First, transformative initiative is a wild a-s way to refer to layoffs.
Second, why aren’t they trimming the fat at the top? Do shareholders really want the value of their holdings being consumed by two executive pay and benefits packages? Losing one of them would probably save more than the entire “transformative initiative” and easily save hundreds of jobs.
Why not? Look at the org around Mel Penna in HR. Two EVPs, a COO and another SVP in the same chain. Management is so bloated here from years of game playing and posturing. My prediction is they will all be protected in this big layoff. More IC's will be impacted, they will get shuffled around. Foxes guarding the chicken coop.
@OP of course we don’t need two CEOs, which is why we will be back to one CEO after the spin-off is complete. The two-CEO phase was simply Brian being transitioned out.
@a3 Not exactly. They earmarked 1B for the 'transformation' aka severance and other write-offs. Very different from saving 1B.
They dont care. The company is going into bankruptcy. Its called saving your a$$.
@a3 $1b wasn’t savings, it was additional expenses to support the layoffs - severance packages, etc.
CEO Brian Roberts and his family own 100% of the super-voting Class B shares.
So no matter who is in charge with the label of CEO, he technically always is going to be in charge, it’s basically impossible to overrule his controlling interest.
Wasn't on but heard the savings was described as 1B... Not sure 1 CEO would do it. Nice dent but there would be more. TBH shareholders (large ones) still believe in the exceptionalism of one person "leading to victory". They will put more valuation to a big name than retaining talent.