Bandcamp Slashes Nearly Half Its Staff After Epic Sale - Slashdot

Bandcamp Slashes Nearly Half Its Staff After Epic Sale

›

• by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @07:21AM (#63931027)

  No, that's logical. Would you accept twice the workload for no additional pay?

  I've seen that before right out the door of the "RTO" push after the Covid lockdown. 20% were fired, 20% more quit when they were offered jobs where they didn't have to work from the office and a good deal of the rest quit when they noticed that they could get a job where they are not expected to do the work of 2 people for the salary of one.

  • Re:

    In my scenario, you get far less load but far more workload. Protecting yourself against palace intrigue is far more stressful than your actual job when you have woke power structure in your company.

    This takes time away from your workload, because you cannot manage workload when you're desperately trying to make sure that you only use sanctioned language in every interaction, every document and so on. Once these people are out, you can actually focus on productive tasks, instead of endlessly checking every

• Re:

  Don't do that stupid shit.

  Twitter was full of thousands of worthless individuals who were handed a job promised by politics alone, and was proven worthless when an actual business owner took over. We can only hope and pray no company is or ever will be that bad again.

  • by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @11:09AM (#63931583)

    ...and was proven worthless when an actual business owner took over

    Ha, get back to me on how great a business owner Elon Musk is when you can explain to me how him having lost over 2/3rds of Twitters value since buying it https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]. makes him a strong businessman. Until then all you have is right wing feel goods in regards to Musk and Twitter as he is massively in the hole in regards to this purchase.

    • 2 hidden comments

    • • by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @12:15PM (#63931753)

        Wow, not only are you spinning your own conspiracies but you're even making some up and attributing them to me.

        At least from a financial perspective Twitter was just a plain bad buy for Musk or anyone else and he knew this which is why he tried to back out. Twitter was not a financially sound company prior to him buying them.

        Upon purchasing however, Musk would compound Twitter's problems to a massive degree by firing virtually all of Twitter's moderators (the actual reason for the ADL problems). Most folks had noticed that Twitter was bad enough in terms of propagating hate speech and conspiracy when it was moderated and so was only going to get worse unmoderated. Turns out that's not the type of environment companies want to see their ads in as well so Twitter has since seen an epic drop in advertising revenue https://www.reuters.com/techno... [reuters.com]. since doing this.

        Musk is in the bad place he is in with Twitter because of at least two big decisions he has made. That doesnt scream strong decision maker to me as these were genuinely dumb decisions to make with easily predictable outcomes.

      • Re:

        Wow! Are you from Fox?

• Re:

  Yes, the twitter sale. Which today is valued at about 10% of what Musk paid for with blood money.
  
  The corporate success story of the most brilliant management of the century.
  • 2 hidden comments

  • • Re:

      Fiduciary duty has never meant maximum (short-term) return. Wrecking companies for short-term profit at the expense of long term stability or survival is happening all over the place.

      Twitter is different, though. Musk is gutting the company without seeing any return. A city can save a lot of money by firing all of the trash collectors and maintenance crew. And things will be fine for a while, but eventually it will break down.

    • • Re:

        I'd like to think that Muhammed Ali said this.

• Re:

  That's a strange hypothesis in post-twitter sale world

  Different people will have different reactions. For myself, if my company was acquired and immediately half the people were let go, my first reaction would NOT be "great, they got rid of the cruft, now I REALLY can get something done. Let's all get extremely hardcore [google.com]!"
  
  My reaction would be more along the lines of "Dang, management doesn't give a shit about its (new) employees. My job is about to get a lot harder, because even if Bob was an unprod

  • Re:

    I don't really get Elon's handling of the Twitter acquisition. I understand he wants to turn X into some kind of one-stop...something, and rolling Twitter in is part of that.

    That said I still don't really understand the name change as opposed to chaning it to something like TwitterX or something - to retain the recognition and single something about it is new and different. What Elon did is like buying Hoover and changing the label on the vacuums to "XKCD" or something. Tweet is a verb - that used the be t

    • Re:

      This has been Musk's lifelong goal. He bought X.com as the new name for Confinity before it became PayPal. He was doing so bad for PayPal, he got fired a bit later while on a honeymoon trip (it's likely that domain cost over $1 million from whoever was squatting it). Back in 2017 he bought X.com back from PayPal who I guess had to keep it just in case someone tried to impersonate a brand nobody remembered. Or just to make Musk mad or try to get back some of the company money he wasted on it.

      Musk seems t

      • Re:

        >Musk seems to always stupid into accidental success.

        "To a fool, genuine talent looks like luck".

        See, there's this thing called reality. It tests us all the time. In case of Musk, he was tested with every company he led. And right now, he heads highly successful automotive company and highly successful aerospace company. Those two alone provide sufficient examples of two completely different fields where he could take something that was irrelevant on the market in a highly technical and complex field, an

  • Re:

    The problem that you're missing is that many workplaces have a lot of people who make other people's jobs harder, not easier. And at IT companies with their insane growth from covid era, they seem to be overflowing with such people.

    Remember, if task needs x amount of people to be done, adding more than x only makes it faster to do the task if following two criteria are met:

    1. Task can be done in parallel by x+(number of people you added).
    2. You hired correct people for the job.

    If even one of the two is not