Boss Says Sorry For 'Blundered' Zoom Firing of 900 Staff (bbc.com) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The boss of a US mortgage company, who fired hundreds of his staff in a Zoom meeting has said he is "deeply sorry" for the way the lay-offs were handled. The sackings were necessary said Vishal Garg, but he accepted he had "blundered the execution" and "embarrassed" them. "I failed to show the appropriate amount of respect and appreciation for the individuals who were affected," he said in a letter (PDF) on the firm's website. Mr Garg was heavily criticized after he sacked 900 staff in an online meeting. "I am deeply sorry and am committed to learning from this situation and doing more to be the leader that you expect me to be," he said. Mr Garg said he had realized "the way I communicated this news made a difficult situation worse."
The 901 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, with this guy's background and pending lawsuits, the forced resignation might include jail time.
Re: (Score:2)
amazing.
i was just so surprised to read about a talking crock of s*** trying to theory x its explanation.
if you find yourself working with anyone that stayed on the job at Better.com past march of 2022.
or names Vishal Garg on their cv or resume.
consider that person for the simple reason of what happens when one lays down with dogs
Learning is fun (Score:5, Funny)
"I am deeply sorry and am committed to learning from this situation and doing more to be the leader that you expect me to be,"
Mr Garg continued "Not your leader of course, you are all still fired. However I remain deeply committed to leading all of the money we won't be paying you directly into my yearly bonus."
Re:Learning is fun (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that the correct payback for this would be for the better.com board to do a surprise firing of their CEO during the next all hands company staff meeting. Then (and only then) will he truly understand the his error and "feel sorry" for it.
That said, he probably has a great exit package built into his contract, so he'll probably make out well unless they find a legal way to terminate him for cause.
Re:Learning is fun (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't like some 10 person shop - there were 900 people laid off. You don't get to be CEO of an organization this large without either knowing many of the ways this could have been managed better or having learned them along the way if you are a founder or something.
He isn't sorry; he is sorry the media made a public spectacle of it, and that it reflects badly on him. He totally knew better, he could literally not have been unaware his choice of language and execution as far as not having a working communications path for severance issues etc ready to share was shitty. He just did not care, and figured he could get away with it being abusive and lazy. What he have is a egotist being egotistical - that is the whole of the story.
Re:Learning is fun (Score:4, Informative)
Well, there may be another explanation for it. Looking at his name, "Vishal Garg", I'm guessing it might be a cultural thing.
I'm guessing possibly he comes from a place where they still have the caste system, and that means higher caste people look down up on lowers, and maybe even dehumanizes them.
We're not used to seeing that in the west, but maybe he's still of that culture and looks down upon the workers as less than human, and not worthy of his pity or concern about their feelings, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there may be another explanation for it. Looking at his name, "Vishal Garg", I'm guessing it might be a cultural thing.
I'm guessing possibly he comes from a place where they still have the caste system, and that means higher caste people look down up on lowers, and maybe even dehumanizes them.
We're not used to seeing that in the west, but maybe he's still of that culture and looks down upon the workers as less than human, and not worthy of his pity or concern about their feelings, etc.
I have known many Indians of various caste levels and have never known one to look down at anybody. In fact typically they are some of the most polite and kindest people you'll ever meet.
I also don't remember reading the part where having a caste system means you act like a pretentious a-hole towards others.
Pretty sure this comment is just an excuse to disguise racism in the veneer of considered thought.
Re: Learning is fun (Score:2)
Just show back up at work with other 900 and say no one attended the meeting.Then make a big scene that you were not notified and this still legally employed.
Re: Learning is fun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I had a poor connection. I thought you said those of us on the call were safe because who would terminate people through a mass Zoom meeting"?
That said, I don't really see how this is different then when a company calls departments into a room to announce they are being laid off.
Re: Learning is fun (Score:2)
Re:Learning is fun (Score:4, Informative)
It is what you think it is. A one-way Zoom meeting. Zoom is a flexible way of doing meetings - from traditional gatherings of people where everyone can talk to one another, to one-way webinar/keynote/etc style presentations where one speaker talks and feedback is done via a chat or Q&A function.
One way meetings are a popular way to do one-to-many where someone is on stage presenting and that's it. The audience may or may not be able to see each other, they won't be able to communicate with each other other than private chat, and no one will interrupt the speaker.
Re: Learning is fun (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I used to work for KCI, it became common practice that hundreds of people would get laid off in January to better right size the company.
I think beginning of December is a bit better since it's hopefully before you racked up the credit card bills for Christmas. That said, when I depressed (as I would be if I was laid off), I tend to comfort buy to validate my self-worth (guess I a a consumerist..)
Re: (Score:2)
....No he isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
+6 As Correct as a Slashdot Post Can Be.
He isn't sorry for what he did, he is sorry cause he got caught.
Re:....No he isn't (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it's entirely possible that that he's less sorry that he got caught than it is that the fact it has gotten so much publicity has brought a greater realization of his blunder than he would otherwise have had if it hadn't gotten this kind of publicity.
So in some sense, yes... he's may only be sorry because his mistakes became public, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a genuine sense of regret and remorse about his prior actions is not there.
We all do stupid shit, and make really bad decisions sometimes. Sometimes those decisions end up becoming public and making us look like a fool. Even if it takes having the shit embarrassed out of someone to make them regret a decision or a prior action, that doesn't mean that an apology after the fact is necessarily any less sincere. At most it really only makes it harder for anyone else to tell.
It's unlikely that any of us will ever know if he is genuinely remorseful or not, but absent any actual indication he has done this sort of thing before, or is ever going to go ahead and do it again, would it really be so horrible to assume that he might be telling the truth?
Re:....No he isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I have to agree, while it is highly probable that he feels zero remorse .. there is a chance that he does. There is no way of truly knowing, but we should try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I mean, if he gave away half his wealth to charity there would be people saying he did it for show. Cynicism and suspicion of others are intrinsic to many people.
Re:....No he isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure the idea that he may actually feel some remorse will make those 900 people feel much, much better as they head into the holiday season without a job.
Re:....No he isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
We all do stupid shit
Yeah, and we really regret when we get blamed for it and remember to next time look both ways before doing stupid shit again.
Please don't treat these CEOs like a common human. The fact that he thought this was okay in any way shape or form shows a complete lack of any empathy with other human beings, quite a common trait among sociopathic CEOs. Beyond that to insert a sob story about how *he* was affected, and how *he* cried last time is beyond the pale.
Treat the lizard man the way he deserves to be treated, with an uncaring lack of emotion that he so clearly demonstrates. Benefit of doubt is reserved for people who demonstrate human traits. About the only thing less human would be a firing via twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
And, to be fair, neither of us knows for certain if he ever will do that again.
If you believe otherwise, you are only lying to yourself.
Re:....No he isn't (Score:5, Interesting)
And, to be fair, neither of us knows for certain if he ever will do that again.
You mean a third time right? He mentioned in the call that was his first time doing that, and then gave us some sob story about how he cried after the last time he did it as a nice "Fuck you, you should feel sorry for me, I'm the victim here" to the people he let go in the second most inhumane way possible.
If you believe otherwise, you are only lying to yourself.
I don't believe anything. I use past performance as a guide for what to expect in the future. People lacking empathy don't suddenly turn around after one bad experience in the press. If you think they do *that* would be lying to yourself. Now maybe after he's fucked up another 5 or 6 times he can get better and better and slowly pretend to be human about it. Or maybe in the future he will at least get a PR person to proof read his "fuck you" before giving it.
But there's precisely zero reason to believe that he magically has become a better person as a result of this. That's not lying to myself. That's stating the obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
No, there is a reason. And there's nothing remotely magical about it.
Sometimes a person has to experience negative consequences for their actions before they feel regret for having done it.
The guy has gotten a whole ton of negative press about it, and this is probably going to be hounding him for months to come if not years.
Now you might think that this isn't sufficient for a person to actually regret something. But that's got nothing to do with this person, that's really all on you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely that any of us will ever know if he is genuinely remorseful or not, but absent any actual indication he has done this sort of thing before, or is ever going to go ahead and do it again, would it really be so horrible to assume that he might be telling the truth?
Heresy! The new gospel of wokedom is good news because it doesn't contain any forgiveness or possibility of repentance!
Re: ....No he isn't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He has a long string of very bad decisions with a train of lawsuits dogging him. The stories about this firing on zoom never bring this up, but a web search will show that this isn't his first asshole rodeo.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to judge nearly anyone who has ever lived based on one incident where they were an asshole, you'd conclude that everyone was just an ass most of their life.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserved to be called out for being a complete and total jerk about this, I'm just saying that for even someone who as acted like a complete and total ass, it's really not impossible that he's since realized just how bad his actions actually were.
And unless he goes ahead and does this sort of thing again, we wil
Re: (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly disagree.
He doesn't care about the bad PR. PR means mostly nothing these days. We, as consumers, have proven time and again that we'll take it up the ass repeatedly and still buy $product because for some reason we feel we cannot live without it.
He knew this would happen. He just added up the work of firing them like a decent human being and on the other side of the ledger he added one Zoom call and an apology.
Guess what turns out to be way less work.
I wouldn't even be surprised if he had t
Re: ....No he isn't (Score:2)
Ah, the classic... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the "I am sorry that that people are holding me accountable for being an asshole" apology
Re:Ah, the classic... (Score:4, Interesting)
... the "I am sorry that that people are holding me accountable for being an asshole" apology
Josh Fluke has some interesting things to say about this guy: "Not great news" [youtube.com] - the video included and "I will burn you alive" [youtube.com] things to say to a fellow business partner. This guy sounds like a grade A asshole.
Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:3)
Re:Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It goes both ways, and you may not like where some of it ends up. Laying people off by company-mail (before email even) isnt an unknown practice. Everyone gets a letter in an envelope and that letter is either good news or bad news. Translate that to streaming live broadcast video because it goes both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it's not that it was done remotely over zoom so much as it was done in a single meeting. The zoom adds a modern twist on it, but it's common business sense to manage big layoffs carefully, and sending a mass invite to lay people off in a meeting is about as chaotic as you can imagine.
At which point being accusatory and insinuated that they deserve makes it even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, mass layoffs are handled by a company making a company-wide announcement that it's happening, followed by a grand meeting where eve
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I had this type of firing done in person back in the early 2000's. I was asked to attend a meeting on my day off, which wasn't uncommon. I showed up to the meeting to find about 30 of my coworkers and the owner closed the door and simply said "Everyone in this room is no longer employed here, grab your check and go"
Same thing, no zoom. No humanity, he didn't even explain why, my manager told me on my way out.
Re:Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I've worked, the CEO usually held meetings explaining that layoffs were, sadly, needed and why.
Later, each person laid off generally got a one-on-one with their manager and were provided their exit package in that meeting. In the larger companies managers attended training in how to conduct those meetings if they hadn't received such training already. It certainly wasn't fun and fortunately I rarely had to lay anyone off (I tended to get rid of deadwood go once it became apparent they were deadwood and was very picky in my hiring -- so I usually had valuable staff and was usually down on headcount anyway).
Often the selection of WHO is being laid off IS partially at the discretion of their manager. In cases where entire groups were being dissolved, the best people were often considered for other groups that were surviving -- sometimes if Group A was being dissolved and had one very good person, Group B would lay off one more person and then Group A's good person would be transferred to Group B to meet the net target headcount).
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much it. I went through this at a previous employer. They were a large company with multiple locations and business units. If some BUs were doing good and others were doing poorly, they all had to share the pain and a percentage of the workforce would be reduced, layoffs being distributed among every department. HR provided a specific script for each manager to follow while they laid off their own people. HR wasn't present at each individual layoff meeting, they just had online presentations
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? What are underlings there for? Seriously, this isn't the first mass layoff in history .. there are ways to do it correctly and in a more personalized and better attempted fake sympathy. I think whenever there is a mass layoff, the CEO and a large percent of executive staff must always resign. If not as a common courtesy but also because it is nearly always the fault and their strategic blunders.
Re: Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:2)
Re:Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why giving notice is slowly leaving the norm.
The next time you quit a job, get your boss on a call and say "Do to market forces I sadly have to let X company go. I know you will land on your feet and I wish you well in your future endeavors."
Re: Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be someone that deserves 2 weeks notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two-weeks notice is customary for employees, it should be a common courtesy for employers as well.
What a country. Once I moved to Europe, I’ve not had less than 3 months symmetrical notice; my current employer offers me 6 while only requiring 3 from me.
I so would not want to go back to a “you can be fired at any moment” kind of job.
Re: (Score:2)
and asking underlings to carryout your layoffs doesn't really make it any better.
Yeah it does. Having a one on one discussion with your direct manager, someone you have been in contact with is a whole world better than being told by some face you likely have never met over zoom that "effective immediately your employment is terminated". Shit man not only the worst possible medium for delivery but the least empathetic and worst possible way of doing so.
I've been retrenched before. It started with an all hands on deck meeting explaining that there were going to be staff cuts. Explaining h
Re: Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be the underlings carrying it out because the underlings are undoutedly the ones identifying the specific people. CEO can address the company as a whole in vague terms, but to invite only those fired that were selected by underlings is a recipe for disaster.
It might have been one thing if he had some sort of apologetic demeanor, but he said that they were fired because they were 'thieves' lazily working 2 hour days under the cover of working remote. So he was being adversarial to a whole bunch of
Re: Really no good way to layoff 900 people (Score:2)
sorry tl;dr (Score:2)
I'm "sorry" that me being a piece of shit has embarrassed you.
Yeah, he is sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry he got called out on it. That's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
While his apology can probably be attributed to the fact that he got called out on it, sometimes a person needs to experience the negative consequences of a bad decision before they actually realize that it was the wrong thing to do.
When a child puts their hand on a hot stove for the first time and gets a burn, and they later say they regret doing it, does the fact that they are only saying that because they got a burn mean that they are any less sincere in their regret?
I mean, you might be right, and
Re: Yeah, he is sorry (Score:2)
Re: Yeah, he is sorry (Score:2)
If he never does it again, that does not necessarily mean he is sorry he did it. It just means he isn't entirely stupid.
Easy to regret when you face the gallows (Score:4, Interesting)
He's about to get pushed aside and hard. He might get some money out of it, but he's very likely going to be living a greatly reduced life. The company needs a last push of funds (was seeking an IPO), but he killed a lot of chances in one fell swoop and his head is on the line.
If he survives, he's got some dirt and them some on the right people. Anyway, he's exactly the kind of business sociopathic parasite we need to get rid of as fast as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Easy to regret when you face the gallows (Score:2)
How companies lay people off (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The corporate headquarters of an ISP that a friend of mine worked at in the 1990s faxed a list of names to a middle manager and told him to go to each person on the list and let them know they were laid off. After he got done doing that, they let him know that he too was let go.
2. A different friend of mine worked at a bank that was acquired by a much larger bank. He worked for their online banking department. They were all told in a meeting not to look for a new job because after the two online banking systems were integrated they would be assigned to new roles within the company. Well, you can guess what actually happened. The day after the integration was successfully deployed everyone was let go.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: How companies lay people off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But did either of them have some CEO they've likely never met tell them in a zoom call to GTFO? Or colloquially "effective immediately your employment is terminated"?
Yeah companies suddenly let go of people and it sucks, but I can't say I've ever seen (nor experienced, and I have experienced a couple) one this bad. Though I guess Trump's firing via Twitter is probably the only thing even worse.
Last time I was fired the CEO was frank. In an all hands on deck meeting he told us there would be an x% cut to sta
Re: (Score:3)
We were almost all working from home when we got the Covid layoffs in May 2020. 18% of the workforce. Once it started they sent out a message saying it was happening (everyone already knew of course) & we all just sat there sorta working waiting for The Call while getting texts from those that got the axe. Finally around 11AM an email came out that it was over.
Is there a better way? The Global Financial Meltdown layoffs in 2008 were pretty much the same way other than waiting for a call, you waited
Re: (Score:2)
There is just no good way other then hiring George Clooney to do it.
I thought that woman should have been notified of the suicide that she triggered via video chat, while she was all alone in a big, empty room.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't think the zoom call is necessarily the worst way. Like you, I got laid off in May 2020 due to COVID when I was working from home. They did it by email: "... If you are getting this email, you are being let go ..." - I think that's a little more sucky than a zoom call :)
Turned out ok (got severance, did find another job by the time it ran out), but stilll ...
Re: How companies lay people off (Score:2)
He called them theives (Score:3)
Re:He called them theives (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we let guys like this rule over us?
Only because it's against the law to put a bullet in his head.
Trust me, the only thing keeping a shitload of executives alive is that it's illegal to murder them.
Reminds me of my favorite non-apology (Score:5, Informative)
In the Pulitzer winning book, "The Soul of a New Machine", author Tracy Kidder tells the tale of engineers at Data General designing a new mini-computer. Long hours, conflicts between hardware & software guys, very tight scheduling and lots of pressure on these people. In a spat, one of the engineers called another an asshole.
The project manager called the fellow into his office and explained we all need to work together, get along even if we don't like the other guy, yadda, yadda... and you have to go apologize to him.
The guy left the office, approached the other engineer and said, "I'm sorry you're an asshole".
Re:Reminds me of my favorite non-apology (Score:5, Funny)
Famous old story from the English courtroom: A guy gets dragged into court for slander because he referred to a socially-prominent Duchess as a pig. The Duchess wants blood, but after some wrangling, the judge let him off with an apology and a promise not to do it again. After apologizing, the guy says to the judge, "So you're telling me I cannot call the Duchess a pig without paying a fine?" The judge says, "That's right". So the guy says, "Does that also mean I cannot call a pig 'Duchess'?" The judge says he can call a pig whatever he likes. So the guy turns to the Duchess, tips his hat, and says, "Good afternoon...Duchess."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuckin scumbag (Score:3)
He admits, "I failed. I was not disciplined over the last 18 months."
And yet somehow he still has his job. He didn't fire himself, despite admitting that HE fucked up.
Must be nice to be a CEO and never have to face any consequences for all the heinous shit you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, in the C-Level Universe, no C-Level is ever really responsible if things go bad. That is always the fault of the scum in the trenches. Now, if thing go well, this is of course exclusively the accomplishments of the C-Levels and because they kept the undesirables doing the actual work in check!
In other news, CEOs and other C-Levels can kill a company, but if a company is a success, their contribution is usually having kept out of the way or not screwed up too badly.
As to it being "nice" being a CE
I'm sorry for all the money the bad PR cost me... (Score:3)
If only I had remembered to consider the bottom line I would have spent effort to ensure I didn't look so bad. I promise to never forget how important appearances are to making money.
Company name - better.com (Score:5, Informative)
The company name, which seems to have escaped both the headline and the summary, is better.com. You'd think it's relevant information, no?
You get +++++ (Score:2)
For that, because it can get Mr. Garg fired and I love Karma.
Next 900 (Score:2)
So he'll do a increasingly better every time a next round of folks are laid off
Re: (Score:2)
So he'll do a increasingly better every time a next round of folks are laid off
Well, got to have experience to do a good job! Perfect opportunity to practice not appearing to be the total scumbag he is.
How cute! (Score:2)
He says "sorry"! What about being sorry for firing people? That is apparently just what the scum doing the actual work deserves.
Sorry for himself ... (Score:2)
Sorry for himself that he got caught.
Textbook narcissism.
Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hold up, this is in America, right? The land of the free, the American dream? Opportunity for everyone? How in Christ's name is it legal to "de-employ" 900 people with no warning, *with immediate effect* (seemingly no notice period, not even what is elsewhere a legal minimum) and with no responsibility to help them find other work? Here in the backwards colonial-era United Kingdom there is a legal process by which any company laying off more than a certain number of staff has to go through, including trying to find the staff other roles within the company - and if none exist then they must do what they can to assist staff find work elsewhere. I cannot believe this is legal in the 21st Century in ANY country, let alone one that considers itself a model for other nations (and believes this so strongly they go to war with other countries to 'help' them replicate such a wonderful system in their society as well). Seriously WTF?
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
You think an employer has a legal obligation to help employees they terminate for cause find new work?
It's obvious to an outside observer that these 900 employees were selected based on a lawful criteria (not age, gender, orientation, nationality/ethnicity, etc.) and fired "for cause" based on that criteria.
Each of those 900 employees has the right to appeal their "for cause" termination with the state unemployment agency.
Sorry ... for the PR blunder (and defamation.) (Score:4, Interesting)
"I am deeply sorry and am committed to learning from this situation and doing more to be the leader that you expect me to be,"
The number one job of a CEO is not bring unwanted and negative attention to his company. In this respect, Mr. Garg failed spectacularly.
He isn't sorry for what he did. His apologia is purely performative, and his only regret is on having dug a deeper hole when he ranted and accused some of the laid off employees of time theft.
I've seen this before in other companies that shall remain nameless, when there are some layoffs and higher-up loses emotional control and discloses some ugly truths to the rest (or the world), ugly truths that are supposed to be confidential.
If 250 out of the 900 laid off staff were guilty of time theft, the remaining 650 (and the company and the rest of the world) doesn't need to know.
Every single person in that group, even the innocent, are now tainted by that allegation. After all, how can you demonstrate you are not among the 250.
Without providing specific identifying evidence, this amounts to character defamation to the entire group of people. Nicely done for the chief-executive-bully.
Garg tainted everyone's reputation by association, not giving anyone the ability to defend himself/herself. If you, the generic you, are on the receiving end of such a shenanigan, you will likely face some uphill battles in getting your resume past a HR desk. After all, directly or indirectly, your reputation is now into question, and which HR will take the risk of taking your resume and passing it to whichever department is doing the hiring?
An allegation/accusation like that is one that is done in private, and separate from the remaining layoffs.
And even for those who got laid off without a taint in their character, they were labelled as "the wrong type of worker" by the CEO (his own words that they were not the right people for the job.)
That is fucked up.
The man is a damned bully. He could simply have said that the market changed and be done with it. Because that is a legitimate explanation (even if it is not true). It preserves the dignity and reputation of those at the receiving end of the layoff, and it gives the company the chance to preserve an image of professionalism.
The dude is an unprofessional bully. In fact, if we were to dig into his past, we see that he has a history of bullying.
If this company is worth its salt, shareholders should be asking for the CEO's resignation. For investors, this is a disaster.
Sure, Garg (Score:2)
Appropriate? (Score:2)
"I failed to show the appropriate amount of respect and appreciation for the individuals who were affected,"
Many of these people (not all) are accused of 'working the system' by doing, on average, 2 hours of work every 8 hour work day, and this reduced workload increased costs for the business, and was properly referred to as 'stealing'. What is the "appropriate amount of respect and appreciation" for such workers?
Re: (Score:3)
What is the "appropriate amount of respect and appreciation" for such workers?
They are human beings, not cattle. If they were stealing address it appropriately. As in, do an investigation, document the indiscretions, and if corrective action wouldn't be effective PRIVATELY terminate the employee. Getting 900 people in a room and saying "Less than 1/3 of you are SUSPECTED of stealing, so you're all fired. I hope you appreciate how negatively this will effect me." should never be the answer. Dude just upended 900 families' lives with the same level of empathy that one would apply
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. No one is saying that time cheats need to be forgiven, but there are ways to deal with that. Given this 1/3 number came out after he was criticized, I highly doubt that was the case at all and was and excuse. And a terrible excuse at that.
I seriously doubt it (Score:2)
I'm more impressed with Zoom (Score:3)
I'm more impressed with Zoom's being able to handle 900 meeting participants, to be honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You described every CEO.
Fallacy of generalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apologies not accepted (Score:2)
He didn't invent mass terminations, and this won't be the last. The CEO's mistake was to focus on making the most efficient use of HIS time, for some reason he felt the need to be involved in this announcement - why? There was no reason for the CEO to personally terminate 900 people - each had a direct manager, that would have been the appropriate resin to terminate the employees.