>about half of which is paid out in three-year intervals to incentivize commitment to long-term performance
"Long term" for an operating system is slightly over three times "long term" for an executive. And I'd bet it's more that negotiating executive salaries every year requires more executives which would cost more, long term incentives aren't the issue.
[dead]
I'm going to keep saying it - unionising has been a bad stratagy that loses. That has been true pretty much forever. Trying to muscle and threaten the organisation in the world most willing to give you money is wildly silly. Red Hat doing layoffs doesn't change that.
Software Engineers have been massive winners of the hyper-capitalist faster-than-regulation world of software. The salaries are outrageous relative to the amount of effort put in. Changing strategies because of a 5% workforce reduction would be stupid.
As a body of engineers we all stand to gain far more by breaking the anachronistic guilds in law, medicine and other trades than from unionising in software. We'd see some real progress in medicine if it was easier for people to get in and fix the rather obvious problems that plague the industry. I know that'd do much more good for my family than me avoiding the pain of sending out a lot of resumes every 2 decades.
Locking down software companies did not work in Europe. They just ended up playing 2nd fiddle to more cut-throat approaches. It won't help. People might get an emotional kick out of it, but we'll end up paying more and getting less if people keep trying to force companies to make irrational decisions.
I thought Apple finally floated or at least talked about layoffs. Is there any tech company (or any other than Apple) that hasn't whacked a slug of people right now? Does this indicate their management can't really plan properly and over-hires or just hires people to keep them off the street? Or that they can't count and over-fire/layoff? Or it's just me-too to satisfy Wall Streets short-term fixation?
How many people are really required to keep the lights on and even create new things vs. how many people have been hired and now laid off to drive the stock price?