Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sva_ 1722 days ago
Pretty sure Ikea does it this way, and numerous others for sure.
2 comments

Once a company becomes big enough it turns into 'yet another big one' that inherits the branding and the original activities but simply starts doing whatever else is doing to min-max everything beyond human ethics.

It's like having a very small company with only a few people. There won't be any HR because that kind of overhead isn't something you can afford or make use of. So you work 'for the boss' and if you need something your boss is also the person who makes the decisions. But when the company gets bigger, you now get HR between you and the boss, and suddenly you are insulated. You work for the company, and are beholden to HR. Every step after that is just more insulation, more min-maxing and just making things worse for the sake of scale. Usually.

HR does not get between you and the boss, but middle-management (hence the name) does. HR gets between the company and you if there is a chance of you damaging the company, other than that it is mostly (regulatory) window dressing and to save some cost on recruiting and onboarding.
Movies too. The studio charges the movie, so the studio is positive while the movie is in debt. Actors get a lumpsum and a percentage on the movie benefits.

In this case, it’s not shell companies, the studios actually have in-house expertise (=shooting most of the movie) while the movie mostly drives the scenario and the actors, so it’s harder to define what is illegal.

McDonalds also has a franchise system, although it’s easier to control whether the pricing offered to the franchisees is constant or proportional to benefits.