| ▲ | wmf 2 days ago |
| Taking responsibility doesn't mean paying people to do nothing. |
|
| ▲ | LambdaComplex 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| So what does it mean, concretely? What repercussions will he personally suffer? |
| |
| ▲ | yifanl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | People will snark him 30% harder for a week. I dunno what you expect, everyone wants to avoid the negative consequences of their actions, should we be surprised that the rich and powerful can actually do it? | | |
| ▲ | jastuk 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No one is surprised, but why shouldn't it be called out and ridiculed as fake accountability and moral theater. |
| |
| ▲ | ergocoder 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you hire a house cleaner, and the house cleaner doesn't do a good job, would you fire yourself from the house? What repercussions will you personally suffer? | | |
| ▲ | NegativeK 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If I had a roommate who spent huge swaths of our monthly budget on house cleaning we didn't need, I might tell them to go find another place to live. Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary. | | |
| ▲ | ergocoder 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, and being mad is not 0 or 1. Investors are mad to a certain degree for a mishap, but then investors are also happy about something else. To continue analogy, Zuck has made $10,000 for shareholders and had a mishap of $1000. How much should Zuck be punished here? I don't have a good answer but it is certainly not firing himself for it. | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But they were fine with the hiring in the first place. Making mistakes is allowed - it's worse to pretend like everything you did in the past was flawless. Also, Zuck controls 61% of the vote for Meta. Investors knew that it was his show when they invested |
| |
| ▲ | jastuk 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you implying the 10% being fired are all bad workers? What if the house cleaner was not the problem here? | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A closer analogy would be that you asked the house cleaner to clean the pool house when you actually needed the main house cleaned. The house cleaner recognized that you asked for the wrong area to be cleaned, but went ahead and did it anyway, but did a great job cleaning the wrong thing. The cleaner isn't the problem with respect to the cleaning itself, but what about the culpability in exploiting someone who has lost their mind? In this case Zuckerberg is willing to accept the exploitation that occurred in the past simply for what it is, but now that he has had a moment of clarity he also cannot let it continue. | |
| ▲ | ergocoder 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ok, let's continue the analogy. The house cleaners weren't the problem. They are the best of the best at cleaning the pool. You have the pool but now want to get rid of the pool. You thought you liked the pool but you don't. It was your own mistake for wanting the pool and changing your mind. Would you fire yourself from the house? You did make a mistake. | | |
| ▲ | jastuk a day ago | parent [-] | | The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation", to the cleaners who's lives are impacted by this significantly more than yours. > Would you fire yourself from the house? You keep pushing this false framing/binary for some reason. You made a bad call, you lost the money, that's a given (a passive if you will). Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? That's the main critique. | | |
| ▲ | ergocoder 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation"
> Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? But what is the implication of taking full responsibility? What actions would he be taking for "taking full responsibility"? I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? I don't quite get it. | | |
| ▲ | jastuk 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. 100% agree, and that's precisely the critique towards Mark as those words presumably came out of his mouth. > So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? Claw back his executive compensation, forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year and use that to fund better severance / transition support? There's smarter people than me who can answer this, I am merely pointing out and ridiculing this fake accountability and moral theater. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | noisy_boy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is irrelevant if the workers did a good job. They are at the service and discretion of the house. The house, i.e. the owner, always remains. Until everything burns down. In case of Meta, pipe-dream, one can only hope. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | autaut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Is he going to pay the severances out of pocket? Is he going to personally help those employees get back on their feet? Is he going to make sure their families are ok? Is he stepping down? What does it look like besides cheap talk from a cheap and clueless leader? The guy is just another mediocrity who tripped into a huge pile of money and now it’s everyone’s problem while he acts as a giant baby. |
| |
| ▲ | mh2266 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you're more upset about this than the typical Meta employee. Judging by... vibes, the main reason they aren't taking volunteers for these layoffs is that they might get more than 10% champing at the bit to take the severance. The 2022 RSUs at Meta have more than doubled since the grant price, and are mostly vested out now, ending Feb 2027, after which there will be a steep TC decline for people employed since 2022, especially those on an initial grant or with very good performance for that refresher. There are a good portion of people sitting on either FIRE or at least extended funemployment amounts of money that the severance is looking mighty tempting to. | | |
| ▲ | autaut 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >provide severance packages for those in the United States that include “16 weeks of base pay plus two weeks for every year of employment” That is a standard package and no way a FIRE or at least extended funemployment if they have children or a mortgage. But crazy level of sycophancy on your part | | |
| ▲ | mh2266 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The money comes from the past few years of the stock going from 180 to 500-700, not from the severance. E5s making $900k, $E6s making 1.5m… quite common. | | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That might happen for a year or two but it's not like they're getting refreshers priced at 180. After paying all the taxes, and factoring in the HCoL area they probably live in, I doubt many people are retiring early on that. Very few high earning people would quit their high paying job so they could live a "normal" life and worry about bills and expenditures. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | loeg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Is he going to pay the severances out of pocket? More or less? The vast majority of his personal net worth is tied up in FB stock. As to the other questions -- the severance package is pretty generous. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Layoffs don't necessarily lead to share prices dropping, in the short term or long term. It definitely wouldn't impact the loans he presumably lives off of by using said shares as collateral. | | |
| ▲ | jobgh 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The severance that is paid out is money that could have been paid out to owners (him) | | |
| ▲ | autaut a day ago | parent [-] | | No they couldn’t because the severance is paid out of the money the budget set aside for wages for the year.
So out of the 12 months, they give 4 months to the laid off worker and Facebook pockets the other 8 months. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Facebook could give zero severance, "pocket the full year budget" to use your phrasing, and distribute it to owners as a dividend. The severance comes directly from cash that could have been distributed to owners, as GP originally said. | | |
| ▲ | autaut 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | They don’t give severance to be nice, severance is hush money. To get the severance employees have to agree to forgo any legal claim they could have with the company.
They have calculated that it’s cheaper to offer this money than to have to pay lawyers to defend the company from pissed former employees seeking to drag the company to court. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is an entirely new claim from the one you made earlier and somewhat divorced from your original line of questioning around severance (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47885133). Ultimately, regardless of whether the severance is generous or just a calculated ploy to keep former employees quiet, it comes out of shareholders' pockets. | | |
| ▲ | autaut 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is not my claim it is common knowledge. The problem is users here trying to pretend that a standard legal practice is Zuckerberg taking personal responsibility. No he is just following the advice of his legal team. On severance:
> the reality is that severance payments are just as much about protecting employers as they are about helping employees. In today’s complex labor landscape, employers are acutely aware of the risks associated with employment disputes and potential lawsuits. By offering severance payments, employers aim to minimize their exposure to legal claims, maintain compliance with labor laws, and safeguard their reputation in the marketplace. This practice is not just about goodwill—it’s a calculated move within the broader context of employment law and labor regulations, designed to manage risk and maintain control over the employment relationship. Understanding the real motivations behind severance payments is essential for both employees and employers navigating the ever-evolving world of employment. https://capclaw.com/employers-pay-severance-out-of-fear-of-g... |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | autaut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | He is not putting the shares down himself. He is just subject to price fluctuations like everyone else — so how is he taking personal responsibility for it? |
|
|
