Such procedures tend to fail when you move fast and break things.
The company is going to do layoffs regardless. If you swap in another CEO for Mark, that's just giving the company a different weapon to do the deed.
The comment above mine said "there's always a human at the end of the decision" implying that if Meta just had more ethical individuals, then Meta would make more ethical decisions. I am arguing that it doesn't matter whether the individuals have good or bad moral values, because the company values profit above all else.
They can perhaps consider actions which will result in large impacts to large numbers of employees (such as regulating the inflow a bit more to protect against sudden needs to dump 11,000 people). Hire fewer, more slowly, and they can then slowly and with more consideration lay off fewer people.
This isn't collectively decided by a company with tens of thousands of employees, it's decided by one or two people in HR and approved by groups rarely larger than five people. It's not only perfectly feasible to "consider the individual employee" in this decision, but a handful of people are literally paid to do exactly that, and miserably failed to do their job.
Lots of people here understandably focus on the part where those guys failed at just being decent human beings. But what I find truly disheartening is the part where those guys really sucked at doing their job: the people in that hiring chain made a decision that cost several departments thousands of dollars in covering relocation paperwork and legal fees, even though that turned out to be entirely unnecessary, and then literally caused an employer branding and PR dumpster fire. This is the equivalent of committing a bunch of performance fixes that turn out to be unnecessary, then attempting to revert them only to cause a massive crash in production -- tl;dr it's just incompetence. And it's really hilarious to see the same people who advocate for ruthlessly firing people for incompetence defend this gross incompetence under the guise of pseudo-philosophical talk about corporate morality.
Andrew in HR just does what the policy says, it's unfortunate but rules are rules, and the policy doesn't say this is any exception.
Barbra the CEO who set the policy would have made an exception if it had been brought to her attention, but it wasn't. The policy was set serving the interests of the shareholders.
Charles the shareholder is just an average member of the public and isn't party to any internal firing plans. And in any case, he owns 0.0000002% of facebook - far from a controlling interest.
And like magic, the responsibility has disappeared - vanished into the gap between Andrew and Barbra.
The only charges brought in relation to this incident, where against people making offensive jokes about it on social media.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10734735/Property-t...
> corporations are implicitly immoral