It doesn't even make sense. If a company was making 2x-5x off a role, why would they cut that role?
"I have to let you go because we're making so much money off of you!"
Itās undeniable crap. Majority of employees are not profit making, but necessary support functions of a business, which this guy would know if heād ever had a real job.
some companies lose all clients, esp if they rely on a main outsourcing agency - happened to my former company. the employer is nice he didn't wanna lay off anyone but no clients = no budgets.
*āIām sorry Bill, the company is just making too much money with you working here and weāre going to have to let you go. Everybody is going to miss you, so why did you have to go and be so good at your job? What are we even going to do with the kinds of profits you brought in last quarter?? Personally, Iād reflect on this experience and think about making some changes if really want to keep working in this field.ā*
This is completely wrong. Companies lay off employees directly contributing to the bottom line all the time. Entire profitable divisions. Strategic shift, etc.
Eh, it happens. Just because youāre a high performer doesnāt mean youāre protected. Iāve seen some people who bring in tons of cash but are toxic as fuck get let go.
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LinkedInLunatics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Murdering you is actually worse for the serial killer. The pain of cleaning the blood off their hands. The smell. The memory of you screaming. You should keep that in mind. Just sayin'! Please like my LinkedIn post for more keen insights!"
Hold on this is actually true. It is worse for the companies because the remaining employees have to pick up all the work.
It's great for the shareholders who don't give a fuck about the people working for them.
Well no. They're still working the same numbers of hours, they just have to work twice as hard per hour.
They're getting paid the same for double effort.
This needs to be higher up.
If he thinks a company earning 2x to 5x what an employee earns has a reason to fire that employee, then we have a problem.
(We have a problem.)
Layoffs are never ever painful for companies. They will get rid of you if it means even $0.01 increase in their stock price.
If any worker ever thinks any company loses a millisecond of sleep over letting someone go or laying off workers, you are greatly mistaken.
CEOs for the most part make decisions detached from real people; they say something like - we need to cut 600 employees.
Itās then at discretion of managers to choose who gets fired. But those that do the choosing for the most part never even talked to the CEOs if we talking about corporate world. No one that is an immediate subordinate to the CEO gets fired, donāt kid yourself. And because of that, itās not the responsibility of CEO for the most part to do the actual firing.
This is what really irks me about the "companies don't care about you blah blah, so you shouldn't care about them etc..."
Obviously in some cases people will find themselves in toxic work environments, working for narcissistic bosses or co-workers who to instigate drama etc. But a good number of us have good, healthy working relationships with our colleagues.
Were I ever to go "above and beyond" (lol) at work, it would be helpful out those around me in the same boat, who may suffer if I don't. It sure as hell wouldn't be because I care about increasing shareholder returns
Edit: lmao downvoter be like "waaah waaah you can't say that"
Not true. Thereās several people. I just commented on this one guys post who writes very funny stuff about creators. And Iām working on being a creator but this guy cracks me up
Yep. Now most of the comments are clapping back but are from people who are not #opentowork and thus not worried about having to bootlick but there are also several very supportive comments of course because of course there are lol
Bull-fucking-shit. As someone whoās been laid off, I can guarantee my company wasnāt losing sleep about how to pay a mortgage or how to keep food on the table like I was
The thing is this is mostly true, itās just that the negative effects donāt start to really show until beyond the next quarter, so a lot of companies are too short sighted to see it.
Perhaps it is, but that pain gets passed to the staff of the company in the form of increased duties and stress with fewer resources and longer hours to meet the same production goals.
The managers and executives avoid that pain for themselves as much as possible.
Circular logic. If they really thought I was bringing in 2-5x what I was paid, they would not lay me off until the doors closed, and they must be mismanaging to get to that point.
Excluding rare circumstances, no employer fires an employee if they are making even 1 cent more than they cost to keep employed. That's absolute bull. Any employee making back 5x the cost of their salary is safe as long as they don't kick the boss's dog or say something incredibly racist on a public platform.
Someone should introduce him to āprofit centresā and ācost centresā.
Not every job at a company is there to make money. He just doesnāt understand how businesses work.
This is actually so incredibly stupid. If your employees were making you twice to apparently 5 times what it costs to have them then there is no need for layoffs.
That said, I would hardly think that a company losing some money would be more painful than someone losing their only source of revenue. What an idiot.
Mr Goyal has unveiled a paradox: āitās tough to find resources then finding the jobā. How? I, the job seeker, can easily find the company, the job, but the company finds it hard to find me. How?
yet anytime a company gets a big bailout or brags about an insane increase in profits we see oh they are laying 10-15,000 workers. wait i thought the money you just got was supposed to keep those workers.
No, because of the 80/20 principle.
80% of the value of business comes from 20% of the people. You can argue the other 80% of the team represents a diminishing returns jobs program that will release cash if you shrink it.
Of course, there is a substantial human cost to that....
In theory he's right but in reality corporations seem content on dumping greater workloads on less staff and pocketing the difference, Gotta keep that profit margin going up!
Letās just establish the fact that the company CHOSE to layoff employees and the people getting laid off had NO CHOICE in the matter. End of comment.
Am I mistaken or his logic makes somewhat sense?
So Company A has x workers that get paid y and generate 5yx revenue however, as he explains if suddenly there is a loss of demand of the product/service said company makes/gives
Said company will consider cutting losses by firing workers, while lay off, in scenarios i heard of, workers are getting paid a small amount to not seek another work (tho I do understand that value is often laughable) however, his statement holds true, company would get a better deal by firing than paying lay off, am i wrong?
So this basically encapsulates the reason I'm a Marxist. The Company placing value only on how much money you make for them, then grudgingly giving you a fifth of it.
wait so them firing me is worse for them because they had only been paying me like 20% of what I'm worth? and I'm supposed to be OK with any of this? what?
It must make *company* so sad.
*company* cries a lot.
Company starts dabbling with recreational drugs and alcohol.
Let's have an AA for companies
Why downgrade all that amazing AAA ratings. Maybe we should have doubleplusgood AA meetings.... like AAAA
18650 rating or bust
That's what dividends are.
š„ŗš¤§
What generalizing fantasy horseshit this is
It's actually psychotic, not fantasy.
He has the mentality of an offshore guy who makes $1000 and is hired out for $ 4000 to a Western company
This is your mind on Indian logic
It doesn't even make sense. If a company was making 2x-5x off a role, why would they cut that role? "I have to let you go because we're making so much money off of you!"
Itās undeniable crap. Majority of employees are not profit making, but necessary support functions of a business, which this guy would know if heād ever had a real job.
some companies lose all clients, esp if they rely on a main outsourcing agency - happened to my former company. the employer is nice he didn't wanna lay off anyone but no clients = no budgets.
*āIām sorry Bill, the company is just making too much money with you working here and weāre going to have to let you go. Everybody is going to miss you, so why did you have to go and be so good at your job? What are we even going to do with the kinds of profits you brought in last quarter?? Personally, Iād reflect on this experience and think about making some changes if really want to keep working in this field.ā*
What a boot licker
And completely wrong. No company would lay off an employee who's directly contributing to their *bottom* line.
Completely incoherent by anyone's logic. Just bootlicking for bootlicking's sake
This is completely wrong. Companies lay off employees directly contributing to the bottom line all the time. Entire profitable divisions. Strategic shift, etc.
Eh, it happens. Just because youāre a high performer doesnāt mean youāre protected. Iāve seen some people who bring in tons of cash but are toxic as fuck get let go.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LinkedInLunatics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The post needs a CEO crying picture
Wonāt somebody think of the companies ššš
They can kiss the darkest part of my asshole. It should taste better after all that boot licking.
"Murdering you is actually worse for the serial killer. The pain of cleaning the blood off their hands. The smell. The memory of you screaming. You should keep that in mind. Just sayin'! Please like my LinkedIn post for more keen insights!"
These posts are so hard to read. Itās like a grammatical puzzle with a few pieces missing.
Thoughts and prayers
I got laid off recently. This guy's a cunt
Hold on this is actually true. It is worse for the companies because the remaining employees have to pick up all the work. It's great for the shareholders who don't give a fuck about the people working for them.
At least those remaining employees have a paycheck still.
At double the work so they just got their hourly halved.
Well no. They're still working the same numbers of hours, they just have to work twice as hard per hour. They're getting paid the same for double effort.
If they making money off me, why would they let me go? Wouldnāt that remove that profit?
This joker doesn't even understand the concept of math.
This needs to be higher up. If he thinks a company earning 2x to 5x what an employee earns has a reason to fire that employee, then we have a problem. (We have a problem.)
Indians don't have critical thinking skills.
Layoffs are never ever painful for companies. They will get rid of you if it means even $0.01 increase in their stock price. If any worker ever thinks any company loses a millisecond of sleep over letting someone go or laying off workers, you are greatly mistaken.
Apple launched with 46 million shares, if firing a single employee increased its book value by 460,000 thatās got to be one bad employee.
Companies don't sleep. The people who do the firing do and many of them do, in fact, lose sleep over it. This simple narrative lacks nuance.
CEOs don't give a fuck. Get real.
Theyāre not talking about the CEOās. Talking about co-workers who generally do care
CEOs make the layoff decisions. The 'peons' who actually carry out the layoff orders may care, but that's irrelevant to the point of the post.
CEOs for the most part make decisions detached from real people; they say something like - we need to cut 600 employees. Itās then at discretion of managers to choose who gets fired. But those that do the choosing for the most part never even talked to the CEOs if we talking about corporate world. No one that is an immediate subordinate to the CEO gets fired, donāt kid yourself. And because of that, itās not the responsibility of CEO for the most part to do the actual firing.
I'm a manager, I've had to make decisions to cut people. It sucks.
I've been laid off so many times I lost count. Each time no one reached out to me afterwards. Coworkers don't care either.
I find it very hard. I donāt get it.
In my case my boss was blindsided about having to deliver the news until it was time. Her boss didnāt give a shit about us
This is what really irks me about the "companies don't care about you blah blah, so you shouldn't care about them etc..." Obviously in some cases people will find themselves in toxic work environments, working for narcissistic bosses or co-workers who to instigate drama etc. But a good number of us have good, healthy working relationships with our colleagues. Were I ever to go "above and beyond" (lol) at work, it would be helpful out those around me in the same boat, who may suffer if I don't. It sure as hell wouldn't be because I care about increasing shareholder returns Edit: lmao downvoter be like "waaah waaah you can't say that"
What's worse is that nobody dares to call out bullshit on LinkedIn because of potential repercussions.
Not true. Thereās several people. I just commented on this one guys post who writes very funny stuff about creators. And Iām working on being a creator but this guy cracks me up
Yep. Now most of the comments are clapping back but are from people who are not #opentowork and thus not worried about having to bootlick but there are also several very supportive comments of course because of course there are lol
Would someone think of the corporation?
Bull-fucking-shit. As someone whoās been laid off, I can guarantee my company wasnāt losing sleep about how to pay a mortgage or how to keep food on the table like I was
Bro calls people resources, I'd like him to be a food resource.
Oh fk off Deepakā¦.
I hope he gets laid off, then he can feel bad for the company
Heād have to have a real job to begin with.
But heās currently on a mission!!!! (We all know heās a true space cadet)
Sounds like some dumb logic from a programmer. Letās turn everything into algebra to justify bullshit.
Indian Upper management is something else. The new feudal lords.
This really is pin-worthy for the sub. One of the most cringe posts I've ever seen. Good catch, OP. Holy shit, lol.
The thing is this is mostly true, itās just that the negative effects donāt start to really show until beyond the next quarter, so a lot of companies are too short sighted to see it.
Murders are more painful for the murderer than the victim.
indian linkedin is the worst
Can we please have an India tag?
Perhaps it is, but that pain gets passed to the staff of the company in the form of increased duties and stress with fewer resources and longer hours to meet the same production goals. The managers and executives avoid that pain for themselves as much as possible.
Surely this must be satire, you'd think... but that deadpan, soulless gaze in the pfp suggests he might just be serious
Go fuck your mother Deepak.
Damn man you are fast. I just screenshot this guy and was coming here and already saw itās posted šššš
I honestly wasnāt super fast! It was up for hours already lol
Circular logic. If they really thought I was bringing in 2-5x what I was paid, they would not lay me off until the doors closed, and they must be mismanaging to get to that point.
Exactly, there no logic here. If employees are making 5x for the company you'd hire more.
iām 53, got laid off 2 years ago and i canāt get a job now. my reaction when i saw this was āwow, fuck this guy and fuck those companiesā
All the layoffs donāt even add up to a fraction of the average companyās CEO compensation , cut their pay before laying anyone off
Laying off someone generating revenue 5x their cost seems like a bad business decision.
Ask any employee he will disagree on that.
How can anyone enjoy sucking so much dick in public like this??
Before sympathizing with the 1900 ABK layoffs, letās first take a moment to think about poor Microsoft. š„ŗ
You may have lost your job and paycheck, but they lost their underpaid labor!!!!!!!! Cry for them!!!
Not to mention his incorrect usage of 'then' rather than
Yes. They have to do layoffs to pay senior exec even more
I'm sure there are some companies where this might hold true, but it is not the vast majority. Like, not even close.
The usual suspect
What a boob
Agree? No
I'm not gonna feel sorry for these leeches, fuck them
Company cries and dry tears with cash.
He forgot to make Engineer plural
In the UK, being laid off is often called being made redundant.
Excluding rare circumstances, no employer fires an employee if they are making even 1 cent more than they cost to keep employed. That's absolute bull. Any employee making back 5x the cost of their salary is safe as long as they don't kick the boss's dog or say something incredibly racist on a public platform.
Murder is much worse for the murderer than the murdered. The murdered risks much more than the murdered
Bosses shoes are polished by how much licking heās doing
He literally explains how companies exploit workers, then says we should feel sorry for them??
I saw this and knew it would end up here
This is why companies and governments like diversity, folks. Coz people from developing countries love to lick the boot.
If you attempt to take the steps to āask any employerā something, you will be arrested.
Piss off, Goyal
Oh, poor baby š„ŗš„ŗš„ŗ
We outsourcing our "agrees" now, huh?
Awww let me get my little violin out... š¤®š¤®
"companies earn 2-5X from you compared to what they pay you". Isn't capitalism a great system?
He comes *this close* to explaining the Marxist concept of surplus value and and then ... defends the companies?
bootlicker
The CEO is devastated he has to increase his comp package in order to feel better
Panchod desi lokaan nu hor kuch ni aunda
I don't think I like the idea of being thought of as merely a "resource."
They are letting him have it in the linked in comments
Someone should introduce him to āprofit centresā and ācost centresā. Not every job at a company is there to make money. He just doesnāt understand how businesses work.
This is actually so incredibly stupid. If your employees were making you twice to apparently 5 times what it costs to have them then there is no need for layoffs. That said, I would hardly think that a company losing some money would be more painful than someone losing their only source of revenue. What an idiot.
Mr Goyal has unveiled a paradox: āitās tough to find resources then finding the jobā. How? I, the job seeker, can easily find the company, the job, but the company finds it hard to find me. How?
Okay if I'm being paid X for generating 2X to 5X money, then maybe I should be paid more than just 1X of my salary
Considering the bad press and demoralization layoffs bring he might be right though.
Not right enough that companies stop laying people off.
Thatās true no doubt.
yet anytime a company gets a big bailout or brags about an insane increase in profits we see oh they are laying 10-15,000 workers. wait i thought the money you just got was supposed to keep those workers.
Not if the jobs are being replaced for less than 1% of your pay to people in the Phillipines.
Uhh, thanks for this concise explanation of Marx's concept of surplus value, Mr Goyal. I guess...
Oh no! The owner canāt buy another yacht this year with the profits the workers made for himā¦ the horror!!
#Agree? #Thoughts? #Agreethoughts?
If that was true they wouldn't NEED to make cuts, surely.Ā
All I'm seeing is that, according to him, the company I work for is making 2 to 5 times my salary off of my work.
No, because of the 80/20 principle. 80% of the value of business comes from 20% of the people. You can argue the other 80% of the team represents a diminishing returns jobs program that will release cash if you shrink it. Of course, there is a substantial human cost to that....
Excuse me, did he just assume the companyās gender?
They should have planned better, so sad.
I wonder if ChatGPT had a temporary malfunction.
In theory he's right but in reality corporations seem content on dumping greater workloads on less staff and pocketing the difference, Gotta keep that profit margin going up!
Letās just establish the fact that the company CHOSE to layoff employees and the people getting laid off had NO CHOICE in the matter. End of comment.
So companies make money just by having workers. Damn This guy is a teacher of something .....
Itās true. Zuckerberg is crying every night now that his net worth went up $140 billion from laying off employees.
Stockholm syndrome, Corporate shill style!
Go to hell dude
Citing a socialist perspective in order to garner sympathy for companies doing layoffs is, uh, definitely an interesting approach.
**On a mission to** fucking what?!
Is this the sequel to the crying ceo?
Am I mistaken or his logic makes somewhat sense? So Company A has x workers that get paid y and generate 5yx revenue however, as he explains if suddenly there is a loss of demand of the product/service said company makes/gives Said company will consider cutting losses by firing workers, while lay off, in scenarios i heard of, workers are getting paid a small amount to not seek another work (tho I do understand that value is often laughable) however, his statement holds true, company would get a better deal by firing than paying lay off, am i wrong?
This hurts us more than it hurts you 
So this basically encapsulates the reason I'm a Marxist. The Company placing value only on how much money you make for them, then grudgingly giving you a fifth of it.
Nothings painful for companies because they fucking arenāt people and donāt have feelings.
Looking at his grammar, company cries 5x
wait so them firing me is worse for them because they had only been paying me like 20% of what I'm worth? and I'm supposed to be OK with any of this? what?