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 37
    More: Obvious, ABC News, Disney, Disney/ABC Television Group, media proprietor, organizational structure, layoffs, open positions  
•       •       •

8061 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 9:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-22 10:04:28 AM  
3 votes:
BREAKING: Corporate financial officers look upon employees as a reducible cost. We go now to our exclusive report.

farm4.staticflickr.com
2013-08-22 09:29:18 AM  
3 votes:
it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.
2013-08-22 11:44:09 AM  
2 votes:
Breaking News: Corporations like Disney are run by heartless, greedy bastards who look at nothing more than money figures to influence their business decisions. This will eventually lead to an economy where we will have to literally lick the boots of our corporate masters in order to be able to get a meal to eat.

img.fark.net

This Just In: I have just been fired from ABC for reporting this story. Of all the obvious, sometimes mindless stories I report on, THIS IS THE ONE THAT GETS ME FIRED YOU FARKS!
2013-08-22 11:02:09 AM  
2 votes:
I thought this was a best-looking reporter thread?

img.gawkerassets.com
2013-08-22 10:17:37 AM  
2 votes:

Onkel Buck: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Well someone should punish them! Didnt we vote for someone who said he would do just that?


cache.ohinternet.com
2013-08-22 10:11:20 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-08-22 10:00:38 AM  
2 votes:

ikanreed: AngryDragon: Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.

Please retire that same old rhetoric.  We all know the Job Creators don't perform layoffs, that's delegated to the evil middle classes, they only hire new employees.  Esepcially when their profit post-tax is higher.


I think I heard on NPR yesterday that for the bottom 70% wage inequality is getting worse. So I guess you need the middle/upper middle class to do your dirty work for you and you keep their wages increasing to maintain the status quo so they don't realize they are slowly being f*cked over. Once you piss off the upper middle class, it's game over.

/or you could, you know, keep the peasants preoccupied with Megachurches. I'm pretty sure the recent abortion laws in certain states is the equivalent of giving a ball of yarn to a group of cats.
2013-08-22 09:52:23 AM  
2 votes:

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


The peasants were starting to get uppity. They had to be put in their place.
2013-08-22 03:48:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:00:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:35:00 PM  
1 votes:

jakomo002: js34603: Damn companies always firing people. Once you get hired you are entitled to stay forever because your company makes money. They should never be able to fire you.

No but there's a lot between Right To Work and socialist-leaning economies like in Europe.

It's hard to fire somebody in France and yet they have better employment numbers than the US and a strong middle class, comparatively.  Better healthcare too.

Not black and white


A quick Google search shows that you are quite incorrect.
2013-08-22 12:25:58 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-22 12:14:47 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-22 12:08:55 PM  
1 votes:

bdub77: But I'm sure it's good for the yacht industry. I'm sure whatever CEO has the foresight and money to start a yacht company will come out gangbusters.


One of ABC's competitors is already a yacht company: Chris-Craft is the 'C' in CW. They're privately held, too.
2013-08-22 11:58:43 AM  
1 votes:
Damn companies always firing people. Once you get hired you are entitled to stay forever because your company makes money. They should never be able to fire you.
2013-08-22 11:53:19 AM  
1 votes:

jakomo002: Wangiss: They've sustained growth using this model for decades.  Are you just dogmatically attached to this idea?  How long does Disney have to continue growth doing exactly what you say is unsustainable for you to change your mind?  100 years?  Or in year 101, if they finally stop growing, will that be the treasured proof of your philosophy?

They've "restructured" countless times precisely to increase bottomline profit.

We live in a actual world with natural laws.  Unlimited growth is unsustainable.  The economic models can disagree, but it'll be their downfall.  I mean, MORE MORE MORE is hardly a realistic longterm model for survival of anything anywhere EVER.


In general, I agree with you.  But your argument doesn't work when you consider that the 'closed system' you are considering isn't static.  Disney can keep growing if we colonize Mars and have another 2 billion people there.  And Disney can sell their movies and license their theme parks over interstellar radio when we discover a technological species inhabiting a star 8 light years from here.  If you're talking about the ultimate heat death of the universe, then you're absolutely right.  But that's a loooooong way away.

(Your argument can get confused very easily with the "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics" whackos, too.  Be cautious with your wording.)
2013-08-22 11:35:24 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-22 11:26:53 AM  
1 votes:

Nana's Vibrator: jakomo002: It's about short-term growth and profit.  Quarter over quarter results.

Workers are the cogs but shareholders are the bosses.  If the company doesn't hit their magic number for the quarter, then they just get rid of cogs to increase profit.  Some accountant says, "We fell short on our predictions so we need to reduce costs.  Fire people and we'll worry about it next quarter."


The funny thing here is I used to work for a company that had a specifically written mission that essentially ranked their priorities: 1. Customers 2. Employees 3. Shareholders
Then they thought it was a good idea to audit themselves on this , then they were shocked when they were hammered by their emplyees.  It's always the shareholders first.  There's likely not a fortune 500 company in the world that wouldn't lay off employees or raise customer prices before going in front of shareholders to tell them their profits were compromised on behalf of customers or employees.  I'd be interested in hearing abnout it if I were wrong, though.


Bang on.   The REAL money is at the top.  CEO, COO, executives.

They want to keep their jobs so badly that if they need to cut costs they will gleefully throw loyal hardworking employees to the lions so their End-of-quarter speech goes over better with investors .

/laid off twice by profitable companies
/was laid off at one after three years but my work neighbor was too, after 14 years and while his wife was pregnant with twins
/NEVER be too loyal to your employer, know you're a useless cog compared to The Suits
2013-08-22 11:24:40 AM  
1 votes:

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


Back in my day, looks did not matter ..only the news

www.pupntaco.com
2013-08-22 11:24:39 AM  
1 votes:
farm4.staticflickr.com
"In a sluggish economy, businesses conduct what is known as "down sizing"."
2013-08-22 11:14:42 AM  
1 votes:

Two16: [www.stencilrevolution.com image 560x373]


BOO!  VERY poor taste.  Dude, that middle girl is the napalm burned kid running down the street in Vietnam with skin sloughing off her.

BOO!
2013-08-22 11:14:04 AM  
1 votes:
175 people?  Really?  That's not even a hiccup for them, not a layoff.
2013-08-22 11:07:37 AM  
1 votes:
www.stencilrevolution.com
2013-08-22 11:07:23 AM  
1 votes:

RockofAges: misanthropologist: Hokey pokey, it's like Occupy Fark in here!

"Job creators" is a joke. Demand creates jobs. Not arbitrary or artificial supply.

Please do tell us more about what is wrong about what the farkistanis are saying ITT.


My last job working for demand was a lot of fun.  Demand writes its checks with a silly straw that it turned into a pen.

I wish demand could create jobs, but it's illegal to do business without a license.
2013-08-22 10:49:11 AM  
1 votes:
The over 50 year olds will go first.

Then Disney/ABC will hire a bunch of fresh out of college people at half the salary and brag about creating jobs.
2013-08-22 10:25:46 AM  
1 votes:

Onkel Buck: AngryDragon: Onkel Buck: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

Well someone should punish them! Didnt we vote for someone who said he would do just that?

[cache.ohinternet.com image 562x437]

C'mon now, the poor and the enabled believed it wholeheartedly.


You simply give them two 'options': evil corporatists or corporatists
2013-08-22 10:23:49 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Yeah I gotta agree with this - you make choices every day. If you hate a company yet you consistently pay them - you're doing it wrong. And plenty of us are hypocrites, including myself. It's about doing the best you can to take personal responsibility for your actions.
2013-08-22 10:15:47 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Brick-House: Obamacare strikes again.


Pretty much this. Companies are cutting people because of

bdub77: ...you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. .... It's about earnings per share ....

That. The ACA increases costs on companies and companies are finding ways to tread water instead of just eating the cost increase. Some are going to part-time only for their labor. Some are going to a permanent temp staffing for their crappier positions. Some are just laying off $X worth of labor. This is all so that their Operating Expense hits a magic number that was decided years ago as part of their reporting and accounting processes.
2013-08-22 10:14:33 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-22 10:14:11 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Well, political influence doesn't pay for itself. The top earners all have to budget for the 2014 election.
2013-08-22 10:02:06 AM  
1 votes:
blah blah blah small business blah blah blah job creators
2013-08-22 09:59:24 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-22 09:54:36 AM  
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: bdub77: And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.

The peasants were starting to get uppity. They had to be put in their place.


Namely, not their house, which now belongs to Bank of America Holding Corporation.
2013-08-22 09:49:07 AM  
1 votes:
Another corporation reporting record profit, revenue, and EPS laying off workers.

All hail the job creators.
2013-08-22 09:41:53 AM  
1 votes:

Mugato: it's incumbent upon us to stay ahead of the curve. To that end, we've undergone a review of our organizational structures and processes, and have re-imagined and realigned certain areas and functions to gain efficiencies and better position us for future growth

How about you increase your core competencies and make go farking yourself a primary action item with an eye toward productivity and connectivity. That would be great.


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

The vast majority of big business isn't about revenue growth or reinvestment or R&D anymore, it's about profit margins. When your market share solidifies, which happens in just about every business, you cut costs to gain as much profit margin as possible. Why? It's about earnings per share and using those earnings (cash) to buy back shares of stock. And it's ONLY about stock price for those assholes at the top. And only short term stock price.

If you cut too many people and people begin hating you and everything starts to erode, you can just hand the company off early to some other CEO and then blame them when things start to go south (bonus points if the new CEO is a woman, like Ginny Rometty.) Or if the company goes under while you're still CEO, just take your golden parachute because you've got dirt on how many prostitutes the board of directors has buried in his backyard.

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 I'm sure it's good for the yacht industry. I'm sure whatever CEO has the foresight and money to start a yacht company will come out gangbusters.
2013-08-22 09:22:58 AM  
1 votes:
And so the rounds of layoffs at big corporations begin again.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report