HP CEO Gets $2M Raise Despite Laying Off Thousands

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Lower tier employees are less skilled and far more expendable.
Click to expand...

In my experience, it is the complete opposite. I have yet to see a CEO, CIO, CFO, etc actually implement, build, sell, repair anything to contribute to the success of the company. They mainly do a lot of grand gesturing and verbal diarrhea. The same goes for most mid-level and higher management. They are in the business of being in business and perform no useful function.
 
HP invested so much money into Printers....that it was a matter of time before consumers stopped buying them I use a USB drive for everything now instead of paper.
 
I'm pro capitalist but not one to be all or nothing when it comes to business hence why I'm not rich I guess. There something morally wrong with firing that many people then taking some of the "savings" and giving leadership a raise.

Unless there is overlap or redundancy, mass layoffs are not a significant success and a CEO should not be rewarded.
 
Comixbooks said:
HP invested so much money into Printers....that it was a matter of time before consumers stopped buying them I use a USB drive for everything now instead of paper.
Click to expand...

We will never truly be a paperless society. People need something tangible to refer to for contracts and other important documents.
 
fdiaz78 said:
I'm pro capitalist but not one to be all or nothing when it comes to business hence why I'm not rich I guess. There something morally wrong with firing that many people then taking some of the "savings" and giving leadership a raise.

Unless there is overlap or redundancy, mass layoffs are not a significant success and a CEO should not be rewarded.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. HP did not want to continue purchasing labor. Simple as that.

Jobs are not the end goal of business, they are a means to an end.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
No there isn't. HP did not want to continue purchasing labor. Simple as that.

Jobs are not the end goal of business, they are a means to an end.
Click to expand...
The end goal of business should be to to provide useful goods and services to benefit society (you notice that society has a need, you have a plan to fulfill that need, everyone wins), but unfortunately there are many capitalists with no moral foundation that believe the goal of business is solely to make its owner/leadership money and would have no qualms with hoarding the water supply and charging people $20 for a bottle of water during a drought.
 
No.

The desire to fulfill a need of the market is only because of the financial implications in doing so. It is about money. It has always been about money. It always will be about money. The only time it is not about making money is when another need to the capitalist becomes more valued than said money. In general, the market is very good at balancing these needs; any capitalist who routinely places the highest value on needs other than profit tends to fail. And thank god for that, otherwise we would have no system of comparative advantage and society would decline.

Greed is not a bad thing, it is responsible for the advancement of civilization at the most fundamental level. This confuses so many people for some reason.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I don't see why this is a big deal. Lower tier employees are less skilled and far more expendable.
Click to expand...

This is what is wrong with the concept of a corporation. Everyone should be equally expendable. AND cutbacks in employee numbers should be accompanied with proportional cutbacks to administrative budgets - there are fewer employees so management has less work to do.

The concept of a corporation as an entity is fundamentally at odds with the other life forms on this planet. Wait till ur sick and you butt heads with corporate America in the ER. You will soon realize that posting bad reviews of your caregiver on the net will do nothing to improve your lot. And you will die sooner - saving the insurance execs even more money so they can have more profits so they can have bigger bonuses.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
No.

The desire to fulfill a need of the market is only because of the financial implications in doing so. It is about money. It has always been about money. It always will be about money. The only time it is not about making money is when another need to the capitalist becomes more valued than said money. In general, the market is very good at balancing these needs; any capitalist who routinely places the highest value on needs other than profit tends to fail. And thank god for that, otherwise we would have no system of comparative advantage and society would decline.

Greed is not a bad thing, it is responsible for the advancement of civilization at the most fundamental level. This confuses so many people for some reason.
Click to expand...
Yes thank God for capitalism because nothing says Christ like greed and capitalism. :rolleyes:
 
sfsuphysics said:
Could have said, no thank you, I don't think it's right to take a $2M raise due right after we laid off over 15k workers in an effort to save money.
Click to expand...

if someone offered you a 2 million dollar raise I doubt you would let it go.
 
tetris42 said:
Man threads like these always bring out the sociopaths on Hardocp.
Click to expand...

One assumes that you feel anyone agreeing with the layoffs and the raise is a sociopath :confused: ... business conditions change over time ... it is not a reasonable expectation for a company to provide lifetime employment ... layoffs are sometimes necessary to rebalance a business to its current situation and align the financial and human resources for future success (protecting the employment of the remaining workers)

My first employer had a slogan which I think is still true, "You own your own employability" ... their rationale was that employees needed to keep their skills up to date with the current business needs so that they could be moved to new positions as business conditions changed (rather than becoming part of a workforce reduction) ... sometimes a worker isn't a good fit for a company's current business needs and they must let them go ... that isn't sociopathic, it is economic reality ;)
 
Hi All

1st one should never assume for obvious reasons.

2nd I don't think folk have a problem with the layoffs as that is a reality in the business world. What some folk find objectionable is that the CEO received a 2 million dollar raise after the layoffs.
 
Well, they are in luck, because they don't have to worry about it as it is not their money.
 
I don't know the details of the CEOs contract but realistically she probably had goals to meet in order to receive bonuses related to downsizing. I would be willing to bet the CEO did exactly what she was brought onboard to do and was rewarded for it.
 
It's interesting that these big evil corporations are just doing what you stock holders pay them for. If you would stop buying stocks to make money and buy to keep low skilled workers employed then big business would look a lot different.
 
Kardonxt said:
It's interesting that these big evil corporations are just doing what you stock holders pay them for. If you would stop buying stocks to make money and buy to keep low skilled workers employed then big business would look a lot different.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would look like the Soviet Union before it collapsed :eek:

A corporation or business is designed to make money (usually by providing a good or service) ... the jobs are a side effect of this since we need someone to provide the goods or services ... profit is not evil and the ability to sell at a loss is not divine :cool:
 
aardvark sandwich said:
The only time it is not about making money is when another need to the capitalist becomes more valued than said money. In general, the market is very good at balancing these needs; any capitalist who routinely places the highest value on needs other than profit tends to fail.
Click to expand...

The problem is that rarely does profit become before a need, like the need to manage risk, something that capitalism has a bad historical record of doing. I'm not saying that government is better at this, just that government is left holding the bag when businesses fail left and right, putting lots of people out of work thus compounding the problem.

It's easy to say "Let it all fail and something better will come about." The problem with that is that once markets get scared and pull back waiting for everything to sort itself out, a ton of damage is created.
 
kbrickley said:
One assumes that you feel anyone agreeing with the layoffs and the raise is a sociopath ... business conditions change over time ... it is not a reasonable expectation for a company to provide lifetime employment ... layoffs are sometimes necessary to rebalance a business to its current situation and align the financial and human resources for future success (protecting the employment of the remaining workers)

My first employer had a slogan which I think is still true, "You own your own employability" ... their rationale was that employees needed to keep their skills up to date with the current business needs so that they could be moved to new positions as business conditions changed (rather than becoming part of a workforce reduction) ... sometimes a worker isn't a good fit for a company's current business needs and they must let them go ... that isn't sociopathic, it is economic reality
Click to expand...
Well first off, your signature is quote from Ayn Rand about worshipping money, this gives you an uphill battle for not coming across like a sociopath from the start.

Second, fine, some layoffs are necessary for a business to survive. I'll buy that. But if we're buying that, you can't say a 2 million raise is necessary if you're having to lay off workers. The CEO does not possess one in a million skills that anyone with advanced business training and acumen couldn't do for a fraction of the cost. The business environment is highly competitive. Even if she left, you would have plenty of hungry executives who would likely perform the job just as well without having to profit off the misfortune of others. You're essentially just redistributing income towards the top then. By accepting the money at the same time you're laying off many workers, it sends the message that these people are considered chattel and deserve no compassion whatsoever, on the contrary, they're expendable and you should profit off their misfortune. So how is that not sociopathic exactly?

Plus while your saying about employability and not a reasonable expectation of lifetime employment would normally be reasonable assumptions, but they're completely empty words in this situation. Those rules simply don't apply to CEOs. If they do well, they're rewarded handsomely. If they do terrible, they exit with a golden parachute and are rewarded handsomely. This is to say nothing of the revolving door executive culture. It's practically a caste system which takes basically no consideration of the livelihoods of the people below this caste, it's sociopathic.
 
tetris42 said:
Well first off, your signature is quote from Ayn Rand about worshipping money, this gives you an uphill battle for not coming across like a sociopath from the start.

Second, fine, some layoffs are necessary for a business to survive. I'll buy that. But if we're buying that, you can't say a 2 million raise is necessary if you're having to lay off workers. The CEO does not possess one in a million skills that anyone with advanced business training and acumen couldn't do for a fraction of the cost. The business environment is highly competitive. Even if she left, you would have plenty of hungry executives who would likely perform the job just as well without having to profit off the misfortune of others. You're essentially just redistributing income towards the top then. By accepting the money at the same time you're laying off many workers, it sends the message that these people are considered chattel and deserve no compassion whatsoever, on the contrary, they're expendable and you should profit off their misfortune. So how is that not sociopathic exactly?

Plus while your saying about employability and not a reasonable expectation of lifetime employment would normally be reasonable assumptions, but they're completely empty words in this situation. Those rules simply don't apply to CEOs. If they do well, they're rewarded handsomely. If they do terrible, they exit with a golden parachute and are rewarded handsomely. This is to say nothing of the revolving door executive culture. It's practically a caste system which takes basically no consideration of the livelihoods of the people below this caste, it's sociopathic.
Click to expand...

You are jealous and want everything handed to you. Confirmed.

It takes a special person to be a CEO of a major company, not "everyone" can do it. The biggest lie on this thread. They also take PERSONAL risk with accepting the job, like jail time and being held accountable for the actions of every employee.
 
Ducman69 said:
The end goal of business should be to to provide useful goods and services to benefit society (you notice that society has a need, you have a plan to fulfill that need, everyone wins), but unfortunately there are many capitalists with no moral foundation that believe the goal of business is solely to make its owner/leadership money and would have no qualms with hoarding the water supply and charging people $20 for a bottle of water during a drought.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, that's crazy talk.

aardvark sandwich said:
Greed is not a bad thing, it is responsible for the advancement of civilization at the most fundamental level. This confuses so many people for some reason.
Click to expand...
You're right, I'm confused how greed helps rights in the workplace, the sick and the poor, and protecting the environment. I'd love to hear an explanation, on the latter especially.
 
XvMMvX said:
You are jealous and want everything handed to you. Confirmed.

It takes a special person to be a CEO of a major company, not "everyone" can do it. The biggest lie on this thread. They also take PERSONAL risk with accepting the job, like jail time and being held accountable for the actions of every employee.
Click to expand...
Good job making shit up! Would you mind quoting me on the part that says I want something handed to me?

I said anyone with good business training and acumen, not anyone. As for personal risk, I'll accept that if you're willing to provide a few examples where a CEO was held liable for the actions of an employee under him that he didn't order himself and faced jail time. If you provide some examples, fair enough, I'm in the wrong. If not, you're full of shit.
 
heatlesssun said:
The problem is that rarely does profit become before a need, like the need to manage risk, something that capitalism has a bad historical record of doing. I'm not saying that government is better at this, just that government is left holding the bag when businesses fail left and right, putting lots of people out of work thus compounding the problem.

It's easy to say "Let it all fail and something better will come about." The problem with that is that once markets get scared and pull back waiting for everything to sort itself out, a ton of damage is created.
Click to expand...

There is no bag. You have an entity that has presumed authority over something that can not realistically be 'managed' in the sense of stability. It is unrealistic.

Damage is inevitable, you may as well try collecting wind with a rake.
When you tear a building down to make a new one, do you remove one brick at a time?

The offset of all this unbridled profit motive is that it is the capitalists who have their own actual money on the line in the system. Politicians do not. Elections are short term, yet the argument is that it is only the politician who can think long term. I reject that notion entirely.
 
Disposed said:
Yes thank God for capitalism because nothing says Christ like greed and capitalism. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"God does for those who do for themselves"

Build your own damn infrastructure to support yourself. Live like self sufficient farmer if the corporate world pisses you off. Nothings stopping you. Plenty of people do it.

Don't blame the world for your F'ing problems.
 
tetris42 said:
Good job making shit up! Would you mind quoting me on the part that says I want something handed to me?

I said anyone with good business training and acumen, not anyone. As for personal risk, I'll accept that if you're willing to provide a few examples where a CEO was held liable for the actions of an employee under him that he didn't order himself and faced jail time. If you provide some examples, fair enough, I'm in the wrong. If not, you're full of shit.
Click to expand...

You think people should be paid handsomely just for breathing and showing up to work. You ignore capitalism and the effect of the gloat of new employment requirements set forth since the 70's.

You probably think we should just pay everyone $100K a year and solve poverty. You think trying to be better than the next person is greed and sociopathic.

This (and any CEO) negotiates a price for their services, don't get all butthurt as you would be doing the same thing if the opportunity presented itself. We don't live on fantasy island, you have to make your own in this world or you will get passed by. Sorry, but you are not a victim no matter what line of bullshit you have eatin up from your politicians.

You are just lazy and won't go figure out how to make it yourself.

As for examples, don't need them because it is fact you can be held liable for your companies actions. Whether you ordered it or not.
 
tetris42 said:
Oh come on, that's crazy talk.

You're right, I'm confused how greed helps rights in the workplace, the sick and the poor, and protecting the environment. I'd love to hear an explanation, on the latter especially.
Click to expand...

People who value the items you've mentioned do so because it gives them a result they want. They value having less people being sick than money in the bank, trees over money in the bank, etc. It is still greed, just directed away from money. When an environmentalist expects others to pay for a public land project but not himself, is that not greed? When a labor union uses force to achieve an outcome they desire, is that not greed? Greed takes many forms, it is childish to believe it is unique to capitalists.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
There is no bag. You have an entity that has presumed authority over something that can not realistically be 'managed' in the sense of stability. It is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

So when an economy is teetering on complete catastrophe, government has absolutely no role nor any expectations of it to help deal with the situation. Now that's what I call unrealistic.

aardvark sandwich said:
Damage is inevitable, you may as well try collecting wind with a rake.
When you tear a building down to make a new one, do you remove one brick at a time?
Click to expand...

But what level of damage? 50% unemployment? 50% foreclosure rates? 50% drop in business profits? Damage is inevitable. But long term catastrophic damage isn't something that people by the millions are just going to accept without action.

aardvark sandwich said:
The offset of all this unbridled profit motive is that it is the capitalists who have their own actual money on the line in the system. Politicians do not. Elections are short term, yet the argument is that it is only the politician who can think long term. I reject that notion entirely.
Click to expand...

And that's the issue with systemic risk. Even if you're only dealing with your own assets, introduction of uncontrolled risk can spread through a system but others that had no assets even remotely tied to the behavior in jeopardy. It's impossible in advanced economies to isolate capital in such a way that only your capital is at risk or only his capital is at risk when risk gets introduced into the system.
 
Just to note, risk isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It is the fuel of capitalism. But some risks are well considered and contingencies planned for and some are just flat out gambling. The former kind of risk taking almost never leads to system or widespread issue and the second kind nothing but.
 
B2BigAl said:
Oh, I dunno, maybe the 15,000 poor bastards who got their walking papers?
Click to expand...
That, and every one left who can't stop watching our latest in a long series of CEO train-wrecks. She's now pushing for all teleworkers to come back into the office. HP: Ahead of the curve--just going the wrong way. :rolleyes:
 
heatlesssun said:
So when an economy is teetering on complete catastrophe, government has absolutely no role nor any expectations of it to help deal with the situation. Now that's what I call unrealistic.



But what level of damage? 50% unemployment? 50% foreclosure rates? 50% drop in business profits? Damage is inevitable. But long term catastrophic damage isn't something that people by the millions are just going to accept without action.



And that's the issue with systemic risk. Even if you're only dealing with your own assets, introduction of uncontrolled risk can spread through a system but others that had no assets even remotely tied to the behavior in jeopardy. It's impossible in advanced economies to isolate capital in such a way that only your capital is at risk or only his capital is at risk when risk gets introduced into the system.
Click to expand...

We have fundamentally different opinions on the self-validation of government in your first quote. You are seeking an emotion based solution. Santa clause doesn't prevent death and disease, sorry. Their only solution is to directly create a market distortion because they have an emotional dispute with where prices are. That only prolongs suffering.

As to percentage points, I'm at a loss here; we're talking subjective values and attempting to assign them to a system that utilizes appointed bureaucrats that will invariably come up with their own idealized percentages. Makes no sense.

Re: risk. The system purported to mitigate these risks has just pegged gambling with toxic derivatives on the tax payer. I fail to see how that controls risk.
 
XvMMvX said:
You think people should be paid handsomely just for breathing and showing up to work. You ignore capitalism and the effect of the gloat of new employment requirements set forth since the 70's.

You probably think we should just pay everyone $100K a year and solve poverty. You think trying to be better than the next person is greed and sociopathic.

This (and any CEO) negotiates a price for their services, don't get all butthurt as you would be doing the same thing if the opportunity presented itself. We don't live on fantasy island, you have to make your own in this world or you will get passed by. Sorry, but you are not a victim no matter what line of bullshit you have eatin up from your politicians.

You are just lazy and won't go figure out how to make it yourself.

As for examples, don't need them because it is fact you can be held liable for your companies actions. Whether you ordered it or not.
Click to expand...
You're projecting to hell and back is all I can say. I literally don't believe any of the things you're claiming I do in this post, nor is lazy or "not making it" describe me in the slightest. My family and half my friends have accused me of being a workaholic. You're seriously so far off the mark with me and what I'm saying, that there's really not much more point in responding. I'm saying the behavior portrayed by HP at the top is sociopathic. It being an industry standard has no bearing on that. You're essentially reinforcing that assertion, aren't providing any evidence refuting it, and are insulting me, so... good job?
 
DigitalGriffin said:
"God does for those who do for themselves"

Build your own damn infrastructure to support yourself. Live like self sufficient farmer if the corporate world pisses you off. Nothings stopping you. Plenty of people do it.

Don't blame the world for your F'ing problems.
Click to expand...

Typical hypocrisy in that diseased religion.
 
TwistedAegis said:
And the board of directors is made up of CEOs of other corporations looking for the same thing. You wouldn't decline Meg's raise knowing that she'll scratch your back as well since she sits on your board.
Click to expand...


10char. The main logical flaw in your argument lies in responding to CUG.
 
You can read alllllll about their executive compensation practices and payouts by clicking on the "investors" link at the bottom of HP's website. You can then search their "SEC Filings" for "proxies", or have a peek here:

http://hsprod.investis.com/shared/v...lett_packard&ipage=9355198&DSEQ=&SEQ=&SQDESC=

A bit from HP on her compensation:

CEO Compensation. When she joined HP as CEO, the Board established an initial salary for Ms. Whitman of $1 per year, reflecting the company's turnaround. Since we expect fiscal 2014 to be a "recovery and expansion" year, the Board decided it would be appropriate to begin paying Ms. Whitman a salary consistent with the median of our peer group. As a result, for fiscal 2014, Ms. Whitman will receive a salary of $1.5 million. The rest of her compensation was rebalanced with a reduction in LTI grant date award value to maintain a total package that approximates the competitive median of our market and is consistent with our pay positioning strategy and pay-for-performance philosophy.


Page 79 then goes on to show a summary comp table for the executives at HP.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with her comp level. Just attempting to show the masses that the pay for any executive at a publicly traded company is readily visible in their SEC filings. If enough shareholders make enough noise about compensation not being in line with company performance, that compensation will most likely change.
 
Disposed said:
Typical hypocrisy in that diseased religion.
Click to expand...

Again

What's your excuse from not removing yourself from the corporate world, other then you would have no one to hate?

Amish, Communes, Frontiersmen all do it.

No one is forcing you to consume anything.

Quite f'n pathetic really. A leach says, "They owe it to me" An entrepreneur says, "I have the ability to make something of myself"
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The middle class is poor and sad because it ties up all its money in a home and cars (and is actually worth negative money since it's swimming in debt) instead of investing it. Honestly though, the middle class is in the middle so when they complain, it's not very reasonable and they really just need to stop so the wealthy don't have to hear it all the time.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how the middle class is supposed to put a roof over their head?

Let's look at the two options:

Rent: piss money away as there is no ROI. When they leave, that's it. They get nothing. This money could not be used to invest as it was being used to pay rent.

Own: pour money HOPING to get a ROI. Again, they couldn't invest this money as their only other options are homelessness or renting. One is impractical, the other a true waste of money.

Sure, some buy a $900k house when they don't need it, but even buying within your means is a gamble at best.

Your housing argument is invalid.

Your car argument is 100% valid.
 
OEM said:
Explain to me how the middle class is supposed to put a roof over their head?

Let's look at the two options:

Rent: piss money away as there is no ROI. When they leave, that's it. They get nothing. This money could not be used to invest as it was being used to pay rent.

Own: pour money HOPING to get a ROI. Again, they couldn't invest this money as their only other options are homelessness or renting. One is impractical, the other a true waste of money.

Sure, some buy a $900k house when they don't need it, but even buying within your means is a gamble at best.

Your housing argument is invalid.

Your car argument is 100% valid.
Click to expand...

keep-calm-and-don-t-feed-the-troll-22.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top