126
Unity Software to lay off 1,800 employees, or 25% of staff
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
126 points (100.0% liked)
Game Development
3384 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to the game development community! This is a place to talk about and post anything related to the field of game development.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How do you expect a business to run? Every major business decision go to a vote? Or should a company that is bleeding cash not lay off anyone until the company shuts down and everyone is out of a job?
Yes, especially when you plan to fuck over all your existing customer base, as was the case here. A lot of Unity employees knew this was a major fuck up, and would have never went with the plan
The second one. It's funny that people think this is an absurd suggestion, too.
Lmao, yeah, let's just let everyone join the unemployment line together. Big brain moves.
"If we don't do what they say they'll bring the entire economy to a halt, yes this is the best most flawless system imaginable" is definitely an objective and emotionless assessment and not ideological cowardice.
Actually there's a hidden option C!
The execs take a fucking pay cut for fucking up their company instead of subsidizing their wealth on the suffering of those who earned them that wealth.
I know I'm a little liberal on this one but anything over like 200k salaried should mean "I've done an amazing job helping the company grow"
Y. E. S.
This isnt as absurd as you think, its not the goddamn employees fault the execs suck ass. If there are performance issues from an employee that is different, but in general these moves are wholely driven by failure at the exec level.
So because the execs suck ass, everyone should lose their jobs instead of a fraction of the employees. Genius move.
Because the execs suck ass, everyone will lose their job eventually an yway.
Lay off a few C-Suite. Abolish golden parachutes. It's not so difficult that a company can't run for a few months without execs.
Others have already stated the second option as preferred, I'm going to offer up some more context. The obvious contemporary example of this sort of structure is a co-op. There is usually some general manager or CEO-like position that handles day-to-day operations, and major business decisions are decided by a member vote. If that is a little too on the nose, it is not uncommon to have a shareholder vote for major business changes in a more traditional, publically traded, company.
Every worker a member of the board