1. Everyone smart enough knew that this wasn't a 3 month thing, but I give you the benefit of the doubt since WWE did show that they were completely incompetent and stupid, not knowing that testing is a MUST. So maybe they are stupid enough to not understand the situation. Also, it wasn't luck, WWE bribed the governor or Florida, did you forget that DeSantis helped the McMahons on the same day that a super PAC run by Linda McMahon announced it’s pouring money into Florida??Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Aug 6th, '20, 18:59
1. They had no idea how long this would last or how things would turn out. They (and AEW) are lucky that the Governor of Florida decided not to just shut them down. As a result, they acted in a self-preservationist, conservative manner. That's their right.
2. This idea that these people fired to "make profit" is true, yes, but I think a much better characterization of it is that these people were fired because the company thought firing them was going to be necessary to them staying afloat long-term. Or even if they didn't think it was necessary, they knew their was a possibility that it would be, so they took this safeguarding action. That is not only their right, but it is part of their fiduciary duty to their stockholders.
3. You are assuming that they already had these projections in place when they fired everyone, but that's pretty clearly not true, and here's why. They said the reason they beat these projections by so much was not doing the live tapings and taping in blocks. They started doing that AFTER the massive round of cuts started.
source: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/15/21221948/ ... oronavirus
2. I'm sorry, but WWE 'staying afloat' is just a weak rhetoric and excuse. A company that has projections of $10-12 MILLION DOLLARS and manages to surpass it by 400% is not a company trying to 'stay afloat'. That's just a greedy company. You want to tell me that Vince is a senile insecure man, sure, but he's also a greedy sociopath.
3. They did, they fired these people a week before the last financial call, right at the change of the quarter. They knew 100%. They projected $10-12M in profit, a company this size especially, ALWAYS has the projections in place, projections is all they have in their heads all year.
EXACTLY! They weren't part of the profit this time, and they STILL FIRED THEM! Next quarter, they're gonna profit $60M dollars and you're gonna defend that they needed to 'stay afloat'.Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Aug 6th, '20, 18:59 Also, here is a bit from last week's Observer:Dave Meltzer wrote:
It also should be noted that it was not the cost-cutting of talent salaries that led to the record profits. All main roster talent, and a number of the furloughed and fired employees, were being paid their regular salaries through 7/17. So the $4 million per month savings in that category will likely lead to $12 million more in added profits next quarter.
4. So you're defending these greedy people under "it's human nature"? No one is saying that rich enjoy or not firing people, I wish they would because then you'd understand, but the truth is that they don't 'don't enjoy' either, they unaffected and THAT is 1000 times worse, because that means that they don't even bat an eye, they're just looking at numbers and profits. THAT is a villain to humanity, that is being a sociopath.Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Aug 6th, '20, 18:59 So not only were these savings NOT due to the talent-cutting, but it turns out the big bad greedy corporation was actually doing MORE than it was required to for some of these people. That should but this debate to rest.
But on that last nonte...
4. They actually aren't under any sort of legal obligation to "take care of your employees during hard times." I know it's shocking to hear, but a lot of the time that people lose their jobs through no fault of their own, it's because of "hard times." Mitt Romney aside, rich really don't like firing people. They're not cartoonish villains who subsist off of exercising a power over others simply for it's own sake.
Noblesse oblige is a great thing, but history has proven that simple human nature means that the majority of people who are in the situation to be able to do that sort of thing aren't going to do it without being coerced. If they would, no one would have ever needed to voice the idea of using the coercive power of the state via taxing them more highly to pay for social safety net programs.
You're trying to encapsulate all of this under 'rights and obligations', and that there is the problem. This isn't a legal debate, it's a moral one. This isn't about that you can and can't do, but about the should or shouldn't you do. This is the problem with rich people, capitalism, greed, all of it, it's always whether you can, not if you should. This planet is literally being destroyed because people like them only care whether they can or can't, but not if they should. This mentality is why this planet is in the shitstorm that it is in. They are the scum of the earth.