First...Macy’s is a “public” company...not private. They sell stock and have shareholders. Learn the differences in those before criticizing my post.
Obviously Macy’s did not make a profit, or much of one...if they had to lay off 7000 people...cut benefits of the remaining...and compensate executives for bonuses not really earned.
Too many on here glorify failed executives....who do not make money for their companies. CEOs and executives of public companies are still “employees”....management (not labor) but “employees”
Would you prefer underperforming non-management employees to get a bonus too?
Of course, you wont address the tax burden put on the rest of us for the 7000 now-unemployed Macy’s executives....is that kind of Socialism OK with you?
They slashed the dividend too.
I'm well aware Macy's is publicly traded, but it is still privately owned as opposed to government-owned. Thus it is none of the government's (or your) business what they do, unless you're a shareholder.
Obviously Macy’s did not make a profit, or much of one...if they had to lay off 7000 people...cut benefits of the remaining...
No one says they "had to" do this to survive. It may just have been a good business decision to keep them profitable. If you knew anything about business you would understand how decisions like this are evaluated.
Of course, you wont address the tax burden put on the rest of us for the 7000 now-unemployed Macy’s executives....is that kind of Socialism OK with you?
And I'm not a fan of extensive taxpayer support for the unemployed, but why is this Macy's' problem? They never had an obligation to these 7,000 employees in the first place. They chose to hire them when it made financial sense to do so, and now they're choosing not to continue employing them. If the government wants to give them lots of unemployment benefits, why is that Macy's' concern?
I pity Macy’s stockholders...if it were me I would sell immediately before the company is in bankruptcy.