> the CEO who reduces payrolls is doing right by the shareholders.
If the company is really struggling so much, the CEO can do even more right by the shareholders by cutting their own pay. After all they're more responsible than anyone else for the company being in that situation.
The article isn't arguing layoffs shouldn't happen. It's stating that they should be a shared sacrifice. If the CEO personally benefits in the short-term by laying people off their interests are in conflict with long-term shareholders' interests. So align those interests better - make it so the CEO doesn't personally benefit from layoffs. Only the other shareholders do. Specifically:
"freeze CEO pay and stock options and prevent stock sales for a year following any layoffs that exceed 5% of the workforce."
If they still "do right by the shareholders" when it doesn't line their own pockets, then fair enough. It was really necessary.
If the company is really struggling so much, the CEO can do even more right by the shareholders by cutting their own pay. After all they're more responsible than anyone else for the company being in that situation.
The article isn't arguing layoffs shouldn't happen. It's stating that they should be a shared sacrifice. If the CEO personally benefits in the short-term by laying people off their interests are in conflict with long-term shareholders' interests. So align those interests better - make it so the CEO doesn't personally benefit from layoffs. Only the other shareholders do. Specifically:
"freeze CEO pay and stock options and prevent stock sales for a year following any layoffs that exceed 5% of the workforce."
If they still "do right by the shareholders" when it doesn't line their own pockets, then fair enough. It was really necessary.