ESPN Laying Off HUNDREDS

[BigRedBuster]

The way they were fired was unethical imo

 

 

Are you saying that because they were laid off or the way they were laid off?

[Chaddyboxer]

Hell....I haven't taken a ton of business classes....but doesn't this seem like a MASSIVE conflict of interest with ESPN teaming up with the SEC to form this new network...it seems pretty much like a pile of bs and that this will only give the SEC an advantage....how in the hell is ESPN suppose to be unbiased when they have to kiss up to the SEC because they have money vested in conference??....

[KJ.]

The way they were fired was unethical imo

 

 

Are you saying that because they were laid off or the way they were laid off?

Good question, BRB. My argument has been assuming people are mad about the first one, which is absolutely ethical because your company doesn't owe you anything. But if they did it in some sort of sleazeball way, then yeah, that sucks.

[ADS]

The way they were fired was unethical imo

 

 

Are you saying that because they were laid off or the way they were laid off?

Good question, BRB. My argument has been assuming people are mad about the first one, which is absolutely ethical because your company doesn't owe you anything. But if they did it in some sort of sleazeball way, then yeah, that sucks.

Like I said in post #39, the way it was done is what I see as unethical.

[Landlord]

Hell....I haven't taken a ton of business classes....but doesn't this seem like a MASSIVE conflict of interest with ESPN teaming up with the SEC to form this new network...it seems pretty much like a pile of bs and that this will only give the SEC an advantage....how in the hell is ESPN suppose to be unbiased when they have to kiss up to the SEC because they have money vested in conference??....

 

 

They're not, and it is.

[BigRedBuster]

The way they were fired was unethical imo

 

 

Are you saying that because they were laid off or the way they were laid off?

Good question, BRB. My argument has been assuming people are mad about the first one, which is absolutely ethical because your company doesn't owe you anything. But if they did it in some sort of sleazeball way, then yeah, that sucks.

Like I said in post #39, the way it was done is what I see as unethical.

 

 

And, my question was...in what way was it unethical?

 

I'm not saying it wasn't. I just would like to see your reasoning.

[BigRedBuster]

Hell....I haven't taken a ton of business classes....but doesn't this seem like a MASSIVE conflict of interest with ESPN teaming up with the SEC to form this new network...it seems pretty much like a pile of bs and that this will only give the SEC an advantage....how in the hell is ESPN suppose to be unbiased when they have to kiss up to the SEC because they have money vested in conference??....

 

 

They're not, and it is.

 

 

It is a total load of crap that they are so closely tied to the SEC.

[ADS]

The way they were fired was unethical imo

 

 

Are you saying that because they were laid off or the way they were laid off?

Good question, BRB. My argument has been assuming people are mad about the first one, which is absolutely ethical because your company doesn't owe you anything. But if they did it in some sort of sleazeball way, then yeah, that sucks.

Like I said in post #39, the way it was done is what I see as unethical.

 

 

And, my question was...in what way was it unethical?

 

I'm not saying it wasn't. I just would like to see your reasoning.

Laying off employees who have been there for an extended period of time, without even offering them reduced salaries, and laying off a number of employees because they need to meet profit margins because they are buying up live events left-and-rght.

 

IMO, that seems a little unethical.

[knapplc]

I don't think anyone said thi is an issue of making too much money, it's a matter of ethics.

KJ doesn't understand that. He hasn't taken that class yet, so he can't regurgitate the text book to us.

 

This is getting close to a personal attack, and we need to keep that kind of thing in the Shed. Let's talk about KJ.'s opinion, not KJ.

 

/ModHat

 

 

[sd'sker]

/mod squad

[QMany]

I can somewhat justify the billion dollar investment in the SEC (conflicts of interest aside). They will see ROI on that. The $125 million SC studio would piss me off. Are they really going to see much ROI on that? I just feel something like that is an expenditure you make when you can afford it and it fits your budget. OBVIOUSLY their budget was mismanaged or they wouldn't be laying off 400 employees. ESPN seems like a destination job, where a lot of people move there to work for them. It seems unethical to cut these people loose, who probably made large sacrifices for you, because of your bad budget decisions ... when you just posted 32% profit over the last three months and your stock is at an all-time high.

[BigRedBuster]

Laying off employees who have been there for an extended period of time, without even offering them reduced salaries, and laying off a number of employees because they need to meet profit margins because they are buying up live events left-and-rght.

 

IMO, that seems a little unethical.

 

Unfortunately, companies lay off people all the time. This is done for a number of reasons. Why was this one more unethical than others?

[BigRedBuster]

I can somewhat justify the billion dollar investment in the SEC (conflicts of interest aside). They will see ROI on that. The $125 million SC studio would piss me off. Are they really going to see much ROI on that? I just feel something like that is an expenditure you make when you can afford it and it fits your budget. OBVIOUSLY they're budget was mismanaged or they wouldn't be laying off 400 employees. ESPN seems like a destination job, where a lot of people move there to work for them. It seems unethical to cut these people loose because of bad budget decisions ... when you just posted 32% profit over the last three months and your stock is at an all-time high.

 

I can see your point.

 

What would be interesting is to know exactly what level these employees were at. Were they a group of employees that aren't really needed with the direction the company is wanting to go? Nobody knows these answers unless you are sitting in management meetings at ESPN.

[sd'sker]

loyalty used to be valued in this country. no wonder no one takes pride in their work, they are just another cog in the machine.

 

 

I can somewhat justify the billion dollar investment in the SEC (conflicts of interest aside). They will see ROI on that. The $125 million SC studio would piss me off. Are they really going to see much ROI on that? I just feel something like that is an expenditure you make when you can afford it and it fits your budget. OBVIOUSLY they're budget was mismanaged or they wouldn't be laying off 400 employees. ESPN seems like a destination job, where a lot of people move there to work for them. It seems unethical to cut these people loose because of bad budget decisions ... when you just posted 32% profit over the last three months and your stock is at an all-time high.

 

I can see your point.

 

What would be interesting is to know exactly what level these employees were at. Were they a group of employees that aren't really needed with the direction the company is wanting to go? Nobody knows these answers unless you are sitting in management meetings at ESPN.

this is a good point, as well. it would just be nice if employees would have some priority when your company is doing really well.

[ADS]

Laying off employees who have been there for an extended period of time, without even offering them reduced salaries, and laying off a number of employees because they need to meet profit margins because they are buying up live events left-and-rght.

 

IMO, that seems a little unethical.

 

Unfortunately, companies lay off people all the time. This is done for a number of reasons. Why was this one more unethical than others?

As QMany stated, building a 125 million dollar studio when it's not in your budget, which leads to them having to lay off hundreds of employees without even giving them the option of having reduced salaries is where it differs.

 

And it may not be much different then other companies that have had to lay off employees, I'm just stating my opinion.