EA cutting 1500 jobs

[jero cvmi]

It's funny how these companies are so evil for doing layoffs, yet don't have that stigma removed when they hire and maintain some of the largest staffs throughout the world.

Because they do it for charity.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't really care to much about EA letting people go. Here in Iowa we have whole companies moving out of the state. 1500 is small potatoes compared to the tens of thousands who have lost their jobs already.

[Gorgon]

It's an interesting problem though. How many of you believe that a company has a moral duty not to lay off staff if it can be avoided, and where does the idea come from. Isn't dog eat dog the basic operation of businesses in a Capitalist society.

 

There is some evidence to the contrary, for instance public pension plans in many European countries approach their investments with an ethics clause, but private companies....

 

Many do take the highroad to acquire and maintain a good image. Things like a 'CO2' policy are getting common for companies which depend on a good standing in the public, but do we expect companies to maintain staff - especially in an economic crisis where getting laid off is a more serious business.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

lol lol ****ing ea

 

i smell like cigarettes

[Mamoulian War]

It's an interesting problem though. How many of you believe that a company has a moral duty not to lay off staff if it can be avoided, and where does the idea come from. Isn't dog eat dog the basic operation of businesses in a Capitalist society.

 

There is some evidence to the contrary, for instance public pension plans in many European countries approach their investments with an ethics clause, but private companies....

 

Many do take the highroad to acquire and maintain a good image. Things like a 'CO2' policy are getting common for companies which depend on a good standing in the public, but do we expect companies to maintain staff - especially in an economic crisis where getting laid off is a more serious business.

 

 

Have you ever though, that with more and more people getting layed off left and right, there will be soon very few people who will still be able to afford any nonessential things?

 

What then? Making even more layoffs?

 

Basic Action - Reaction thing is in play... The more unemployed people in a country, the lower chance to actualy sell your product, unless you are food, alcohol or condom maker...

 

But yes, that would be Longterm Thinking... and that does not fit into this fiscal year's bottom line, presented to shareholders, so why they would care...

[Humodour]

It's an interesting problem though. How many of you believe that a company has a moral duty not to lay off staff if it can be avoided

 

As a largely left of centre voter, it may surprise you thart I value control of inflation above unempoylemtn..

 

And tangentially to that, I value company growth moral duty to not lay off workers.

 

BUT only if the company can justify it. Interplay could not. It's a shame interplay has not gone horribly bankrupt yet, dragging Herve Caen under in a most pleasing manner,

[Meshugger]

For the sake of argument, lets say that HR at EA are doing a wonderful job. They are hiring the best of the best for each position.

 

In conclusion, EA is being dumb, really dumb. When you spend years to get a competent workforce, you just do not lay them off for a potential short-term profit. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. This policy will be the downfall in the long run. I mean really, who the hell wants to work for a company that treats its workers as expendable bricks?

 

//Edit: I do not know of the law, but isn't this a case where the union representing the workers should step in? Don't tell me that these guys do not have a collective agreement for contracts and working standards with the company, do they?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Meshugger

[Lare Kikkeli]

//Edit: I do not know of the law, but isn't this a case where the union representing the workers should step in? Don't tell me that these guys do not have a collective agreement for contracts and working standards with the company, do they?

 

i dont think america really has unions in the same capacity or power as europe does.

[Meshugger]

//Edit: I do not know of the law, but isn't this a case where the union representing the workers should step in? Don't tell me that these guys do not have a collective agreement for contracts and working standards with the company, do they?

 

i dont think america really has unions in the same capacity or power as europe does.

 

How lame. Why aren't they organizing themselves? What a bunch of pushovers.

 

Those guys should be more like the french. When the government tried to slash prices, they blocked the stairs to parliament with manure, so that the representives had to walk through s*** to get to work.

 

Just an idea for alanchu whenever the time is right

[Lare Kikkeli]

//Edit: I do not know of the law, but isn't this a case where the union representing the workers should step in? Don't tell me that these guys do not have a collective agreement for contracts and working standards with the company, do they?

 

i dont think america really has unions in the same capacity or power as europe does.

 

How lame. Why aren't they organizing themselves? What a bunch of pushovers.

 

because to them unions and workers rights in general = communism or the mob. in the states everyone thinks he's gonna be rich some day, JUST YOU WAIT SOME DAY I'LL FIRE YOU!

[theslug]

//Edit: I do not know of the law, but isn't this a case where the union representing the workers should step in? Don't tell me that these guys do not have a collective agreement for contracts and working standards with the company, do they?

 

i dont think america really has unions in the same capacity or power as europe does.

I don't know what unions are like in Europe (or in America for that matter) but we do have them though they aren't prevalent in every industry, which from what I hear is a good thing. Unions had a purpose at one time and there's still a few places where they can be used but for the most part they (unjustly) inflate salary, benefits, etc exponentially increasing the cost of labor for companies. This was one of the bigger issues with Ford. Yeah Ford sucks either way but its pretty tough to compete when your paying out labor costs that are higher than your competitors.

[Wrath of Dagon]

EA's losses are huge, they're bleeding money. A company is not a charity, it's there to make money for the shareholders, nothing else. I bet those of you complaining the most wouldn't like to spend your own money to employ someone you don't need, but then again you're probably producing nothing but internet rants. Also life isn't fair, no one owes you anything, including a job, waah, waah!

[Volourn]

Companies aren't there to be moral. They're there to make money. And, no, employees aren't loyal. Employees work for companies becaue they want to get paid. You cna't buy loyalty. I guarantee everyone of those 1500 people who got cut would have quit working there in an instant if they could find a better job. Even if them quitting would hurt the company. And, not one person here would take that quitter to task. Abnd, if EA had just let go 10 or so people, nobody here would say a thing either. This is about numbers.

 

Do I do a happy dance when people lose their job? No. But, I don't think companies OWE anyone anything other than what is in the contract. Period. And, vice versa.

[alanschu]

It's funny how these companies are so evil for doing layoffs, yet don't have that stigma removed when they hire and maintain some of the largest staffs throughout the world.

Because they do it for charity.

 

I'm not saying they do it for charity.

 

 

It's just popular to bash the big businesses. Always has been.

[Magister Lajciak]

I do think some legislation to protect workers is a good thing, but preventing companies from firing workers would be suicidal for the economy. If I owned/ran a company with potential growth prospects that require hiring new people to realize, I simply would not hire anybody if I knew that I could not fire them if things didn't work out or some sort of crisis hit that could drive me to bankrupcy (which would incidently lead to the firing of all the workers in the end, since the company would be no more) if I didn't downsize. I would instead stay small and forego the potential benefits of expansion in order to avoid this huge risk.

 

Companies cannot afford to keep unnecessary workers (even if they have become unnecessary due to external conditions, such as a general economic crisis) on a long-term basis or they will fail. Temporarily, workers can be kept underemployed for the sake of preserving morale/image/skilled employees, but this cannot usually go on for a long time. State-owned (or private but subsidized) companies may be able to preserve employment artificially, but only at the expense of explicit or implicit subsidies from the government.

 

Still, employees do deserve some protection - it is a matter of balance.

 

Note: EA just reported a significant loss in the last quarter. Just to illustrate how large a loss it was - on an annualized basis it would be more than 25% of its entire market capitalization. Therein, I guess, is the explanation for the layoffs.

[Malcador]

Shame never any high ups get caught by these. Makes sense if they suffered a large loss to do this though (how I got nailed from Yahoo, yay).

[alanschu]

In conclusion, EA is being dumb, really dumb. When you spend years to get a competent workforce, you just do not lay them off for a potential short-term profit. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. This policy will be the downfall in the long run. I mean really, who the hell wants to work for a company that treats its workers as expendable bricks?

 

You're making an assumption here though. None of us know what the motivations are, and as Electronic Arts has been running deficits for a while now, it's evident that they aren't in the business of laying people off simply to make short term goals attainable. Otherwise these layoffs would have come much sooner (and probably with the other layoffs they have done).

[Meshugger]

In conclusion, EA is being dumb, really dumb. When you spend years to get a competent workforce, you just do not lay them off for a potential short-term profit. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. This policy will be the downfall in the long run. I mean really, who the hell wants to work for a company that treats its workers as expendable bricks?

 

You're making an assumption here though. None of us know what the motivations are, and as Electronic Arts has been running deficits for a while now, it's evident that they aren't in the business of laying people off simply to make short term goals attainable. Otherwise these layoffs would have come much sooner (and probably with the other layoffs they have done).

 

They were at a severe loss? What happened to less profit in last quarter than expected? I am getting mixed messages here

 

Back to the point. I was not talking about laws, i was talking about the employees organizing themselves to balance themselves as a power block against the decisions of upper management. Right now, they seem like gullible pushovers that can be treated as trash.

 

On the ford/GM/chrysler thing. As i said, balance in terms of power. Evidently, the unions were running the show with the management not caring or playing golf. They have themselves to blame.

[alanschu]

They were at a severe loss? What happened to less profit in last quarter than expected? I am getting mixed messages here

 

I don't know where people are getting the idea of profit from. Also from GamaSutra.

 

"EA Announces Increased Net Loss, Confirms 1,500 Layoffs"

 

Electronic Arts saw a decline in GAAP revenue, but they did post a record high for non-GAAP revenue (which it seems most people latched onto here, assuming that EA was rolling around in profits).

Edited November 10, 2009 by alanschu

[Meshugger]

My mistake, sorry.

 

Then it is pretty understable.

[Mamoulian War]

//Edit: I do not know of the law, but isn't this a case where the union representing the workers should step in? Don't tell me that these guys do not have a collective agreement for contracts and working standards with the company, do they?

 

i dont think america really has unions in the same capacity or power as europe does.

I don't know what unions are like in Europe (or in America for that matter) but we do have them though they aren't prevalent in every industry, which from what I hear is a good thing. Unions had a purpose at one time and there's still a few places where they can be used but for the most part they (unjustly) inflate salary, benefits, etc exponentially increasing the cost of labor for companies. This was one of the bigger issues with Ford. Yeah Ford sucks either way but its pretty tough to compete when your paying out labor costs that are higher than your competitors.

 

Oh noes, what an outrageous idea, to actualy pay employees the money they deserve... and giving them benefits... 2 dollars a hour and 80 hours a week should be enough rewards, no other benefits needed...

[Mamoulian War]

They were at a severe loss? What happened to less profit in last quarter than expected? I am getting mixed messages here

 

I don't know where people are getting the idea of profit from. Also from GamaSutra.

 

"EA Announces Increased Net Loss, Confirms 1,500 Layoffs"

 

Electronic Arts saw a decline in GAAP revenue, but they did post a record high for non-GAAP revenue (which it seems most people latched onto here, assuming that EA was rolling around in profits).

 

Maybe if they did not buy a company here for 800 millions and company there for 300 millions they would not be now in net loss

[alanschu]

I'm not sure exactly how the GAAP and non-GAAP adjustments work, but would purchasing assets be considered a loss?

[Volourn]

"... 2 dollars a hour and 80 hours a week should be enough rewards, no other benefits needed..."

 

Yeah, because that's exactly what EA does. Even at its worst, it didn't do that. Nice try, though.

 

 

"Then it is pretty understable."

 

Companies don't use let people go just for the fun of it. It doesn't make sence to hire someone, train them, and then can them for ****s and giggles.

[Mamoulian War]

I'm not sure exactly how the GAAP and non-GAAP adjustments work, but would purchasing assets be considered a loss?

 

If they purchase it on loan, they have to pay the money back and it is substracted from your income... i do not know how it is correctly calculated aswell so i rather shut up but seeing in same day, that company spends 300 millions and cuts off 1500 employees is very rare sight even in "high" bussiness... to be honest up to this day i have never seen such an announcement from any other companies...