Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

10. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 29, 2012, 11:27 Creston
Beamer wrote on Nov 29, 2012, 11:17:
No, in this case it's kind of valid.
Think of it this way, Creston: you're an executive at a company that is going out of business. They ask you to stick around for a year to help wind it down.

What do you do? You update your resume, call a headhunter, and take the next job offer to come your way.

These guys will not, under any circumstances, stick around. It's a bad decision. The only way to get them to do so is to overpay them to do what is ultimately a waste of their time, especially considering that they could find themselves unemployed for a long time afterwards and it's hard to convince them not to job hunt immediately to lessen that risk.

Your argument kind of already defeats itself. What would be better for these guys, to stick around for a year and still get paid their horribly overinflated salary, or to go unemployed immediately? And yeah, you do run the risk of them leaving for another job. (And sadly, plenty of companies always seem more than happy to pick up utterly failed executives. "He ran Hostess into the ground? Fucking HIRE that guy!!!!!")

So okay, in the case of hostess I can sort of see it, somewhat. Maybe. But this "motivation" card is now played for all fucking executives everywhere. The CEO makes 8 million in salary, but he really needs the 50 million dollar bonus to "stay motivated."

Fuck those assholes right down their windpipe.

Avatar 15604
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo