In theory, that's true...but, if manufacturing companies are trying to ramp up production in order to stay competitive, especially with the losses they suffered during Covid lockdowns, they often look to cut operating expenses. They often lay off workers in order to maintain their ''bottom line,'' not always because their sales have decreased, etc. This doesn't work well in the long term, but if employers see that employees are willing to pick up the slack of those they laid off, they don't have an incentive to keep as many workers on the payroll. So, who benefits the most from that? Not the employees.If he laid off half of the company because business declined then that might be all that he could do. If you have half of the revenue you can't keep paying the same number of employees.
Again, in theory, you're right...but, look at BB&B for example...they are in the process of closing 150 stores across the country, and laid off 20% of their corporate staff. That makes sense, because they're nearing bankruptcy if they soon can't turn things around. No problem there. But, going back to the billionaires...there are those lurking in the shadows, trying to profit off of these types companies in distress. They can't do it without a C-level person's involvement, and that is the problem I'm having. No one in the stock market should be profiting off BB&B...but, they did. This isn't a one off situation, this is just one that we know about. So, the poor getting poorer (those who worked for the individual BB&B stores for example making minimum wage) and the rich getting richer (through creating deception in the market by inflating the stock price), is largely because of the privilege that these levels have, over the lower wage earner.If that happened the company presumably wouldn't need the existing employees to do twice the work since there wouldn't be twice the work. If he did that rather than laying off all the employees and the remaining employees had a little more work to do, I don't see that as abusing employees.
See above.You can quit, as you say. Your phrasing "to preserve his self-interest and remain profitable" is puzzling (to me). How can one run a business and not remain profitable? You just see that as his self-interest? What are his options? Remain unprofitable and still pay all the employees? With what? I'm not sure what it is you think he shouldn't be allowed to do?
No, but what is happening, is your favorite restaurant that lost good workers during the Covid lockdowns, now needs them back when business is booming again. Many servers and cooks are doing the jobs of two people, so these restaurants can build their businesses back up. That industry is rife with sexual harassment and employee abuse, even the franchises.If the company is losing money he shouldn't be allowed to let people go? Remember your restaurant. You are now losing money and you only need two waitresses not four. Should someone prevent you from letting two waitresses go? How can you pay them if you aren't selling as many hamburgers?
To be clear, I'm talking more about the large, public companies who answer to a Board of investors. Those execs are largely the ones manipulating the stock market, and abusing their employees although smaller business owners have their fair share of problem C-level execs, as well. We won't even get into North American companies outsourcing part of their production to other countries who don't have the same protections and labor laws we have.You make it sound like it's a great gig or position to be in as an owner of a company that is losing money. He has his house pledged to the bank for his company and some more property (let's say) so all you lose is your job. He can lose everything but you look at him as being "self-interested" and abusing the employees?
He is taking all the risk yet you consider that he is abusing employees?
Last edited: