Re:Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up
by nugget on Friday January 29, 2016 @04:27PM
(#10998629)
You under-appreciate how much control a united, semi-competent C-suite can have over a business where shares are largely held by passive institutional investors. As long as the executives don't run it into the ground they can do pretty much whatever they want. Stock based compensation over a long (5-10 years) time horizon seems to be the best way to align incentives, but is under-utilized. I wouldn't have believed this until I experienced it first hand.
Re:Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up
by hwstar on Friday January 29, 2016 @07:00PM
(#10999557)
In my case I've seen executives do far, far worse. Shareholder apathy at its finest... How about having a string of continuous losses for over 6 years taking the valuation of a 250 million dollar company to practically worthless. Was management changed by the shareholders? No. Did the shareholders care if the company wasn't making a profit for so long? Apparently not.
Re:Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up
by tryitnow on Friday January 29, 2016 @04:42PM
(#10998718)
The power struggle between C-Level and shareholders is up for debate. And keep in mind that an executive needs to fool the board just long enough to get what he wants. So even if they eventually wise up, it may be too late.
As for the relative power of consumers/employees versus shareholders/executives - the former are disparate and disorganized and can do little other than vote with their feet (a pretty severe, last-resort option). The latter are few in number, can concentrate their force and get their way more quickly and efficiently.
This is why there needs to be public policies that tilt the playing field back in favor of employees and customers.
Re:Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up
by scarmig on Friday January 29, 2016 @04:29PM
(#10998640)
Honestly, I think employees say that to themselves all the time. Particularly if you replace "shareholders" with "my team members" or an amorphous "the company."
Re:Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up
by gozur88 on Saturday January 30, 2016 @12:55AM
(#11000730)
Well, that's sort of my point, isn't it? No employee gives a single shit about a) management or b) shareholders. They care about themselves and other people in their position.
And it all works, because it doesn't matter if you don't care about the people with whom you're doing business. That's the beauty of the system.
> C-Level Management->Shareholders->Customers->Employees
That's not really true. In the end the shareholders have all the clout. Management can go against shareholder interests for a time, to the extent they can hide what they're doing, but the interests of she shareholders will always be paramount in the end. I'm not sure what you're expecting. Yes, management looks after its own interests.
But so do employees. Said nobody ever to himself: "Self, there was a big flood in Thailand this year and the company lost a lot of money, so I'll take a lower salary than my skill set demands until the company is back on its feet. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to the shareholders."