[mostlyghostly]

Not everyone is equal in that analysis.

And in a financially constrained endgame, you have to make choices about who to keep and cut.

Cutting that senior sales executive will cost 20 other jobs due to lost business and downstream implications.

Cutting the factory worker costs zero other jobs.

The harsh reality is not everyone matters equally.

[and to be clear, I'm not talking about bullshit deals just because someone was "loyal" to the CEO. This is real talk, people who actually can deliver a path to group survival]

[jolux]

All I'm saying is that it's bad if you cut those people and use it to give your execs a golden parachute instead of more runway for the people left over.

[mostlyghostly]

In that event, most of the people in question will accept an offer from a competitor with greater assurances of financial security and return to loot and pillage what's left of the business on behalf of their new sponsors.

If you're lucky, they merely poach the stuff you cannot defend anymore. In most situations, they come after the crown jewels of the business, accounts which create the lions share of the revenue and profits which funds the business.

And then you're screwed. Shut it down, pink slips for everyone...

[jolux]

Well, that makes them assholes. I'm not in favor of giving bonuses to unethical assholes.

[mostlyghostly]

Is that before or after you learn that the typical severance for the people in question was less than a week's pay?

So when it was "your turn", you're going to get tossed in the street with NOTHING to tide you over to your next gig.

Still feel like letting your family starve for the sake of "loyalty"?

[jolux]

Which people?

I don’t have or want a family. And it’s not about loyalty to the company it’s about the other people working under me.

I have savings so I can afford to be unemployed, but still don’t understand your hypothetical.

[mostlyghostly]

(No offense, but this is about as non-hypothetical as it can get. This was my reality in the recent past)