Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

Post by pclmulqdq » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 4:03 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #325

Workaccount2 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public company CEO pay is almost always paid by shareholders not by the company itself. It's so misleading that these "CEO compensation is 100x employee pay" stats always get kicked around like it is an apples to apples comparison. It's not. CEO's get paid in stock which they need to redeem from shareholders. Employees get paid with cash which them redeem from the company's checking account. They are different source…

Can pretty quickly see that the CEO comp # in question is not the stock. Houston sold many times more than $1.5m in stock in 2023. The $1.5m is likely direct cash and services.

Post by pclmulqdq » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 4:04 PM UTC

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #366

gcr wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The severance packages suck. COBRA is the single largest expense for departing employees. Industry standard is to offer 18 months, not 6. Many job searches take longer than 6 months, so employees will be left high and dry right when they need it most.

> COBRA is the single largest expense for departing employees. Life pro tip: Do not use COBRA!!!!! It is almost always much, much cheaper to find an ACA compliant healthcare plan on your state's health insurance market. For one thing the plans will often be cheaper (though with fewer features). For another ACA plans qualify for tax credits, etc and COBRA doesn't. When I got laid off I made one of the worst financial…

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 4:05 PM UTC

hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #332

RivieraKid wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those employees were costing more than the value they were creating. If the marginal product of labor is lower than the marginal cost of labor, the company should reduce headcount. If higher, the company should increase headcount.

Arguably the value they were creating was influenced by the direction and application that labor was directed at. Redirecting that available labor at something more valuable would fix that as well wouldn't it?

Post by jumping_frog » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 4:07 PM UTC

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #74

recroad wrote: post #44

TIL that nobody knows what they're doing. Jokes aside, how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need? What is management exactly doing during the time they went from 1 excess person to 500? Did they just hope the "macroeconomic headwinds" would become tailwinds? Didn't they at some point see that they have more people than valuable work, and maybe we should deal with that problem instead of…

> how do you end up having more than 500 excess people than what you need? Not sure if you are serious or not, but understanding the output of knowledge workers is a famously difficult task.

Post by scarby2 » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 4:08 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #412

onion2k wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they always fire the weak employees This is definitely not the case. Companies use a lot of different mechanisms to choose who to lay off, and it's rarely entirely performance based.

Arguably from what I've seen it is TOO random or non-performance based. Some combination of personal dislike and unfamiliarity. The people making the cuts are not line managers and are sometimes given very short amount of time to make their cut list. So "oh I know that person" stays vs "I have no idea what they do / they asked me a pointed question in a meeting once" goes.