're supposed to let all that hate well up inside you and drive your (politics.)

Edited February 15, 2019 by slorch

[TwiceHorn 31463]

CEO pay is symbolic of wealth and income inequality.  It's a big target because any dope can understand salary.  But it's a pimple on the ass of the problem, really.

If more Americans understood Wall Street and how insiders are constantly fucking little guys by being penny-stealing criminal men on a massive scale and by inventing investments of dubious worth to the capital markets that even their quant counterparties don't fully understand, there would be riots in the south end of Manhattan on the daily.