Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
decisive thoughts for precise living
Blog Roll
- "To The Point"
- "Which Way, LA?"
- Buzz Bands
- City Maven
- Crooks and Liars
- Democracy in America
- Eastsider LA
- Environmental Health News
- fishbowlLA
- FiveThirtyEight
- Frontal Cortex
- Gannett Blog
- I Don't Like You In That Way
- LA Metblogs
- LA Observed
- LA Times Pressmens' blog
- Marc Cooper
- McGuire on Media
- Media Mob
- Media Nation
- Muck Rack
- Newsonomics
- Newspaper Death Watch
- Nieman Journalism Lab
- On The Media
- Opinionator
- Outposts
- Pandemonium
- Paper Cuts
- Paul Oberjuerge
- Political Wire
- Prop Zero
- Recovering Journalist
- Reflections of a Newsosaur
- Reporter in Exile
- Robert Rector
- Romenesko
- Ron Kaye LA
- Rough & Tumble
- Scott Martelle
- Talking Points Memo
- Tehran Bureau
- The City Maven
- Unclaimed Territory
- Wilshire & Washington
- Witness L.A.
- Zoom
Posts
1 comment:
I'm having trouble with the logic. Managers have to increase cost at times and reduce cost at times in order to run a profitable business. Nobody parades managers around as heroes when they hire people due to a growing business, and they get bonuses for being profitable. However, when they have to reduce cost by eliminating jobs, everyone condemns them for it, although they are keeping the business profitable. They didn't get bonuses because they laid off people, they got bonuses because their business units were profitable.
Post a Comment