Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Disney World Furloughing 43,000 Workers (nytimes.com) 118

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Walt Disney World in Florida plans to furlough about 43,000 workers after it closed last month because of the coronavirus pandemic, the company and a union coalition representing the workers said. From a report: In mid-March, Disney theme parks worldwide closed, including Disney World in Florida and Disneyland Resort in California. The furloughs, which are set to begin on April 19, were part of an agreement between Disney World and the Service Trades Council Union, a collection of six unions representing the 43,000 workers at the theme park resort in Florida. "This is a decision that the union doesn't like," Eric Clinton, president of Unite Here Local 362, said on Saturday in a Facebook Live announcement. "However, it's within the company's right to lay off and furlough employees in this situation." Disney's stock is up by more than 3%. Analyst Sven Henrich wrote, "This is the greatest market ever. You can furlough your entire workforce of 46,000 and pay them nothing while just keeping 200 people on the payroll, in the meantime ask for a government bailout at the same time and still see shareholders rewarded. There. Capitalism."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney World Furloughing 43,000 Workers More

Disney World Furloughing 43,000 Workers

Comments Filter:

  • Not in the article? (Score:5, Informative)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @02:05PM (#59946438)

    Until the 19th, WDW has been paying everyone their full salary.

    • Re:Not in the article? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jwymanm ( 627857 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @02:12PM (#59946470) Homepage
      Thank you. The constant articles hitting capitalism while these companies are just trying to frigging stay in existence is unreal. The fact is they were paying their employees and how long can you pay 43k people and have no customers and stay in business? What the hell do they expect them to do print money out of air like the government simply can? And they have to add that anti capitalism rant at the end for no fucking reason at all. Like this would be any better if they were working for some socialist gov agency in another country. They wouldn't even have Disney jobs because Disney wouldn't frigging be able to exist. It exists in USA because of the hard work of people in a capitalist society.
      • to cover these expenses?

        I mean, I'm constantly told I'm irresponsible for not having 6 months rent in the bank account (nevermind my rent is pushing $1700/mo and after 3 major economic crashes in my life time, dot.com, housing and COVID, plus 2 major family illnesses in our private healthcare system I don't have shit saved).

        Yeah, they're all Too Big To Fail. They've all got a gun to our heads. If we don't bail them out they take the economy with them.

        But we knew this after 2008 and we did nothing

        • Re:Shouldn't the companies have saved money (Score:4, Insightful)

          by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @02:53PM (#59946622)

          So where are you going to put that 6 months worth of expenses? You're not talking a household where it is relatively easy to save. For some people, a $1000 disaster (5-10% of their monthly income) could put them in bankruptcy, saving and paying off debts until you get to a 10-20% buffer is a good idea. For corporations, a $1000 is a team holiday dinner. But as far as percentages go, the same applies, good companies do have ~10-20% in buffer so they can continue paying their people for weeks after a major disaster completely grinds the business to a halt, but then it ends as well. Paying 43,000 people for 6 weeks without receiving ANY income, good luck, most households can't even live with a minor deduction in their pay, you're asking companies to go without paycheck for nearly 2 months because they aren't getting bailed out right now, nobody is giving them money, they don't get unemployment.

          Most companies however live 'paycheck to paycheck' much more than your average household, almost all small companies take out revolving credit just to pay the wages and until they are big enough they don't really pay off that debt.

          Small businesses may get some relief, but it's primarily through government sponsored loans, the Dems, Pelosi and co added grants but they did so only for the largest corporations (Boeing etc) into the COVID bill.

          Your sig says it all, you have no clue about economics or businesses. Companies and the 1% aren't hoarding cash like Scrooge McDuck, even though that's what folks like Bernie likes to tell us, the 1% have most of their cash tied up in companies that need to be profitable for them to make any money. That value primarily represents risk, risks they take to provide YOU with a job and they are the only ones that are standing up and providing assistance to people, these companies are putting themselves on the line Amazon, Disney etc all because YOU don't want to take the risk, you just want a paycheck, from your boss or the government without any risk.

          • But I'm being facetious.

            My point is that we should use the government to build a safety net. Private business and private savings cannot be relied on to do so because it is not in the best interests of the shareholders to do so. They will extract the maximum amount of value from any company they can, meaning they will not leave enough for even the most minor of emergencies.

          • Paying 43,000 people for 6 weeks without receiving ANY income

            I admit I know nothing about Disney's financials and with the parks closed, they certainly are taking a hit on income in that sector, but I am guessing that their film/TV/channels/streaming/royalties/etc. still has SOME income at the corporate level.

            From TFA:

            The workers, who are expected to be called back to their jobs, will be able to keep their health benefits during the furlough period.

            At least there is something....it would be nice if Disney and other companies tried to keep some cash flowing to the workers though....we would be better off as a society if it is NOT always about shareholder value.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sixoh1 ( 996418 )

              ....we would be better off as a society if it is NOT always about shareholder value.

              Except that lots and lots of those shareholders are... drumroll please... retirees - think 401k, IRAs, TIAA/CREF and most state pension plans like CALPERS are heavily invested in the markets. It's even worse for pensions since equities are nearly the only way to generate enough Return-On-Investment to cover the promised future benefits (actually no enough because CALPERS and others are dependent on predictions of 8% year over year ROI which is better than a DOW SPIDER)...

              We can all hate on those damned olds

          • To be fair, it should be noted that Disney alone vaporized over $50B doing buybacks since 2009. That's money that should have been returned to shareholders in the form of dividends, or could have been allocated to a "rainy day fund" on the balance sheet.

            Of course they weren't alone; pick any mid to large cap and there's a good chance they destroyed shareholder cash in the same fashion. The average board of directors is a joke these days.

          • risks they take to provide YOU with a job and they are the only ones that are standing up and providing assistance to people,

            The "risk" is not to provide jobs, they are gambling and hoping they make a profit for them and their shareholders. If it was an altruistic effort to provide jobs, they wouldn't be furloughing their staff.

          • ... why taxpayers should bail out Disney and its shareholders.*
            Unless you're a socialist, but a real socialist would demand an equity stake in return.

            * furloughed workers getting paid Govt benefits

        • When I was in my early 20s, I read an investment book that said it's common to encourage people to have three-to-six months of expenses saved, but suggested a month or two would be more realistic. If something bad happens, you're unlikely to spend three to six months completely dumbfounded, and if you need more than a month or two to get back on your feet, that month or two at least gives you some time to figure out what other resources you may have (e.g., unemployment, early 401(k) withdrawals, etc.). So

        • Depends on the business (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @04:02PM (#59946846)
          Payroll makes up a different percentage of your expenses depending on your business. For most businesses it's between 25%-50%. But certain businesses it reaches 85% - mostly hospitality and service industries (like Disneyworld). In those businesses, the vast majority of the revenue you're bringing in is going to pay your employees.

          The difference comes to light in a situation like this, where all business is shut down. For a business with low payroll expenses, their revenue dries up, but so do their other expenses. So a company may have enough savings to carry them through 6 months of expenses assuming the expenses also scaled down due to the emergency. e.g. If restaurant experiences a fire, it doesn't need to buy food to sell during the 6 months it'll be rebuilding. So the cost of that food is not included in the 6 months of expenses.

          But for a business where the majority of your expenses is payroll, the assumption may have been that if there's a fire and thus nothing to do for 6 months, your employees are actually better off finding new jobs rather than sit around and wait and hope your business will be as successful after you rebuild. So payroll expenses may have been only partially factored into the 6 months emergency fund.

          However, the situation we're in right now completely subverts that assumption. Nearly all businesses are shut down, not just yours. So there's practically nowhere for your employees to go find a new job. Plus there's nothing fundamentally wrong with your business (as would be the case if it burned down in a fire). You're just being asked by the government to pause operations for 2 or more months. So there's no reason for your employees to want to find a new job because they think your business won't be as viable when it resumes. So the incentive is to keep your employees on payroll, whereas your emergency fund may have been sized assuming they wouldn't be on payroll. Which depending on how much of your expenses are payroll could shrink your 6 month emergency fund down to 2 or even 1 month.

          Enough. Enough. Capitalism is a Death Cult at this point. We're literally being told to go back to work and die for the stock market.

          LOL. Capitalism is about giving people what they want. The more/better you can give people what they want, the more money you make. If capitalism is pressuring you to go back to work in this pandemic, it's because people want/need whatever it is you're making at work, despite the shutdown. That's why jobs for grocery stores, online sales, and delivery have actually increased during this shutdown.

          Lots of us are sacrificing to help each other through this. I cut the rent for all the tenants in our building, to the point where we're actually losing money (maintenance and tax expenses exceed rental income). I'm burning through our emergency fund to cover the shortfall, to help the tenants extend their emergency fund. Why? Because our business (property rental) is a lot more resilient than the tenants' businesses. So it's actually in our best interest to keep our tenants whole and financially stable. When this is over, I'm better off if I have a few late bills but the tenants are able to immediately resume work (and thus resume paying me rent); than if I pay all my bills on time but the tenants are struggling to resume business (and thus aren't able to pay me rent), and some of them go broke forcing me to incur additional expenses finding new tenants. That's the way for me as a landlord to make the most money - by helping my tenants get through this healthy and whole. Capitalism 101.

        • You seem to think that operating a massive central government that hands money to corporations has something to do with capitalism. I believe the word you are looking for is corporatism.

          • Corporatism is a method for organizing an economy, typically a planned command (non-free, non-Capitalist) economy. Industries are arranged by sector, representatives from labor and capital are plopped down at a table with a government official and told how it's going to be.

            In it's best (weakest) expression it becomes something akin to a government-provided structure for unions and management to cooperate; but it was conceived as a way for Mussolini to personally control the entire Italian economy. It's

      • Abigail Disney insists wealthy people like her should be paying higher taxes.

        https://www.newyorker.com/maga... [newyorker.com]

        Well, here's your chance, Abby.
        She's worth about $120 million, and is "livid" at how workers at Disney were treated: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16... [cnn.com] ...so there you go Abs: we'll leave you $1mill for funsies, and the other $119m can go to a neat $2700 per furloghed worker.

        What are the odds this will happen?

        • It's almost as if wanting a higher marginal tax rate isn't the same thing as wanting a 99% wealth tax and 100% income tax.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @02:07PM (#59946450)

    The employees have been getting paid their regular pay, while doing no work, for a month. In addition, they still have jobs, they just aren't getting any hours. Disney is continuing to pay both the employer and employee portions of their health insurance. And they are still paying for the Aspire program where employees can go to college 100% paid for by Disney. And whoever this idiot Sven is, Disney's workforce is a hell of a lot larger than 46,000. And, oh yeah, Disney borrowed $6B to help pay for all this.

    • Re:Misleading (Score:4, Informative)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @02:27PM (#59946514) Journal

      Additionally, the furloughed workers will be better off, financially. By being furloughed, they'll qualify for the max $275/week Florida unemployment [nolo.com] - AND the $600/week Federal unemployment kicker [cnn.com], for a total of $3500 per month. Average wages [indeed.com] are around $11/hour, or about $1700 per month. In addition to keeping benefits, the average Disney World worker will double their income on furlough.

      Having a really hard time seeing the "evil" in this move? Company keeps people on benefits, promises positions when they open up again, and works with Government to pay them EVEN MORE during their furlough...

      • And before anyone tries to argue that by shedding workers, Disney is shifting payroll expense from themselves to the government, that's not how it works. The unemployment fund is 100% pre-paid by employees. If you look at your paystub from the beginning of the year, you'll see something called UI - unemployment insurance (there's a $7000 limit so paystubs later in the year won't have it). That percentage is withheld by your company, and sent to the government to be added to an unemployment fund. That's w

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          Uh, no. Very few states have any employee contribution to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by employers, not employees.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sixoh1 ( 996418 )

            Uh, no. Very few states have any employee contribution to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by employers, not employees.

            AND to add insult to injury, much of state UI funding comes from the companies that dont lay off any employees. Yes as an employer you might have a surcharge to your UI ratio based on "history" (as in how many people you have laid off in the past 3 to 5 years) but there's often a kicker surcharge assessed to every employer in the state after a wave of layoffs.

            It happened after 9-11, I started a company in 2002 for myself and a partner and to get healthcare we had to pay minimum wage, the state assessed us a

            • I had the same thing for my company in Washington. Every year, my UI and DI (Disability Insurance) payments went up, even though I had 100% employer-paid health insurance and never had a UI or DI claim. Every year, for 8 years. Insane...

          • It doesn't really matter..... The only states I ever lived in didn't put in any line items for UI on my pay-stubs either, so the "employer paid for it". But let's get real.... You don't think the employer didn't factor that cost into the compensation they offered the employees? Yeah - employees still paid for 100% of it. Just indirectly - by way of less pay than they would have earned for the job otherwise.

            • It doesn't really matter..... The only states I ever lived in didn't put in any line items for UI on my pay-stubs either, so the "employer paid for it". But let's get real.... You don't think the employer didn't factor that cost into the compensation they offered the employees? Yeah - employees still paid for 100% of it. Just indirectly - by way of less pay than they would have earned for the job otherwise.

              Because as we all know, every extra dollar a business gets always goes straight to the employees...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jack9 ( 11421 )

      > Disney's workforce is a hell of a lot larger than 46,000. And, oh yeah, Disney borrowed $6B to help pay for all this.

      Also, Disney doesn't need to borrow $6B, given Disney does better than the GDP of many countries. Don't go overboard there.

      • > Disney's workforce is a hell of a lot larger than 46,000. And, oh yeah, Disney borrowed $6B to help pay for all this.

        Also, Disney doesn't need to borrow $6B, given Disney does better than the GDP of many countries. Don't go overboard there.

        Don't confuse the overall Disney corporate giant with their theme park operations. They are separate companies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Yeah ,WHEN THEY HAVE REVENUE they have the money. Their revenue is now hovering at about $0.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Note that this is really the right way to do it for this class of workforce.

      Furlough doesn't mean 'you are just screwed completely', it is 'you can get unemployment benefits' with the added benefit of some confidence you'll have a job to come back to after the furlough period ends. Not perfect, but not world-ending either.

      Contrast with that company that was looking to keep demanding work/offering hours but dock the employee pay by the stimulus amount. To save them money but also still getting the work fro

    • are without pay. Disney has been repeatedly criticized for low pay of their park workers, with many performers living out of cars. They were eventually shamed [cnn.com] into paying $15/hr. But it took a lot of bad press to do it.

      Why does this matter? Isn't it the fault of the employees for not saving?

      Well, have you ever tried to save 6 months worth of expenses on $15/hr?

      Now, you could say it's not Disney's responsibility, but we were told these were the Job Creators who would take care of us. And that's f

    • And whoever this idiot Sven is, Disney's workforce is a hell of a lot larger than 46,000.

      The article refers specifically to Walt Disney World in Florida

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        "This is the greatest market ever. You can furlough your entire workforce of 46,000 and pay them nothing while just keeping 200 people on the payroll, in the meantime ask for a government bailout at the same time and still see shareholders rewarded. There. Capitalism."

        The article may have been about Disney World Florida, but idiot Sven's comment wasn't. Disney World Florida is not a company, has no shareholders, and can't get a government bailout.

  • Not for nothing have "News for Nerds" and "Stuff That Matters" disappeared from the /. masthead.

  • Is this funemployment for these fungineers?

  • So what should Disney do? (Score:4)

    by imperious_rex ( 845595 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @02:15PM (#59946478)

    Park visitors have fallen to nearly zero, revenue has plummeted, and you expect the 43,000 employees to do what? Stand around and pick their noses while collecting a paycheck? If you read the article, the furlough is rather generous. The laid off workers will still have their benefits, can collect unemployment, get educational support, and employee assistance. As furloughs go, not bad.

    As for the crack about shareholders and capitalism, not all shareholders are living in luxury sipping champagne from the deck of their third yacht. I'm a dividend investor and my stocks pay me, which has made all the difference for me since I was laid off nearly three years ago. Most shareholders are just ordinary people who invest to fund their retirement portfolios. If grandma owns shares in DIS and sees her retirement fund's value go up, then good for grandma and all the other DIS shareholders.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      Right, except for one little nit. The park vistors are not 'nearly zero', it is zero. All Disney parks have been closed for a month.

    • I'm a dividend investor and my stocks pay me

      Ditto. My stocks have been paying me quarterly dividends regular as clockwork. A nice addition to the paycheck.

      And no, I'm not "rich". Just sensible enough to actually invest in stocks that pay dividends. Rather than the crapshoot "playing the market" you hear so much about....

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Also note that part of the whole CARES act was to specifically provide for furloughed employees through unemployment benefits.

      Step 1 in that is for the employee to either be laid off or furloughed.

      Furlough is the intended design for moving people off of payroll and onto benefits to get through the shutdown.

      For those that this would hit hardest who cannot spare the difference between benefits and full pay, the stimulus offsets the delta between benefits and full pay. For better compensated folks, it is cert

    • Stand around and pick their noses while collecting a paycheck?

      I pictured Mickey with his arm all the way up his nose...

  • From the Summary: Analyst Sven Henrich wrote, "This is the greatest market ever. You can furlough your entire workforce of 46,000 and pay them nothing while just keeping 200 people on the payroll, in the meantime ask for a government bailout at the same time and still see shareholders rewarded. There. Capitalism."

    People invest in a company's stock when they see them making financially beneficial decisions. The decision to reduce expenses in a time when there is no revenue from the park is a financially wise

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Basically, it really depends upon how much bail out and how much expense they have as to whether the pitchforks are justified to come out.

      As others have noted, benefits are still funded, they certainly have a lot of non-payroll expense to cover. So they will have expense far greater than their income. If they really went out, then that's 43,000 people who would lose insurance and other benefits. They do the furlough knowing that the employees can collect unemployment benefits to mitigate the hit and a stimu

  • The shutdown and furlough is because Government effectively shut the business down. It's not "capitalism" that caused this - it's Government force (let's call it what it really is - fascism) that caused it.

    At least Disney is taking care of their employees by paying their healthcare, guaranteeing positions when the park reopens, and generally paid them for a month of zero activity.

    Msmash, Your socialist/communist shilling is tiring... Bernie quit, get over it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jm007 ( 746228 )
      thank you.... msmash has an unstated but perfectly obvious angle.... divisive, us vs them mentality that's meant to foment class warfare so some kumbaya dreamer can wreck the absolute best time in world history for the individual person; yes, there's still room to improve it, but modern times have the most opportunity and best quality of life for the common person ever in history

      it wasn't brought here by commies nor socialists

  • I have no doubt that Walt Disney World will eventually reopen... sooner, rather than later, with extremely limited numbers of guests per day and ticket prices that are nothing short of astronomical. $5,000 per day, or $10,000 for a 3-day World Passport, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    They'll probably soften the blow slightly by doing something like give away 25-100 bundles of 4 free tickets per (mid-week) day lottery-style to people who subscribe to DisneyPlus (with rules to prevent resale of those ticke

    • I also expect the parks like Universal to do a LOT of long-deferred remodeling, especially if it becomes apparent that they're going to have to write off the entire summer anyway. It's their once in a lifetime opportunity to do wholesale remodeling without angering people with closed attractions, and will also build up the theme that it's truly a grand re-opening of a park that's better than it ever was before. I'm talking about remodeling on a scale like Tomorrowland's late-90s makeover... on steroids.

      The

    • Disney theme parks haven't been affordable to most people for a long time. And that's just fine. They're basically gigantic advertisements aimed at kids to turn the kids into ever better consumers of the corporation's media. It's not as if they're a public service that's important to society which we need to make sure everyone can visit.

  • Furlough - sending employees home without pay for an indefinite period of time. (see also: anger; pain; dispair)

  • "This is a decision that the union doesn't like," Eric Clinton, president of Unite Here Local 362, said on Saturday in a Facebook Live announcement. "However, it's within the company's right to lay off and furlough employees in this situation."

    And what decision would you prefer, Eric? Really, you tell us what you'd like, since you make it sound like the company is simply doing this because they allowed to, as if some better option is available that Disney is choosing not to take.

  • If they choose to go on strike they'll pay salaries. Hard times for the employer and employee? Let them file unemployment rather than pay out of the dues collected.

    Like or hate them, other than the likes of Boeing and the airlines nobody comes close to the financial impact that have. Parks shut, movie production shuttered, ESPN has no sports, cruise ships parked.

    Almost no company has the liquidity to pay months of salary with no money coming in, even Disney. And they will be slow to recover fully as a good

    • The big problem for Disney parks is that large crowds (their business model) are likely to be prohibited for another 6-12 months. Apparently they were initially hoping for a short shutdown but see the writing on the wall now.

      And yes, although I'm a left-wing socialist who loathes Disney Corp, they've done nothing wrong here. For once.

  • Disney bean counter exclaims "This is the greatest market ever."

    He should have said this is the most corrupt market ever. 21st Century financial decisions are often completely unfounded by math and cannot pass a common sense litmus test. And yet they somehow still create a benefit or "profit"? There's something very wrong going on here. The kind of wrong that is best defined as a financial house of cards. One strong gust of wind, and tens of thousands of poor people die.

    Of course I say this as if thos

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @03:10PM (#59946678)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Umm - I could be wrong, but could it be the streaming service that is driving the rise in stock. Yes the 43K expense is reduced, but also people millions are paying monthly fees for the service. Could that be related?

  • Bailouts are NOT capitalism. (Score:3)

    by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @03:36PM (#59946762) Homepage Journal

    They're cronyism.

    Real capitalism exist mostly outside of government. The governments only real job in real capitalism is to prosecute criminals who use mafia tactics to threaten competition, like in the old railroad days when neighboring rail companies had their yards burned at night.

    I stand by what I said about reversing the slash in Slashdot from / to the left-leaning \.

  • It's Corporate Socialism. Corps gain, citizens pay. Corporate Socialism is the correct term.

    But you *did* do a very good job at selling it to many people, including the citizens of the USA, as capitalism.

    You also did a very good job at selling western Europes Social Market Economy - which, curiously enough, is actually *more* capitalistic than the US system, also due to stricter anti-trust laws - as "OMG Socialism, we're all gonna die!". Very nice. Keep going. Only that's how people get dumb and/or die.

    Let'

    • "Corporate Socialism" is an oxymoron. Socialism is government control of the means of production - land, resources, labor, and capital. There is no private enterprise under Socialism, so there are no incorporated businesses, so what the hell is the term supposed to mean? As best I can tell, Bernie Sanders invented it in order to lie about what Socialism is as part of his political campaign.

      Socialism can only be implemented with lies or violence. When people are aware that it is only about power, cons

  • Ever since I grew up, Disneyland was a goal. I was able to take my kids, back before they fired the whole IT crew and replaced them with HB-slaves. Now, fuckem...they gave my cable co ESPN cancer, so I cut the cord-and I see how shitty they are in general. The grandkids get trips to the real world instead.

  • That Sven associates "market" and "government bailouts" blows my mind. He is either a deeply ignorant or, more likely, has a political agenda and is twisting the meaning of words to fit.

    No business supported by government bailouts is operating in a free market. Handouts from above are absolutely unlike the invisible hand of a market.

  • Lay off a ton of people, makes the UNEMPLOYMENT rate go UP. More people "dependent" on government. News media will blare 24/7 how bad the economy is, how bad unemployment is, in another effort to remove Trump from office, which will fail like all the other attempts!

  • >"in the meantime ask for a government bailout at the same time and still see shareholders rewarded. There. Capitalism."

    Sorry, that is NOT "Capitalism", that is a type of "crony capitalism." There is a *HUGE* difference.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • It's also not what's happening. Large corporations (besides airlines I think, have to check) aren't getting free money, they're getting loans they will have to pay back.
  • Furlough is always better than a layoff. It sucks, don't get me wrong. I know what's like to be without a paycheck during a recession (fuck, I went through 6 days before my first newborn came into this world.) But believe me, a furlough is far fucking better. Layoffs will be inevitable, but this at least will give some oxygen later for many of these workers.

  • Then names only American locations.

    What about Hong Kong, France, Japan and China?

    You know, the big ones, world wide.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Close