21–29 of 29 posts
> while revenue slid to the low single digits. That can't be true. Dropbox made less than $5 in the last three months?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't completely disagree with your take, but people in this world have it pretty good. Most of the employees being laid off were taking home good paychecks for years. They had good benefits and they paid into retirement. According to the article, the company is going to pay on average around $125,000 in severance per employee. Contrast this with the staff member at a university making $40,000 a year that gets laid…
That some people losing their jobs have it better than others has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of a CEO claiming to take full responsibility while suffering zero consequences.
> I'll upend your life instead
$125,000 of severance for high-salary employees that have large retirement accounts isn't "upending" their lives. Complaints about a severance package like that belong in the same bin as billionaires complaining about paying taxes.
What was said:“As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision and the circumstances that led to it..." And what was unsaid: ...but I shall suffer no consequences, and I'll upend your life instead. So, I'm good, right? What even means "I take full responsibility" in this case, if there are seemingly no consequences.
I don't completely disagree with your take, but people in this world have it pretty good. Most of the employees being laid off were taking home good paychecks for years. They had good benefits and they paid into retirement. According to the article, the company is going to pay on average around $125,000 in severance per employee. Contrast this with the staff member at a university making $40,000 a year that gets laid…
This talk of money also ignores the negative effects on mental health from being laid-off.
But the most important point here is that a CEO making an obscene amount of money takes "full responsibility" and... still gets paid an obscene amount of money. Easy to take responsibility if you have 0 consequences.
> In a letter to staff, Houston said that the reduction in headcount would impact 528 people.
He fired 528 people. That's what he did.
Also, he impacted a lot more than the 528 people he fired. Those who didn't get fired have to take on the work that was being done by their fired colleagues without an increase in pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't completely disagree with your take, but people in this world have it pretty good. Most of the employees being laid off were taking home good paychecks for years. They had good benefits and they paid into retirement. According to the article, the company is going to pay on average around $125,000 in severance per employee. Contrast this with the staff member at a university making $40,000 a year that gets laid…
As someone who has worked for less than $40,000 a year, and someone who now makes more than the average pay of someone at DropBox--I'm not sure it's a useful conversation to say "Hey, someone else has it worse." Yes, it'd suck to be a laid-off staff member of a university making $40,000. It also sucks to be a laid-off cashier at a grocery store making $16,500. This talk of money also ignores the negative effects on m…
That's wasn't the point of my comment. The point was the $125,000 severance package. You have someone making $40,000 a year getting laid off with little notice and no money to live on. That's bad. Then you have someone getting laid off but the company is giving them another $125,000. To the extent that that's bad, it's something that most folks could never dream of.
What was said:“As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision and the circumstances that led to it..." And what was unsaid: ...but I shall suffer no consequences, and I'll upend your life instead. So, I'm good, right? What even means "I take full responsibility" in this case, if there are seemingly no consequences.
Can we stop euphemistic language like this: > In a letter to staff, Houston said that the reduction in headcount would impact 528 people. He fired 528 people. That's what he did. Also, he impacted a lot more than the 528 people he fired. Those who didn't get fired have to take on the work that was being done by their fired colleagues without an increase in pay.
If someone is "fired" I would assume that it's the persons fault (bad performance).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That some people losing their jobs have it better than others has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of a CEO claiming to take full responsibility while suffering zero consequences.
I was responding to this > I'll upend your life instead $125,000 of severance for high-salary employees that have large retirement accounts isn't "upending" their lives. Complaints about a severance package like that belong in the same bin as billionaires complaining about paying taxes.
> while revenue slid to the low single digits. That can't be true. Dropbox made less than $5 in the last three months?
Revenue growth slid to low single digits, meaning instead of adding 20% more accounts, they only had less than 5% new accounts or revenue