Maybe they shouldn’t over-hire by tens of thousands for the sake of “growth”? “They hired more than they fired” isn’t a good thing when they fire thousands of people. it just means the company is willfully and apathetically churning through the labor force while making money hand-over-fist and increasing C-suite compensation.
The bonus was also basically all stocks, so if the company does well, he gets more money. If it fails he gets less.
Maybe they shouldn’t over-hire by tens of thousands
Or maybe they hired people with different roles. The article says they want to reduce the management structure. Microsoft probably didn’t hire 100k managers these last couple of years.
If for some reason you feel the need to fire thousands of people all at once when the company is actively expanding and making a profit, then you hired too many people.
Sometimes , probably always, MBA types want to show more profit and so make cuts to staff because labour is always the biggest expense…even if those employees could increase productivity in the long run.
Maybe they shouldn’t over-hire by tens of thousands for the sake of “growth”? “They hired more than they fired” isn’t a good thing when they fire thousands of people. it just means the company is willfully and apathetically churning through the labor force while making money hand-over-fist and increasing C-suite compensation.
… so? Why is this relevant? A bonus is a bonus.
Or maybe they hired people with different roles. The article says they want to reduce the management structure. Microsoft probably didn’t hire 100k managers these last couple of years.
If for some reason you feel the need to fire thousands of people all at once when the company is actively expanding and making a profit, then you hired too many people.
Sometimes , probably always, MBA types want to show more profit and so make cuts to staff because labour is always the biggest expense…even if those employees could increase productivity in the long run.