Why do CEOs claim to "take responsibility" for the hard times, but their salary is never cut because of it? If they were actually taking responsibility then they would face real consequences instead of dooming people to no longer having healthcare. Fucking rich people.
Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
201–210 of 355 posts
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the whole point
Does that really make sense if layoffs only happen a minority of the time after hiring sprees?
If the answer to "am I likely to have to lay this person off soon?" isn't "probably not" then it's good that the company becomes more circumspect in hiring.
The other side of the token is that such a guarantee would help convince more people to accept an offer. I'd personally be hesitant to switch to a less stable job right now, and getting an offer yanked or immediately laid off with minimal severance would be brutal for many. A company providing "we changed our mind" insurance would retire a lot of risk for job seekers - and, if things are going well, it costs them essentially nothing to do.
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#203Maybe it's just the segment I'm in, but I feel like Salesforce was hiring pretty hard up until recently. They wouldn't be the only company to go from a hiring spree to layoffs that quickly over the last quarter. We really need to lock this absurdity down and increase severance requirements for large companies heavily. It's one thing to gamble risk for the company, it's something completely different to gamble employe…
Salesforce is giving a minimum of 5 months severance to affected people. That's not too shabby.
Including accelerated RSU vesting?
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#204I forget which podcast I heard it on (so forgive me if my memory is sloppy), but after their latest quarterly report didn't CAC payback go from 24 months to something wild like 10 years? Meaning their new ARR add rapidly fell off so quickly, before they adjusted their Sales and Marketing salaries and spending, that it immediately put their unit economics way way way way underwater. So I'd expect at least a big chunk…
Would love that podcast if you’re familiar
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#205Know what's odd to me? It seems like every company that did layoffs over the past 3 months overhired by 8% - 12% somehow. Why was it such a narrow range?
The "we over hired" line is mostly made up. Many of these companies did not substantially increase their head count. This has more to do with improving P&L numbers to get their stock up, since most companies' revenue is tanking currently.
The big companies all seem to have massively hired up.
Meta: up 2x since 2019 (although coming back down)
Google: up 1.5x since 2019
Amazon: more than double (although not clear how much of that is tech workers vs. logistics. They have certainly spammed my inbox enough)
Salesforce: doubled
Numbers from Macrotrends, for example: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CRM/salesforce/num...
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salesforce is giving a minimum of 5 months severance to affected people. That's not too shabby.
Including accelerated RSU vesting?
The letter doesn't explicitly say (I'll way to hear from friends at CRM to get actual details) but their SEC filing mentions stock-based compensation as an associated cost of the layoffs, so it sounds like accelerated vesting might be happening.
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#207The frustrating part of bad economic times is that bloated companies use it as an opportunity to clean house while projecting a positive signal to Wall Street. This move probably would have been just as needed two years ago but would have tanked the stock at the time. It’s sucks when real people get caught up in companies just virtue signaling to Wall Street
Indeed, it sucks to be laid off. But how is company's reducing costs "virtue signaling"?
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#208Why do CEOs claim to "take responsibility" for the hard times, but their salary is never cut because of it? If they were actually taking responsibility then they would face real consequences instead of dooming people to no longer having healthcare. Fucking rich people.
Cut? They'll take huge bonuses if they manage to fail so hard to require a government bailout, as if one should be rewarded for opening access to the federal taxpayer cookie jar.
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do that companies will be more reluctant to hire, since they’ll have to factor in the risk of paying a hefty severance.
Do you like the current status quo where employers are not reluctant to hire, and they're just as likely to lay folks off? Where's the efficiency for employee or employer?
I like it.
Employment should be easy to find, switch and end.
More like dating than marriage.
Re: Salesforce will lay off 10% of staff as part of restructuring
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buffet/Munger seems to be the biggest exception to the trend.
If anything, Buffett/Munger proves the rule: on the org chart, there's no question that Munger reports to Buffett. In practice Buffett isn't trying to call shots day to day, so Munger is functionally in charge of the org, and when he succeeds to the Chairman & CEO title, nothing will really change, but the fact that he's not fighting for a Co-CEO title is a positive sign.
Munger is 99 years old, he's 7 years older than Buffett. They have been partners for almost 50 years. He's not going to succeed anyone!