Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 327 posts

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#261

Post by kcplate »

ammar2 wrote: post #150
DamnYuppie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take on the OP’s comment was that his salary and bonuses are controlled by the board. As Sergei and Larry have majority control he would not have gotten this without their explicit approval.

Do you think the board would object to him saying "oh yeah this looks bad since we're cutting costs, let's lower my compensation a little." It's not like he doesn't have any agency in this.

The average tenure of corporate CEOs is what <7 years? Why the hell would you intentionally cut your pay knowing you have a short half in the gig and for doing the job you were hired to do?

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#262

Post by xiphias2 »

mkoubaa wrote: post #139

As an employee of a publically traded software company, I can never understand why people feel entitled to their job. I sell my time to my employer and either party can back out of that transaction

Many people (including me) left their home country, family and lot of times their possible dating life with a person who speaks their own language to be able to work at Google.

For me it wasn't just about salary, but I really believed in the vision Eric Schmidt was selling (don't be evil). Since then Google is just going down in morals and renegged on its own promises.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#263

Post by somsak2 »

kcplate wrote: post #261
ammar2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the board would object to him saying "oh yeah this looks bad since we're cutting costs, let's lower my compensation a little." It's not like he doesn't have any agency in this.

The average tenure of corporate CEOs is what <7 years? Why the hell would you intentionally cut your pay knowing you have a short half in the gig and for doing the job you were hired to do?

how long do regular workers stay on average at a company? 7 years is a pretty long time

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#264

Post by eftychis »

segasaturn wrote: post #65
ceejayoz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t think they could find a competent CEO for, say, $100M?

You don't think you could find a competent software engineer for $80k?

Depending on the field: No. Depends also on the definition of "competent."

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#265

Post by eftychis »

ceejayoz wrote: post #60
segasaturn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, Sundar's pay is completely justified, as well as the pay cuts for Software Engineers, as more and more people become software engineers every day and available pool of workers continues to increase.

You don’t think they could find a competent CEO for, say, $100M?

Well the whole argument here by a big section of comments -- if not the majority -- including Googlers is "they haven't found one in Sundar."

I think finding a great CEO for the particular strategy and company is harder than we all think. (Yes I know the fault of the previous sentence -- it was on purpose.)

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#266

Post by 19h »

runarberg wrote: post #137
gregdoesit wrote: post #11

Got to give it to Larry Page and Sergey Brin for having their cake and also eating it. They control ~51% of voting power with shares thanks to owning ~85% of class B shares. They have had the benefit of someone else running the company for 8 years - and increasing the value of it - and now, when things are not looking great, it’s Sundar Pichai who gets the blame, and the focus on his compensation: and not those who s…

It might just be me, but aren’t they all filthy rich, excessively profiting from their workers, handing them selves extreme wealth, while cutting their workers off from this wealth. This is exploitation. The owning class for the owning class. The rich benefit and the workers are left exploited. Larry, Sergey, Pichai, they are all participating and benefiting at the cost of the workers. Any in-fighting and rivalry is…

While the system certainly has its flaws, calling them 'simply exploiters' ignores the immense value they've created and the hard work required to build a company like Google.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#267

Post by 19h »

lvl102 wrote: post #57

In comparison, Nadella is a bit above $50M which is gross underpay considering how Ballmer left the company. Nadella has been the best CEO in the past decade. In fact, you could argue that he’s the best investment manager in the past decade since MSFT is now a giant technology conglomerate. Better than Berkshire.

Comparing any tech CEO's pay to Buffett's is silly. Buffett built Berkshire from scratch over 50+ years through incredibly savvy investments. Nadella inherited a tech giant and has kept the momentum going, but the scale and difficulty aren't really comparable.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#268

Post by kcplate »

somsak2 wrote: post #263
kcplate wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average tenure of corporate CEOs is what <7 years? Why the hell would you intentionally cut your pay knowing you have a short half in the gig and for doing the job you were hired to do?

how long do regular workers stay on average at a company? 7 years is a pretty long time

Most regular workers leave generally it’s on their own accord. When a corporate CEO leaves, it’s generally because they are fired.

If I am working for a company where the role I am in has a statistical likelihood that I will be fired in the near future, I am going to take every comp dollar I can get and not offer any compensation sacrifices for optics sake.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#269

Post by xtracto »

xiphias2 wrote: post #262
mkoubaa wrote: post #139

As an employee of a publically traded software company, I can never understand why people feel entitled to their job. I sell my time to my employer and either party can back out of that transaction

Many people (including me) left their home country, family and lot of times their possible dating life with a person who speaks their own language to be able to work at Google. For me it wasn't just about salary, but I really believed in the vision Eric Schmidt was selling (don't be evil). Since then Google is just going down in morals and renegged on its own promises.

I'm sorry you did. 20 years ago when I was young and naive I was very strong in ideologies too. In my case it was Linux and open source. I defended it blindly for a time.

As I've grown up, now at 40 I understand more things about the world. In the case of private companies, I learned long ago not to get enamoured with them. Unless I am the owner, I work only for my paycheck. I've been in great companies, and some of them have paid me dearly. And I will always do my best for what I am paid.

But long gone are my days of pushing myself even sacrificing my health, family relationships and personal wellbeing for a company. In the end, they can and will fire me tomorrow if it improves the bottom line.

Re: Googlers angry about CEO’s $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000 layoffs

#270

Post by jjeaff »

kcplate wrote: post #261
ammar2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the board would object to him saying "oh yeah this looks bad since we're cutting costs, let's lower my compensation a little." It's not like he doesn't have any agency in this.

The average tenure of corporate CEOs is what <7 years? Why the hell would you intentionally cut your pay knowing you have a short half in the gig and for doing the job you were hired to do?

For some people, enough money is enough money and you start to think about your legacy. Or maybe your coworkers that toil for so much less. Will another $200m make any difference at all for someone with that kind of money?
Post reply on HN