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.

(Money News)   IBM CEO and other top execs give up their 2013 bonuses, say they'll just take the salary money left over from the 8,000 people they laid off last year   (moneynews.com) divider line 23
    More: Unlikely, IBM CEO, IBM, CEO, salary  
•       •       •

860 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Feb 2014 at 6:59 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-03 06:59:19 AM  
Somewhere, somebody will complain that this proves they're merely Capitalists In Name Only
 
2014-02-03 07:22:22 AM  
The voluntarily gave up income they could live without as a gesture.  The people laid off had no such choice.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 07:28:37 AM  
But they're still "job creators" right?
 
2014-02-03 07:42:35 AM  

vpb: But they're still "job creators" right?


I thought only small businesses were job creators. Corporations are people, my friend.
 
2014-02-03 08:33:39 AM  
So company makes money: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations you're destroying the world!

Company loses money, execs turn down bonuses: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations destroying the world!

When can you, exactly, lay people off without incurring the wrath of Fark, aka a bunch of people with no concept of how to run a multinational corporation with billions in revenue but who are damn sure they are qualified to comment about it on the Internet?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 08:47:57 AM  
Semper IvXx:

When can you, exactly, lay people off without incurring the wrath of Fark, aka a bunch of people with no concept of how to run a multinational corporation with billions in revenue but who are damn sure they are qualified to comment about it on the Internet?

Hopefully never.  They should be discouraged from laying people off unless absolutely necessary.

If you want an example of how to determine that, I would look at Germany as a good example to follow.
 
2014-02-03 09:10:39 AM  

vpb: Hopefully never. They should be discouraged from laying people off unless absolutely necessary.


This.  Laying off workers is generally a bad long-term approach, as over long term a company would seek to expand anyway, these are employees they have already vetted who know the system, bringing in new employees takes time & training, and economically you're introducing trauma when the economy would recover so much better if everyone was able to ride through them.  Mind you there are times when the best solution is to lay off workers, but the reasons are actually pretty specific -- an entire department has been rendered obsolete, for example, or the company is in the verge of insolvent.  But in America, a company could decimate its workers and no one would even blink.  Hell, the shareholders would cheer the news!

German companies don't avoiding laying off workers out of the pure kindness of their hearts.  They know they'll need those people back eventually so they'll cut their hours and do whatever else they have to do to keep them on payroll so the next time the company grows they don't need to start over from scratch.

I was still working in industry when the economy started to recover from the '08 recession.  Dunno about Germany but the Japanese were in much, MUCH better shape than U.S. corporations, logistically anyway (they were in terrible shape price-wise because the yen was so strong but that was something the companies had no control over).  They had less debt, fewer layoffs, better parts stock and were basically ready to get back to work when the recession subsided.  After all, it didn't take a genius to realize the recession wasn't going to last forever.  At the company I worked at, I think the worst of it was a part that normally took 4-6 weeks went all the way up to 16 weeks or so.  U.S. manufacturers saw their lead times stretch to 6 months and then a year.  A year!  Orders were coming in but manufacturer's couldn't get parts because everyone up and down the supply chain had cut to the bone.  Designs were delayed because they'd let go of so many engineers.  For about a year it was downright embarrassing; the "flexibility" of U.S. business wasn't flexible at all.  They were great at hacking off limbs to keep the shareholders happy, but when it came time to start making money again they didn't have so much as a stump to work with.

The thing is, U.S. businesses resort to layoffs so frequently that the sheer idiocy is hardly questioned anymore.
 
2014-02-03 09:19:03 AM  

Semper IvXx: So company makes money: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations you're destroying the world!

Company loses money, execs turn down bonuses: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations destroying the world!

When can you, exactly, lay people off without incurring the wrath of Fark, aka a bunch of people with no concept of how to run a multinational corporation with billions in revenue but who are damn sure they are qualified to comment about it on the Internet?


Part of the problem is the inflated expectations investors have. You haven't doubled my earnings per share in a year? Proxy fight!

Carl Icahn is messing with Juniper right now because 'they pay their people too much'. That c*ck knobbler will happily destroy a *profitable* company to get a couple extra cents per share. That's not the market, that's pure greed. He doesn't care if Juniper is around 6 months after he sells his shares (which he will right after he hits the dollar value he wanted) only that he gets his cut from the company before it's killed by what he wanted them to do.
 
2014-02-03 09:24:56 AM  
IBM could've learned a lot of lessons from the clusterfark they had with Global Services what 8 or so years ago. By all accounts they learned absolutely nothing.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:10:22 AM  

dragonchild: vpb: Hopefully never. They should be discouraged from laying people off unless absolutely necessary.

This.  Laying off workers is generally a bad long-term approach, as over long term a company would seek to expand anyway, these are employees they have already vetted who know the system, bringing in new employees takes time & training, and economically you're introducing trauma when the economy would recover so much better if everyone was able to ride through them.  Mind you there are times when the best solution is to lay off workers, but the reasons are actually pretty specific -- an entire department has been rendered obsolete, for example, or the company is in the verge of insolvent.  But in America, a company could decimate its workers and no one would even blink.  Hell, the shareholders would cheer the news!

German companies don't avoiding laying off workers out of the pure kindness of their hearts.  They know they'll need those people back eventually so they'll cut their hours and do whatever else they have to do to keep them on payroll so the next time the company grows they don't need to start over from scratch.


No, even when German companies have to cut jobs they try to move people around or do it through attrition.  German companies don't lay off workers unless they have to because German labor law discourages it.  If it was self interest US companies would do the same thing.

The difference is that Germany tries to balance the interests of companies with the interests of employees and in the US the (usually short term) good of the company is the only thing that matters.
 
2014-02-03 11:18:50 AM  

vpb: If it was self interest US companies would do the same thing.


It's self interest all right, but for the shareholder, not the company. The company can burn as long as the share price ticks up long enough for the shareholders to cash out.
 
2014-02-03 01:14:05 PM  

Semper IvXx: So company makes money: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations you're destroying the world!

Company loses money, execs turn down bonuses: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations destroying the world!

When can you, exactly, lay people off without incurring the wrath of Fark, aka a bunch of people with no concept of how to run a multinational corporation with billions in revenue but who are damn sure they are qualified to comment about it on the Internet?


Apparently these douchenozzles don't know how to run a multinational either.  I worked for a small, successful software company that had an industry leading software suite in engineering.  IBM bought the company, gutted the personnel and changed the model from taking care of your customers to trying to get your customers to buy as many licenses as possible regardless of whether they succeed. The software now sucks and IBM relegated it to the dustbin. Fark IBM and fark Fat Sammy Palmisano and his ilk.
 
2014-02-03 01:19:21 PM  
If the CEOs are the ones ultimately responsible for things, shouldn't the layoff have started top-down?
 
2014-02-03 01:22:04 PM  

Semper IvXx: So company makes money: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations you're destroying the world!

Company loses money, execs turn down bonuses: you can't lay people off! Greedy corporations destroying the world!

When can you, exactly, lay people off without incurring the wrath of Fark, aka a bunch of people with no concept of how to run a multinational corporation with billions in revenue but who are damn sure they are qualified to comment about it on the Internet?


Ask Nintendo. Business wasn't as good as expected, so the CEO and others took a pay cut. No layoffs that I've heard about.
 
2014-02-03 01:54:10 PM  
As one of the 8 thousand they laid off last year, IBM can go fark themselves.
 
2014-02-03 04:31:43 PM  

vpb: dragonchild: vpb: Hopefully never. They should be discouraged from laying people off unless absolutely necessary.

This.  Laying off workers is generally a bad long-term approach, as over long term a company would seek to expand anyway, these are employees they have already vetted who know the system, bringing in new employees takes time & training, and economically you're introducing trauma when the economy would recover so much better if everyone was able to ride through them.  Mind you there are times when the best solution is to lay off workers, but the reasons are actually pretty specific -- an entire department has been rendered obsolete, for example, or the company is in the verge of insolvent.  But in America, a company could decimate its workers and no one would even blink.  Hell, the shareholders would cheer the news!

German companies don't avoiding laying off workers out of the pure kindness of their hearts.  They know they'll need those people back eventually so they'll cut their hours and do whatever else they have to do to keep them on payroll so the next time the company grows they don't need to start over from scratch.

No, even when German companies have to cut jobs they try to move people around or do it through attrition.  German companies don't lay off workers unless they have to because German labor law discourages it.  If it was self interest US companies would do the same thing.

The difference is that Germany tries to balance the interests of companies with the interests of employees and in the US the (usually short term) good of the company is the only thing that matters.


Few things beat the douchiness of capital One. They bought out the US division of HSBC, hold a welcome aboard party to the new employees in Salinas (with all of the locals news present) and then lay them off the next day.

http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/salinas/Capital-One-thro ws -welcome-party-day-before-Salinas-layoffs-announced/-/5738906/12539368 /-/x1yyp2/-/index.html

We cemented our tax breaks, now gitdafuggout
 
2014-02-03 04:47:21 PM  
Employees, once the cells, are now the cancer of the corporation.

/doesn't mean anything
 
2014-02-03 06:15:00 PM  
Someone should start murdering those worthless coonts.
 
2014-02-03 07:06:24 PM  

EvilEgg: The voluntarily gave up income they could live without as a gesture.  The people laid off had no such choice.


Everyone gave up their bonuses, not just the brass.
 
2014-02-03 09:21:47 PM  

Cyclonic Cooking Action: EvilEgg: The voluntarily gave up income they could live without as a gesture.  The people laid off had no such choice.

Everyone gave up their bonuses, not just the brass.


Us peons on the lower levels didn't "give up" our bonuses. We were never offered one. Gotta keep the shareholders happy above all else.
 
2014-02-03 09:25:00 PM  

frostus: Cyclonic Cooking Action: EvilEgg: The voluntarily gave up income they could live without as a gesture.  The people laid off had no such choice.

Everyone gave up their bonuses, not just the brass.

Us peons on the lower levels didn't "give up" our bonuses. We were never offered one. Gotta keep the shareholders happy above all else.


Yeah, my wife works for big blue as well. I didn't mean to imply it was voluntary. More layoffs coming soon...
 
2014-02-03 10:47:59 PM  

Cyclonic Cooking Action: frostus: Cyclonic Cooking Action: EvilEgg: The voluntarily gave up income they could live without as a gesture.  The people laid off had no such choice.

Everyone gave up their bonuses, not just the brass.

Us peons on the lower levels didn't "give up" our bonuses. We were never offered one. Gotta keep the shareholders happy above all else.

Yeah, my wife works for big blue as well. I didn't mean to imply it was voluntary. More layoffs coming soon...


I just hit 30 years. Let's see if I get to 31.
 
2014-02-04 04:37:20 AM  

vpb: Semper IvXx:

When can you, exactly, lay people off without incurring the wrath of Fark, aka a bunch of people with no concept of how to run a multinational corporation with billions in revenue but who are damn sure they are qualified to comment about it on the Internet?

Hopefully never.  They should be discouraged from laying people off unless absolutely necessary.

If you want an example of how to determine that, I would look at Germany as a good example to follow.


You mean a (relatively) low tax on retained earnings, so a company will be encouraged to have the cash to pay employees during slow periods? Sorry, we're doing the opposite (because it worked so well in 1936*), and nothing incurs the wrath of Fark like a company sitting on cash.

* - yes, that is sarcasm. it didn't work, and was repealed after it was shown to have devastated the investment capital market.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report