If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Disney to lay off 175 employees across its entire television group, including Disney-owned ABC affiliates. Will KABC's hardest-working, best-looking reporter be axed for arbitrary cost-cutting reasons? More at 11   (latimes.com) divider line 171
    More: Obvious, ABC News, Disney, Disney/ABC Television Group, media proprietor, organizational structure, layoffs, open positions  
•       •       •

8059 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 9:45 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 02:48:44 PM

Cubicle Jockey: DubtodaIll: 175 employees? That doesn't sound like a lot for a company like Disney. Trim the worst 10%, it's a good policy for a large company.

And what would happen if every company did the same thing simultanteously? No company is an island.


I don't know I'm not a wizard but the likelihood of that actually happening are incredibly slim. But keeping people on the payroll just for the sake of keeping them there is unhealthy.
 
2013-08-22 03:00:44 PM

FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?


The preamble does not authorize any actions to the government. None. The enumerated powers are the actionable clauses. Stop this misreading of the constitution. The preamble authorizes nothing.
 
2013-08-22 03:06:46 PM
We need a graphic of the Disney characters in the unemployment line, or at the soup kitchen, or sleeping on the streets. Somebody please help.
 
2013-08-22 03:14:06 PM

Nana's Vibrator: Wangiss:
Their purpose is not to sustain well-being.  It is to promote well-being through the even-handed rule of law within strictly delineated powers.  The government cannot and should not provide the entire nation's well-being.  That system has been tried in many, many places and it does not work

I'm writing strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population.  (Again philisophical,linear, shortsighted, whatever)  Just or not, the current government system of taxation is, among other things, a means of redistribution.  They would have no other choice but to redistribute from a hoarding private business sector if faced with an unacceptable level of population that can not sustain itself.  The key there is "hoarding" private sector, that writen or unwritten, certainly has an obligation to the population that lives within the same borders in which they operate.
/no idea how I got here after a story about only 175 out of probably tens of thousands being laid off.


Might want a longer kilt, there, sonny.  Your propaganda is showing.

Furthermore, you are arguing for promotion of something explicitly different from "the general welfare" when you talk about promoting "strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population" to the obvious detriment of another group.  Government isn't supposed to play favorites.  It's "the general welfare" for a reason, and "the welfare of poor people, mainly" is as reprehensible as the current state of "the welfare of rich people, mainly."  Equal protection and biased protection are mutually exclusive.  You don't create justice with more injustice.
 
2013-08-22 03:14:10 PM
The division has 7600 positions and is eliminating 175 of them. Many of the positions being cut aren't even staffed, and lay offs who they want to keep will all apply for other open positions.  This isn't the economy, this is management consultants..
 
2013-08-22 03:27:35 PM
I have a meeting with the Bobs in five minutes.
Can this wait?
 
2013-08-22 03:28:18 PM

mike_d85: lohphat: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Pixar is in the process of restructuring too. From what I hear, it's typical misguided attempts at outsourcing to "reduce costs" but in reality are going to make things more complicated, add delays, and not meet quality standards and thus even more expensive.

The must have hired some Boeing execs.

Hey, Boeng doesn't outsource.  They move to a right-to-work state where the inexperienced, undeducated and unspecialized workforce doesn't know how to handle volitile parts correctly.


Explain the 787 Charlie Foxtrox.

The not ounly outsourced manufacture like the 777 they outsourced *design* as well.

The reason this country had a healthy middle-class in the aerospace sector was due to a highly educated workforce hired out of university which then kept the tax-base healthy. By outsoucing and NAFTA what's left of the middle class is competing with 3rd world shiathole labor rates. Shrinking tax-base and then infrastructure collapses due to underfunding since there's not enough money because people are earning less. The rich just shelter their tax burden and get away with the infrastructure supporting the industries generating their profits but don't want to pay for it.

Randian paradise.
 
2013-08-22 03:47:08 PM
Nana's Vibrator:

Am I the only person reading this thread that finds the concept of my grandmothers vibrator posting online to be both confusing and arousing in equal measure?

/Cool name dude.
 
2013-08-22 03:48:48 PM

MeSoHomely: blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]

Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...


Sorry, work got busy.  If you happen to come across Primer Impacto on Univision, you should check out this chick...

www.aolcdn.com
 
2013-08-22 04:13:47 PM
Wangiss:
Might want a longer kilt, there, sonny.  Your propaganda is showing.

Furthermore, you are arguing for promotion of something explicitly different from "the general welfare" when you talk about promoting "strictly about the well-being of the compromised portion of the population" to the obvious detriment of another group.  Government isn't supposed to play favorites.  It's "the general welfare" for a reason, and "the welfare of poor people, mainly" is as reprehensible as the current state of "the welfare of rich people, mainly."  Equal protection and biased protection are mutually exclusive.  You don't create justice with more injustice.


Takes one to know one?
Is the survival of a segment poor people truly reprehensible to you?  You do have a basic understanding that there are people who are alive and unable to work and support themselves or their familes, yes?  There's absolutely no way I can fathom that you truly believe what you wrote.  None.  I understand you're arguing that by a process derived from the words specifically written in the constitution that our government can't logically intervene, in particular by taking resources from someone else.  Otherwise, you purely just posted that you're perfectly comfortable not caring for others.  I'm almost confused as to why you believe we have a government in the first place.

Furthermore, the foundation of your assertion would be that we live in an idealistic and just world where the spirit of the constitution is followed by corporate entities rather than these entities benefiting from the flaws in the 'as written' principles you're defending.  Yes, the government already plays favorites. The government allows the big parts of the private sector to get away with ethically repulsive behavior at the expense of citizens, assumedly because 1) while portions of the economy are ethically repulsive and while there have been some misjudgements in processes, by and large our economy has been very good and has worked well 2) our country's wealth is at a world power level 3) citizen outrage doesn't match or exceed the government's benefit from the economy 4) private corporations have the resources to pay for better legal representation than the US Government can afford.
 
2013-08-22 04:25:58 PM

MyRandomName: FrancoFile: Nana's Vibrator: MyRandomName: Gonz: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

Let's see: The Dow's at 14,900. A company with over $42,000,000,000 in revenues last year and a current market cap of $114,936,085,637 is claiming it needs to quit employing as many people in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, I think we're OK to call "bullshiat" when we see it.

Companies hire based on their needs, not profit. Just because a third party has money doesn't mean he owes you employment.

Kind of a broad statement.  It's somewhat defendable if they lay off 175 people and don't ask the current employees to increase their own workload beyond their means.  After that, what you say is the first step into a big pickle.  If companies are at all time profit highs yet trim their rosters to the tune of 10%+ unemployment, what government wouldn't step in and address the needs of their citizens and tap the offending resource?
/Don't answer that last question

Well that's the philosophical question.  The preamble to the US Constitution says that is was enacted to secure the general welfare.  To what extent is any one person's specific welfare part of the general welfare?

/and you gave yourself away by saying "offending" resource.  Why are you castigating someone for being competent and efficient?

The preamble does not authorize any actions to the government. None. The enumerated powers are the actionable clauses. Stop this misreading of the constitution. The preamble authorizes nothing.


Put down your GED in law.

I'm not talking about legislation or regulation.

I'm talking about philosophy.  Someone brought up a philosophical point (Nana's Vibrator, I think), without explicitly stating that it was a matter of philosophy.  I'm attempting to bring that out into the open as an explicit discussion.  That's all.  Nothing else.  But I apparently didn't do a good job, because this thread has largely devolved into a shouting match between the "hurr-libertarians-are-derpy-why-don't-you-have-compassion-look-at-the -evil-corporate-overlords", the "liberals-are-ignorant-thieves-why-don't-you-go-burn-a-flag-you-hippie s", and the normal people who are too riled up to even see my point.

Once we've decided what we'd like to do, then we go about finding an appropriate, effective, and legal means of doing it.  If there isn't a means under the Constitution as it presently stands, then people will advocate for an amendment.  Since there is no social or political consensus about this issue (even to the point of whether it's a problem, let alone whether the government should do anything about it), then discussing ways and means is pointless.
 
2013-08-22 04:29:29 PM

skinink: Can't understand why I keep seeing reports that the economy is gradually improving, while at the same time I see so many stories about companies laying off. My company just laid off someone who had been with the company for over 17 years. Great person and an excellent worker. Just let him go to reduce headcount.


Maybe he spent more time on Fark than you did.
 
2013-08-22 04:42:23 PM
FrancoFile:
FWIW, I read and understood your response.  Without getting any more wordy, I still believe that as a whole, as the private sector benefits from the US population, they have a responsibility to it.  That's not only an ethical issue, it's a 'balance and sustain' issue.  Again, it's a philosophy - the US economy has repeatedly shown the ability to adapt and shift and keep employment levels at a good level.
 
2013-08-22 05:40:00 PM

AngryDragon: theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.

This really is the right answer.  The only thing the masses have left to vote with is their wallets.  Stop buying the crap and using the services of the companies screwing you over.  It may not feel like much, but if enough of us do it, they WILL feel it.


Yes I'm just gonna stop buying food. my house payments and my car...think again genuis
 
2013-08-22 06:25:59 PM

blatz514: MeSoHomely: blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]

Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...

Sorry, work got busy.  If you happen to come across Primer Impacto on Univision, you should check out this chick...

[www.aolcdn.com image 713x940]


Who?

FARK no longer allows pictures to have their own filenames.

/ID your pictures people
 
2013-08-22 08:38:53 PM

bdub77: The sh*ttiest, most irresponsible thing about this stuff is that most of these 1% clowns with their 20 million dollar paychecks don't even know how to reinvest their own money into other ventures. They just float around on a f*cking cushion of cash.


But then how would private industry provide the absic necessities of life for a nation?
 
2013-08-22 08:53:49 PM
Nana's Vibrator,

I don't know how much you read into my post that want there, but I believe in helping the poor, which is why I do it.
I've been desperately poor much of my life, but I don't believe in stealing and I don't believe the federal government should be involved in taking money forcibly to give to me. I'm happy it doesn't have the authority to do that and sad that it happens anyway.
It's fine with me if states want to have as much state charity as they like because I can move away if it seems unjust. But I don't have the authority to impose my presence on some other country, so I don't believe in "America: Love It Or Leave It."
We should correct the system to make it just, not equally unjust.
And the federal government sells votes because they are corrupt, not because corporations are corrupt. Corporations certainly can, and in some cases should, be limited. That's no excuse for levying de facto fines in the form of taxes as a makeshift ex post facto punishment for behavior that is legal but "reprehensible."
 
2013-08-22 10:48:56 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: Hold on, I feel that wealth trickling down right now.

/It's supposed to be yellow, right?


I got a drip, but mine was a bit brown.
 
2013-08-22 10:50:26 PM

Enemabag Jones: Can't wait until disney has started doing to local news what clear channel has done to local radio.


You misspelled Sinclair.

/Anyone who lives in a market with a TV station owned by Sinclair knows what I'm talking about.
 
2013-08-23 08:13:18 AM

alice_600: AngryDragon: theMightyRegeya: bdub77: They don't have to listen to you, because they have f*ck you money and you don't.

Yeah, I think I'll cancel those plans to go to Disney World now, then, and the plans to get Disney Halloween costumes, or to buy their movies.  They don't need me.

This really is the right answer.  The only thing the masses have left to vote with is their wallets.  Stop buying the crap and using the services of the companies screwing you over.  It may not feel like much, but if enough of us do it, they WILL feel it.

Yes I'm just gonna stop buying food. my house payments and my car...think again genuis


Hunh.  I wasn't aware that Disney diversified into agriculture, mortgages, and auto financing.  Thanks for the tip.

Revenue is like oxygen to a company.  Start choking it off and they will change their approach. You do have choices.  Shop at local stores and farmers markets for food.  Most of them even support local farmers and your money goes back into your local economy.  Get your mortgage from a credit union.  They still pay "shareholders" but call them members.  The bonus is that you BECOME the shareholder.  Same goes with auto financing, investments, retirement, and almost any other financial service.  Insurance is a little harder, but there are regional companies that provide good packages.

Does this all cost a little more?  Of course.  If you really want to take action that directly impacts the company you're biatching about, this is how you do it though.  Look at what's happening with Google Fiber and the carriers.  They're changing because there is a threat to losing business.  Years of biatching has done nothing.  A few months of threats to their sales projections has them actually doing something.  On a large scale, real change can be affected.
 
2013-08-23 09:44:04 AM

peterthx: blatz514: MeSoHomely: blatz514: I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x313]

Thank you.  I was afraid that, with all the financial debate, no one would take the time to post photos of aesthetically-pleasing on-air personalities that we should all then band together to support and stress that their jobs should be saved.

Carry on, if you please...

Sorry, work got busy.  If you happen to come across Primer Impacto on Univision, you should check out this chick...

[www.aolcdn.com image 713x940]

Who?

FARK no longer allows pictures to have their own filenames.

/ID your pictures people


Sorry it took so long
 
Displayed 21 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report