Companies that perform a layoff must also lay off their entire C-Suite.
Posted by SDS_PAGE@reddit | CrazyIdeas | View on Reddit | 16 comments
Today companies typically are required to declare layoffs with their state labor board.
Why not also stipulate that in order to go through with the layoffs, the C-Suite must also be laid off with severance that does not differ from that of the laid off employees.
Dave_A480@reddit
Because that's completely stupid.
Laying off a bunch of excess workers may be exactly what the CEO needs to do, in order to run the business properly.
When the interests of employees outweigh the going concern of the business you get Chrysler... Or the Post Office....
ehbowen@reddit
I wouldn't go for that.
But I would go for a regulation which states that, for 18 months after any layoff, you can't raise the pay of any management or salaried employee, or pay bonuses (including stock options) to ANYONE.
Reasonable-Shift-706@reddit
Layoffs are not always the fault of the c suite.
Like right now - a lot of the current economic turmoil is not the fault of leaders. Prices are rising and in many industries orders are down because of gas costs. If you need fewer people because of that, that is just economic reality.
Xylus1985@reddit
It should be the responsibility for the C suite to shelter the workforce from economic turmoil, which means building resilience and buffer into the system. Having to layoff means they have failed
Heavy_Carpenter3824@reddit
Let's not do boot licking here. This is for the Amazon's and Metas doing the te he te he let's lay off 30% and say it's AI and then go hire in India 30% for less price and less benefit while also calling everyone we lay off the "lazy workers".
There's running an honest buisness and theses doing that shit. No one is saying don't do honest business, everyone should agree being greedy to rhe point of actually hurting people is wrong.
174wrestler@reddit
Another example were over 100 companies that went bankrupt due to asbestos-related injury, claims from workers decades ago.
Reasonable-Shift-706@reddit
Exactly. No one in charge today made those decisions
Moreover, just being in the C suite doesn’t mean you are responsible for every decision. The CMO doesn’t get to weigh in on layoffs.
CobaltIsobar@reddit
You are hallucinating 🙂 That's never going to happen.
18k_gold@reddit
not all of c-suite but same percentage. You layoff 10% of labor force then you layoff 10% of c-suite
Fireproofspider@reddit
C-suite is of 3 ppl. So you can only layoff in increments of 33%
Xylus1985@reddit
Round up to the nearest whole person
safe-viewing@reddit
Layoffs are actually a sign of a well run business. If the external market demand drops you can’t run a business with the same cost structure. You flex it down.
xiangkunwan@reddit
Sounds like a great idea, with the best of intentions, what could possibly go wrong
The company could just hire them back at a higher salary or the competitor could hire them
GarbanzoBenne@reddit
Ok but as part of this you could both: ban the first thing you said and the second thing is part of the penalty here.
xiangkunwan@reddit
There are loopholes around the ban
Hire them back under a second unconnected/untraceable competitor company and have a contract to do work for the first company - this will make the public think that a competitor have hired them and make the first company look bad well at the same time having the exact same executives working for the first company
KnockoffBirkenstock@reddit
Yes... That's why it's on r/crazyideas