Taking responsibility doesn't mean paying people to do nothing.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
This is actually very problematic that a company can claw back compensation that wasn't previously agreed upon (with the exception of crimes).
Companies could have put this clause in the job offer. Yet they don't. Why? Because no respectable person would have signed such contract.
You wouldn't sign such contract either.
> fund better severance / transition support?
To continue the analogy of the cleaners, you don't provide severance nor transition support either.
In FB, the severance of 4-month minimum seems good.
> Forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year
100% agree! If the company's or their performance is bad, they absolutely don't get bonuses. This is coded in their performance/compensation review criteria.
If your employee makes 10 successful things and fails 1 thing, how much would you punish that person? probably none.
Or to stop stretching metaphors.. The investors should be mad that the layoffs were even necessary.
Also, Zuck controls 61% of the vote for Meta. Investors knew that it was his show when they invested
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.
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.
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.
Ultimately, regardless of whether the severance is generous or just a calculated ploy to keep former employees quiet, it comes out of shareholders' pockets.
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...
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.
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
E5s making $900k, $E6s making 1.5m… quite common.