Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

A decent article, but the end weakens it bad:

> I love that studio, and you're allowing it to sink. It's not about making movies for 'the fans' and not 'the critics.' It's not even about 'ruining childhoods.' It's about protecting livelihoods.

Companies do not exist to make their employees happy and employed forever. The fact that they do is because it goes with their interest for a given amount of time, but that does not mean it always do. Pretending it's the company goal to "protect livelihoods" is just wrong. Companies are not welfare agents.

View on HN

This misses the point of the article entirely. The point was that when leadership screws up, the lower level employees suffer. No accountability at the top.

The top has to have the ability and leeway for things to go wrong so that they can take risks. To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of their pay if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation.

> To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of their pay if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation.

Did you manage to hold a straight face while you wrote that? The people at the top still walk away with millions or more when they screw up. The people at the bottom walk away with very little. Whether the risks are worth taking is a good question, but certainly the people at the top don't feel the bulk of the pain if the risks don't pay off.

No one's arguing that they shouldn't have that leeway and ability.

They're saying it's shitty that people on the bottom get punished as a result of risks taken because of that leeway.

Fuck around or fuck up, and your compensation is only hit with a pillow. And people make excuses for how you failed at your responsibilities. Sounds nice.

If CEOs are afraid to take necessary risks because of consequences, they suck at their jobs as leaders and should be fired. CEOs need to know what they're doing, they shouldn't be given a lower bar to clear than everyone else. That they do is mindboggling.

A percentage of their pay? While people further down the line lose all of their pay without having significant say? Questionable.

I am sorry but they are taking no personal risk at all. THey lay off so they can get the bonuses anyway.

yeah perhaps I worded this wrong.

I don't believe its the right system and the way it should be done but thats how accountability is viewed within the current system (which I think should change).

> This misses the point of the article entirely. The point was that when leadership screws up, the lower level employees suffer. No accountability at the top.

I thought it was the point of the article, but the end note finishes on a complete different point which is why I commented.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com