Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

What are the pluses and minuses ?

In a hypothetical scenario say if Steve Mollenkopf declared that he along with few other execs would go on a $1 salary until a specific time (say one year)//company gets stable. Will that make sense ? Why do only worker bees get affected by this and not them?

Here are some of the pros and cons which I think would arise, but would like to know your feedback in it.

Probable pros:

  • Looks good on his morale

  • Saves not many but a decent number of head counts with the money that we get from them

  • Looks good from a leadership stand point to sacrifice equally into it.

Probable cons:

  • No salary of course

  • Doesn't make a significant difference overall

  • This move might create a different set of may be negative expectation in the mind of share holders and employees in future.

Curious to know your opinion. What would you do if you were the CEO / Board manager?

  • One of you

P.S.: Hopefully the discussion stays healthy and does not get driven by some absurd comments and frustration.

by
| 352 views | | 2 replies (last July 24, 2015) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+CDcHUD2

2 replies (most recent on top)

everybody will be impacted. SVPs on down. quit the pity party

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ElO+CDcHUD2

However hard this will be for us worker bees, I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to work hard for a year with no pay. After all, even if they did so, there would be no guarantee that their job would be there the following year. Even those of us who will be fired will likely find jobs elsewhere that will pay us. In other words, nobody should be expected or even asked to work for nothing. My .02

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @P9t+CDcHUD2

Post a reply

: