Wayfair lays off 13% of its workforce weeks after telling employees to work harder
(www.cnn.com)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 19 Jan 2024 22:00
https://lemmy.world/post/10926406
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 19 Jan 2024 22:00
https://lemmy.world/post/10926406
Wayfair lays off 13% of its workforce weeks after telling employees to work harder::Wayfair is laying off 1,650 employees, amounting to 13% of its global workforce, as the online home goods retailer struggled to rebound following its success amid pandemic lockdowns.
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Wayfair is laying off 1,650 employees, amounting to 13% of its global workforce, as the online home goods retailer struggled to rebound following its success amid pandemic lockdowns.
Wayfair had flourished at the beginning of the pandemic, when demand for swanky furniture and other home decor upgrades was so hot that it helped bottleneck global supply chains and caused lengthy shipment delays.
Inflation has left high prices in its wake, and middle-income shoppers have pulled back their discretionary purchases to focus on paying for necessities like groceries, gas and rent.
Wealthier customers have shifted their spending from furniture and other goods to travel and services, and mortgage rates remain high, cutting into demand for new homes.
Late last year, Wayfair’s Shah garnered attention for his blunt year-end letter to his employees telling them to blend work and life together.
I believe that most of us, being ambitious individuals, find fulfillment in the joy of seeing our efforts materialize into tangible results,” Shah said in a note to employees earlier this month celebrating the company’s recent success.
The original article contains 429 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
.
Not surprising considering Wayfair’s products are a pile of hot garbage.
If they fired all three of those guys, they could pay a 12k severance to each of the fired employees. Or employ then all for a couple months.
Are you suggesting the company runs with no leadership? Or are suggesting the board hires leaders with less experience? Or are you suggesting the board offers less to the leaders they attempt to hire (who - broadly - choose based on the size of their compensation, like everybody else)?
No leaders or bad leaders tend to lead to failing companies and more job losses.
Try and be specific about your proposal instead of just spluttering platitudes.
Co-ops are a big part of the global economy: they employ 10% of the world’s workforce and over two trillion dollars flow through their doors every year. At a co-op, there’s no single person with overarching, top-down power over everyone else, like a CEO at a traditional company.
I’d also like to point out, having spent years working with C-suite guys… They are lazy as fuck and they don’t do jack shit that a decent manager couldn’t do as well or better. For example, the manager would at least know how to not fuck up morale.
I am all for coops. What makes you think I am not. But many coops have a C-suite too - John Lewis and Coop Retail in the U.K. are big examples.
I’m suggesting that the current leaders earn their pay through definable metrics. If the company is growing why are they shedding workers? It’s an indication that management either over-hired before or is stupidly firing people now. Both are bad.
I can 100% guarantee you that 99% of all C-suites are held to very definable metrics as a large part of their compensation.
Why are you sucking so much CEO dick in this thread??
Amazing. Coherrent argument.
Argument? It’s a question. A very coherent* one.
You didn’t answer the very simple questions I asked about growth.
Ah fair enough.
If the company is growing why are they shedding workers? I mean, I don’t know, but some avenues I can imagine are: Their growth is happening in areas that aren’t people-intensive, their profit margins are lower than their competitors, they don’t have the right people to meet their strategy, they hired in anticipation of some trends continuing and they don’t, etc etc. Or a combination of the above.
I’m not saying that their leadership is blameless. I’m only saying that from the data I have, their leadership isn’t automatically to blame either.
Leadership is always to blame if there are problems. That’s what being a leader is.
Here’s an easy way to tell who to blame: if their recent projects were a success, who would get the accolades?
The executive leadership team, most likely. No one would say “they don’t automatically get credit”. So they should get the blame when things go poorly.
Terrible metrics are used by many companies which encourage short term profits over the long term health of the organization. I’ve seen managers make decisions to cut expenses which look good on a P&L in the short term but have terrible consequences for the organization that only become apparent two or three years later. Usually after the person who made the decision has collected their bonus and moved onto another organization.
The sad thing is those people are promoted or recruited over more stead fast leaders who can actually grow an organization because their metrics look good.
what do they mean by other types of compensation?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Guess they didn’t work hard enough /s
I get extra money, I buy shit I don’t want to budget for. That’s furniture for a lot of people. Also we’re hitting the point where people are finding out just how shitty their stuff is because they’ve owned it a couple years.
I think this is the big thing. My (now) wife and I moved in together in summer 2019. We bought just about everything we needed on Wayfair. Coffee tables, book shelves, lamps, tons more.
We owned literally none of it by end of 2022.
Glad it isn’t just me. I got a cutting board there less than a year ago and it’s already splitting quite badly.
Close call! I thought the poor shareholders would be affected. All is good in the world again.
You do know a majority of investments are people’s retirement savings? Pension providers compete with each other to offer the best returns, moving to the shares that offer the best outlook for dividends and growth; we are the snake eating its own tail. If you want to one day save up for retirement, you are are a part of this.
I’d suggest you look into that a bit closer.
Some investments are pensions, but generally they are buying solely on metrics. It’s also worth noting they’re focused on the long term. Pension funds line bonds, indexes and long term stocks.
The money moving quickly and affecting value day to day, week to week, even quarter to quarter is the rich trying to extract a quick buck.
Pension funds are increasingly likely to be holding the bag on a company that the short termists have eviscerated these days.
If you really care about pensions you’d be in favour of massive market reforms to slow trading and promote companies long term health.
I think I understand it well enough already.
I AM in favour of massive market reforms that removes definitely HFT and probably a lot of day trading too. I don’t think it benefits anyone - I know some traders argue it prevents inefficiencies in the market but I am convinced it does more harm than good. Minimum holding periods are fine by me. But you and I both know that some pension funds hold Wayfare - and pension funds will eventually trade, maybe on lower frequency, and make choices based on companies’ performance. Of course Wayfare has to keep their margins in that game.
Wayfair has not been traded significantly by pension funds because it has not been a significant stock for long enough.
There may be some index linked investments which have pulled in Wayfair stock, but those will be treated as a whole and will be designed to be less risky.
It is a bad thing when stock value can be manipulated upwards by layoffs. It’s usually a sign the company is doing worse than they expected, their growth has reached a limit, so logically their long term forecasts should decrease.
But the market recognises their short term balance sheet has just seen an improvement and the short term money moves in. Ready for the ultimate buy out of a company that’s reached the peak of growth, so the main owners are ready to sell to a larger company.
Hopefully at an inflated market rate because short term decisions are being made to make the company look better to an algorithm.
Boy do I have news for you. Most retail investora want flashy charts, and they will pay higher fees to see them. They have no idea what they are charged or how it affects their returns.
What does that have to do with my argument?
And almost all of that private pension wealth is held by the richest 10%, barely any by the poorest 50%.
Stop mugging yourself off.
It’s sad that the poorer part of our population can’t save for retirement. I wish it was different.
But I think you’re implying that because wealthy people can save more, it’s ok if wealthy people lose their savings. If that is truly the case, I don’t think we will gain much from a debate on that topic - and I actually don’t think it changes my point above anyway.
I’m not 100% ok what you mean when you suggest I stop mugging myself off. Are you implying that I’m naive about who holds pensions? I’m not - it’s obviously the more well off that can afford to save more.
But I would caution a little bit against taking an absolutist view on this. Someone on minimum wage saving 10% of their income into a retirement fund will inevitably end up with a smaller position (in absolute terms) than someone on a six figure salary. In relative terms they might be in very similar positions though.