It just sounds like you're upset and want to hurt whoever you feel is responsible for making you upset. That's not a productive stance to have on important topics.
I'm not asking for the people who hurt me to be hurt. I am asking that the responsibility of the actions that management layers took be considered in layoffs.
For instance - If overhiring happened, how is this not at least a little bit on the individual that approved of a hiring spree? Why is it that they should be able to yield a baton that hurts the workers they hired, without having to actual bare the brunt of the decisions?
If a business is still unprofitable, a business that touches so much of the internet like Cloudflare, then that is also a strategic failure and should be punished as such.
I feel like your tone in this response was also so condescending.
Do you think shareholders do not consider their employees performance when deciding to hire/keep them?
Do you think CEOs don't do that when it comes to their executive team?
Do you think the executive team doesn't consider that?
It all comes flowing down.
I can assure you as a shareholder i am 100% focused on getting a return, and I will fire (or vote to fire) any executives that i believe are doing a bad job, or who accept that their underlings do a bad job.
Hiring people, and then firing them some time later is not intrinsically the same as doing a bad job, nor does it mean there was "overhiring".
Also. "hurts workers"? What?
Workers receive the payments that were agree to, for the period that was agreed to. No more, no less.
You are no more entitled to a job than the supermarket is entitled to my patronage, and me choosing to no longer purchase from you, whether it be groceries or labor, is not me hurting you.
It's a mindset that enables neoliberalism to flourish while vast majorities suffer immensely to benefit the few.
It's a system that's worth questioning as the material lives of 100s of millions of Americans are getting objectively worse every year while we are always being told there is no money for healthcare or childcare but there is always trillions laying around for imperialistic activities like data center expansions and war.
There's a limited pool of execs to run companies. Its a pretty homogenous group of people, similar skill sets, some have varying philosophies on how to run companies, but the majority of them will likely make the same decision if given identical sets of circumstances.
I get triggered when people start calling out "elites" and other boogeymen - what does it mean to have companies run by non-elites? What even is an "elite"? Are they elite simply because they are employed as an exec? Is it possible to have a non-elite executive?
Using "elites" in this context makes it feel like an emotional complaint about the world rather than anything rooted in logic.
I thought Silicon Valley was all about meritocracy? Why should corporate shills that does not know how to profit from entity that controls 25% of internet traffic be allowed to keep their jobs but the actual people providing real value, the workers, aren't?
That is a system that doesn't benefit humanity. It selfishly benefits the few.
What are you talking about??
