Mandriva CEO: Employee Lawsuits Put Us Out of Business 422
Julie188 writes: As you probably heard by now, Linux company Mandriva has finally, officially gone out of business.
The CEO has opened up, telling his side of the story. He blames employee lawsuits after a layoff in 2013, the French labor laws and the courts. "Those court decisions forced the company to announce bankruptcy," he said.
So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the CEO's side of the story is that it's all somebody else's fault.
OK, that's not surprising. That's one side of the story. And, the other side says?
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, no kidding ... failing company gets ordered to pay employees before the business folds and they get nothing is not something which evokes much sympathy.
Because I can't tell you have many companies have folded, leaving the employees with nothing, but a CEO who has managed to come out of it quite well.
Sorry, but you're the CEO ... which means the buck stops at you, not you get to skip off with your severance while everybody else gets screwed over.
In other words, you were about to go out of business, and instead of leaving the employees with nothing they took what was theirs before you stiffed them and went under anyway.
Sorry, but employers don't give a damn about us. I see no reason to give a damn about them ... and certainly not to the point of not getting paid so the business can fail anyway. Who the hell is going to do that for a company who laid them off?
Sounds like he'd have happily left them with nothing if he'd had the chance. I can't see any reason why the former employees would have done anything but fight for their severance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The buck does stop with the CEO. All of the bucks. Stop right in his bank account.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? That's what you got out of the story? The ex-employees got paid, and in fact as CEO makes clear had the court allowed say 'installment payments' or 'deferred payments' rather than 'all the money right now' they may have been able to hang on, but no. These 'greedy ex-employees' wanted their money & 'be damned with who gets hurt'. Sales were up 40%, costs down 60%, they were effetively 'breaking even' under the current CEO who was clearly doing his best to save the company & the jobs of the re
Re:So, the other side? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, they might have still failed, and the employees would have been left behind with nothing.
Who gives a fuck? They've been laid off, they owe nothing to the company, and getting left holding bag isn't their problem.
That doesn't change the fact the company was legally obligated to pay them.
First off, it's the fucking law that they have to pay severance. So, by law, they sure as hell do owe employees something ... your idiotic belief that workers should be grateful to a have a job and suck it up if they get fired is irrational libertarian drivel.
Are you actually giving me the "needs of the many" crap with regards to a fucking corporation? That employees should forego their severance from a failing company for the "greater good"? Because now you're talking bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.
Why the fuck should any employee put the "best interests of the company & as many employees"? You think employees should give their employers one final act of altruism and sacrifice? For what? Shareholder fucking value?
The corporation doesn't give a fuck about your welfare, they have no business expecting you to give a damn about theirs.
You're fucking right I am. I'm selfish in the exact same way the corporations are -- I'm here to look out for myself. The only difference is in civilized countries there are laws which say you have to give employees severance so that the greedy, selfish assholes who run corporations can't just shit on their employees for their own gain.
Isn't "enlightened self interest" the whole fucking point of capitalism?
Not bending over so the corporation which laid you off can skip out on paying you what they owe you in the hopes that they might come out of it ... that is completely irrational from the perspective of the ex-employees. and somehow says "for the greater good, we should all sacrifice ourselves in the name of corporate profits".
Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First off, it's the fucking law that they have to pay severance. So, by law, they sure as hell do owe employees something ... your idiotic belief that workers should be grateful to a have a job and suck it up if they get fired is irrational libertarian drivel.
From what the article says, the CEO wasn't trying to get out of paying anything to the workers. The company was asking to be allowed to pay installments so they could avoid bankruptcy. The government either wasn't legally able to bend on this, or hoped investors would invest more money after they exhausted all other options. The investors decided not to put more money in, and the company filed for bankruptcy. So basically everyone loses, which sometimes happens in a game of chicken.
This is what happens when
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with deferred payments is that he was assuming the company would stay solvent to make those deferred payments out of future revenue. If they went BK, he's not going to make those payments. I doubt he'd be willing to post a bond for those deferred payments, nor would anyone insure him for it.
And as for the reputedly punitive aspect of laying someone off in France: you knew that going in. The *wise* business plan is to put reserves aside to cover this eventuality. Or, you can *gamble* that you'
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the more libertarian US, lots of employees have been hung out to dry when the employer goes BK.
I assume employees are hung out to dry when their employer goes BK in France too. Unless the government pays them on behalf of the bankrupt company, or there are assets left over after creditors have been paid (which is very unlikely if the company went bankrupt).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hold on a second. The employees were looking after their own best interests, the shareholders decided to bail instead of pay their debts, and you are saying it is the fault of employee protection laws. How absurd. Pay your debts or go under. That is true for every human being. It is true for every corporation too in a sane society.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on a second. The employees were looking after their own best interests, the shareholders decided to bail instead of pay their debts, and you are saying it is the fault of employee protection laws. How absurd. Pay your debts or go under. That is true for every human being. It is true for every corporation too in a sane society.
If the company had these debts because of negotiations they made with the employees then I would blame the company's negotiators for the debts. If the company had these debts because of laws, then I would blame the laws for those debts, or perhaps the people who decided to start their company in France and/or not leave the country if these laws were enacted after it was founded.
Regardless, the company would not be bankrupt if the country's laws didn't force them to pay employees who don't even work there an
Re:So, the other side? (Score:4, Insightful)
What part of "limited liability" of the stockholders of publicly traded corporations do you not understand? Do you think it reasonable that you hand over to your stockbroker $1000 to buy shares of XYZ Corp., and 3 years later the sheriff is knocking at your door demanding $300,000 to pay XYZ's debt?
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
The company was asking to be allowed to pay installments so they could avoid bankruptcy.
I have a question for you: The idea of instalments assumes the company has a growth prospect and the ability to survive. Companies with those prospects can get loans to get them through those tough moments.
The fact that they didn't do this, or weren't able to do this, or weren't able to find some other investor to get them through this phase is more telling than any court decision. As an ex-employee there's no way in hell I'd be accepting "instalments" from a company that looks like it's about to go under.
Re: (Score:3)
From what the article says, the CEO wasn't trying to get out of paying anything to the workers. The company was asking to be allowed to pay installments so they could avoid bankruptcy.
Let me translate that: the company was nearly broke and the employees were given the opportunity to become *investors* and potentially get their money in an installment plan assuming the company didn't go bankrupt before the installment plan was complete for presumably little to no return or take their owed severance.
I can't believe that employees who were fired might not choose to invest in their former employer who just fired them... especially when they were fired because the business was already going d
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, you're a moron making a strawman argument.
If you think that working for a company for years, to get laid off and have zero severance is in any way a sensible thing, then you're an idiot who thinks the rest of the world should take it up the ass to benefit c
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
These 'greedy ex-employees' wanted their money & 'be damned with who gets hurt'.
Excuse me? If someone performs services for an employer for an agreed amount, they are selfish for wanting the employer to pay them? Apparently the judge ordered it paid all at once. So they are selfish for wanting the employer to pay them the wages they were due months ago in a manner that the courts said must be done? How about the employer is selfish for not having paid them in the first place. Why blame the victim. The employer is the one that did not fulfill the contract. The employees deserve every penny they worked for. If the company's business model was dependent upon not paying its employees than it is not the employees that should take it on the chin. That is what the C level people get paid for. To take risk. The people working for a pittance shouldn't be the ones taking all the risk.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Informative)
They had already gotten what they worked for. They were stamping their feet and demanding severance money from a company that didn't have the money, and not caring if they destroyed the company and the lives of the superior employees who still worked there. Nasty, stupid children acting just as expected.
They were demanding severance pay that was already owed them by the company and had not been paid. The financial condition of the company is of no consequence.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it is of consequence, because if the CEO knew that his company had more debt than assets and was unable to pay debts due, he probably broke laws, including criminal laws, by not declaring bancruptcy then and there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, those affected throw their sabot into the gears when treated in a way they perceive is incorrect, and either no one gets anything, or a compromise is reached.
We talk a lot about who is or is not owed anything according to various ideologies, while disrespecting opposing ideologies. But in the end we're animals. When put in a corner we will bite. That's why severance exists in the first place, it absolutely is undeserved bribery, but it keeps the lawyers off you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, those affected throw their sabot into the gears
That works better in America, where our sabots [wikipedia.org] are made of hardened depleted uranium titanium alloy. In France, they are made out of soft leather.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. The dart is made of DU. The sabot is some lightweight material. It bulks out the dart ot the size of the barrel and is then discarded when the whole package exits the cannon. By that stage the sabots are going fast enough to damage unarmoured things.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:4, Interesting)
those affected throw their sabot into the gears when treated in a way they perceive is incorrect,
That only works once. You get yours (maybe), nobody else will have the opportunity to get anything. In this case it appears the terminated employees will get less than they would have if they had compromised rather than taking down the company.
Re: (Score:2)
The real scotsmen make credit cards and commercials aimed at said dreamers who didn't expect it'd be "tough" to compete with the industry giants, who allow you to exist as a mercy and could crush you with but a dozen lawyer hours.
GP is talking about the giants, not the wannabes. We proles sometimes show loyalty to you posers.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So? You think running a successful business takes some kind of extra special skill set? Higher levels of skill, talent, and perseverance than earning a PhD, and/or making a discovery, advancing science? More than it take to create and play a hit song or write a best selling book? But it seems more and more that the most important things successful businesspeople have are connections, and the skills and willingness to finesse the legal system to bribe the powerful and cheat the most vulnerable.
Lots of
Re: (Score:2)
Running a successful business is certainly a special skill set.
The real question is, what is the company more dependent on?
This question can be answered just fine with a private business. But once the business goes public, then the answer is a straightforward "the shareholders". And this is the real crux of the problem.
I'm quite fine with capitalism, but the stock market comes off as some kind of as some kind of distortion to whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Running a successful business is certainly a special skill set. The real question is, what is the company more dependent on? This question can be answered just fine with a private business. But once the business goes public, then the answer is a straightforward "the shareholders". And this is the real crux of the problem.
From what I can see, the decisions made are not always in the shareholders best interest either. it is usually in the C** and Board Members best interest. Some of the decisions might also be said to be in the shared traders best interest, but definitely not in the shareholders best interest. Firing a couple of people to improve this quarters earnings when you are going to need those people or someone like them in the next quarter is an idiot move. You will have to pay more in the long term than just keepin
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what kind of shareholders you have. This business strategy sucks for those looking to gain long-term value or even (gasp!) dividends, but often works great for the day traders that aren't going to hold onto the stock long enough to see more than a couple of quarters pass in the quest for instant returns.
To those who never could run any business ... (Score:5, Insightful)
...
So? You think running a successful business takes some kind of extra special skill set? Higher levels of skill, talent, and perseverance than earning a PhD, and/or making a discovery, advancing science?
I have done both and I can tell you that the set of talent to obtain a PhD degree is different from the set of talent required to successfully run a business
The quality of Slashdot crowd has sunk to a new low, with people actually posting comments ridiculing people with skill set other than theirs
Where is the humbleness of a scholar, the curiosity of a adventurer and the tenacity of a researcher?
In other words, instead of nerds that we are attracting, Slashdot ends up attracting a bunch of ignorant assholes who think they are smarter than the rest of the humankind
Re:To those who never could run any business ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is the humbleness of a scholar, the curiosity of a adventurer and the tenacity of a researcher?
This is Slashdot. By long tradition, we present first the ego of the autodidact and the arrogance of the Trekkie. As for tenacity, the Slashdot user is unrivaled -- holding fast to the belief that their thoughts opinions are infallible.
In other words, instead of nerds that we are attracting, Slashdot ends up attracting a bunch of ignorant assholes who think they are smarter than the rest of the humankind
That would be correct. Though to be fair, it's really only been this way since ~1997.
Re: (Score:3)
No sir, I did not ridicule anyone. I pointed out that the parent seemed to put business people in a class apart and above, deserving of extra help and protections to compensate them for the risks they take and the work they do.
To say such a thing in our current climate is turning a blind eye to recent history. Who got bailed out in 2008? Not the homeowners. Who was so arrogant they said they didn't need policing? Wall Street. At the same time, who is denying there is a Climate Change problem and con
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. It's the Definitelys who will cheer.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the lawyers. But the injured parties probably got some of their compensation. Maybe even all.
I once worked for a company that had an office in France. To get rid of an employee, you had to give them an extra year of pay, and even then, they could sue you for more, and probably win. If you own a company, and create jobs, the French consider you to be a criminal. There is a reason they have 11% unemployment.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:4, Interesting)
All of Europe has a very "non-american" style hiring and firing system.
In the US, you can fire anyone who doesn't belong to a union, at any time, for any reason. This makes jobs have no sense of permanence, and as a result, you constantly get "more expensive, less efficient" people replaced with "cheaper, less competent" people.
In Europe, most countries do not have at-will employment, so you are essentially creating a job for life, so better get as much bank for your euro as possible, because those french employees are super-expensive to have.
And yes, like other posters will mention, no company that produces products except Louis Vuitton and Hermes are willing to create jobs in France. When you need French "support" you hire from Canada (Quebec.) When you want people who can be hired and fired like Americans, you hire Bilingual Canadians from outside of Quebec (eg New Brunswick) because Quebec's language and labor laws are nearly as stupid as France. The companies in Canada try not to hire in Quebec, because the laws there require all business to be done in French. That's why Quebec has it's own media company that also owns the television and wireless. Everyone outside Quebec... you will see "Bilingual" job postings, but the jobs will be outside Quebec.
I digress though. I'd rather Americans outsource to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Because countries like India and the Philippines have no labor laws. So companies that outsource to those countries are trying to replace "one person who speaks and understands English competently" with "100 people who neither know English or the job competency."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
A company that employed expensive employees in an extremely employee biased legal framework has now been destroyed and all of those employee are out of work.
The company was not in trouble because of employee laws. All this is the fallout of a "restructuring", which is just the bullshit bingo word for mass layoffs, which in turn were the result of the company being in trouble.
If your attempt to save your troubled company didn't work because you didn't take into account the effects of your actions, then that is 100% your fault. It's not like these are secret laws only told to you after the fact.
employment will work like any other unregulated economy
There is no such thing as an unregulated economy. That's just the bullshit bingo word for "company-friendly regulations".
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile the real root cause (human nature) is being almost completely ignored.
Yes, that sounds like a much easier problem to tackle, Comrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any suggestions? That's the whole problem with all this anti-capitalism talk: no one ever has any kind of suggestions.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not correct. In France, as in most of Europe, it's standard for severance pay to increase with the amount of time worked. More over, the general expectation is that companies should try to avoid firing people. They can offer training, or move them to anther position first.
We are trying to avoid the race to the bottom that the US finds itself in, where people are discarded the moment someone slightly cheaper comes along. Shit jobs are a false economy for society, which is why living standards in France are so much better than most of the US.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
this actually sounds pretty good to me!
Yes, it is good. Unless you are among the 11% unemployed, or one of the many millions with short term contracts because no one wants to take the risk of offering you a real job. But once you get the permanent position, you can kick back, because the penalty for firing you is prohibitive, resulting in poor productivity growth, and a stagnant economy. But, no problem, just borrow more euros from the hard working Germans across the Rhine.
Not all French people dream about a secure job with little work. I know several that are hardworking entrepreneurs, bursting with ideas. Unfortunately for France, they emigrated to America, and are my co-workers and neighbors here in San Jose, California.
California wine is better too.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
France seems to be one extreme, but the US is the other extreme. Both could adjust their policies to something more fair for all stakeholders.
Interesting statistic I found verifying the claims: France has a lower poverty rate than it's unemployment rate, while the US poverty rate is 3.5 times higher than it's unemployment rate. Just having a job isn't that great when you're still in poverty.
Everyone in France who is employed is not in poverty. Intact some people in France who are unemployed are still above poverty.
Re:So, the other side? (Score:4, Informative)
They're typically defining "poverty" as less than 1/2 the median income. It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.
The U.S median income for a household [wikipedia.org] is much higher than in France, thus someone below the "poverty rate" in the Unites States can be much wealthier than someone above the "poverty rate" in France.
In France, even with purchasing power parity, the median household income is (depending on if you use Gallup or OECD numbers) 70-77% of what it is in the United States. Using Gallup numbers, the "poverty line" in the US would be $22K/year vs $16K/year in France. Remember, these number take into account purchasing power parity (PPP), so you can literally buy about the same things in each country.
To put that into perspective for variations within the United States, the median income [wikipedia.org] in Maine or Hawaii is 65% of that of Virginia or Utah (adjusted for cost of living).
According to the OECD, the "poverty rate" in Mexico is about $2250, based on a PPP median income of $4500. By their measurement, a barely "poor" person in the U.S. ($22K) would be considered upper middle class in Mexico. I won't bring up the really poor countries in Africa and elsewhere, but the "poverty rate" they're talking about is virtually valueless across countries for comparison purposes.
Put another way, the median income and thus "poverty rate" of Mississippi is higher than that of France, so I know which country I'd rather live in...
Re:So, the other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is good. Unless you are among the 11% unemployed, or one of the many millions with short term contracts because no one wants to take the risk of offering you a real job.
I call bullshit.
So you think the american system is better, where due to lack of such laws, basically everyone has a short-term contract because if you can fire everyone with little consequences on short notice, that is what you have.
Look, I am one of those "hard working Germans across the Rhine". Our government spent the past 20 years or so slowly dismantling the social systems and employee protections that our fathers and grandfathers had spent and risked their lives establishing (I'm not joking, one of my grandfathers was a union secretary, killed by the Nazis for his efforts).
The result is that maybe on paper unemployment is lower, but several million people spend their days in low-pay (I can't even say "minimum wage", because we freaking don't even have that!), temporary jobs. Literally temporary: They hold contracts saying that on day X, they will be out of a job unless their employer offers them an extension. You don't even have to fire them, how convenient.
As a result, average income has dropped, spending on culture and arts is dropping constantly, life expectancy has stopped to rise despite better medicine, and by some statistics a quarter of the population is in a constant state of insecurity because losing your job can snowball into losing your home and everything else because wages are so low you can't build up reserves.
Sorry, I'd rather live in a world where people around me are not in a constant state of fear and stress.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a nice socialist way of saying 'reducing deficit and preventing tax increases that would have hurt the economy'.
You're an imbecile. If their interest would've been to reduce the deficit, there would have been one hundred other ways to do it.
They like to create the impression it's all based on numbers and economy and so on, but it's all bullshit. The reality is that it's a philosophy. Benefits to unemployed people are cut not because it's necessary to save the economy (one bank's bonus payouts is equal to those savings). It's done because of the assumption that unemployed people are lazy and need to be forced more str
Re: (Score:3)
Which Universe do you live in? Modern France is younger than the US. I very much doubt the French nobility had the same view of labor, and the economics were so different that any observations would have been entirely meaningless.
Labour laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, so you got hit with penalties in court because "labour laws are very generous towards the employees in France", which really means "we weren't following the labour laws in the country in which we had an office and did business", and probably finally means "we tried to screw employees in a way that would have worked perfectly fine in North America or other countries but got called on it in France, which cost us a bundle" ...
Re: (Score:2)
And abusive troll moderation rears its ugly head.
From TFA:
So... not trolling at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your point of view... It could also mean "When the company began to run into problems from external sources the laws of the country we had set up in did not give us the flexibility we needed to continue trading and maintain at least some of the worker's jobs. Instead we were left with no good choices and an unavoidable end that had no jobs and no good results for anyone (other than they lawyers who as usual made a mint).
Re:Labour laws (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if you read TFA, it really comes down to the people they had "restructured" out of jobs found that the company lacked the liquidity to pay them their legally required severance, and a court agreed to pay them so they didn't become victims of a failing company trying to buy time.
Sorry, but if you think the employees should roll over and get fucked and not get paid so that company can try to stay in business ... you're sadly mistaken.
You may think it's perfectly reasonable to expect employees to get screwed over to keep the company going, but the rest of the world doesn't.
These kinds of laws exist precisely so you can't just fire people for free. America may think at-will employment because it lets corporations be greedy douchebags -- but the rest of the world has pretty much figured out that screwing over the employees to benefit the corporation is a stupid fucking idea.
Because they probably would have gone under anyway. Any employee who would voluntarily get screwed to keep the company going is an idiot. Because they sure as hell won't do it for you.
Boo hoo. A corporation didn't get to leave its employees holding the bag.
No sympathy whatsoever.
Re:Labour laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Boo hoo. A corporation didn't get to leave its employees holding the bag.
No sympathy whatsoever.
The employees were left holding the bag anyway, since the company filed bankruptcy and won't be able to pay them. Literally no one won in this scenario. Probably the only people who won were the executives who can now get another CxO job at a company that can give bigger bonuses.
Re: (Score:3)
The employees were left holding the bag anyway, since the company filed bankruptcy and won't be able to pay them. Literally no one won in this scenario. Probably the only people who won were the executives who can now get another CxO job at a company that can give bigger bonuses.
Typically the bankruptcy processes in many countries involve dissolving the company and paying out as many debtors as they can. The order typically goes: Legal obligations, contractual obligations, and investors. I.e. the Employees' severances get paid out first, the banks second, and the shareholders last.
Re: (Score:3)
When the assets are liquidated, the ex-employees are paid first along with all the other liabilities. The company will pay. If they don't have the money to pay off all of their liabilities the shareholders get nothing at all. Not one cent. This is accounting 101 here.
If the shareholders really thought the company could survive they could have simply paid off some of the liability and avoided bankruptcy. Instead they chose this route.
I can't claim to know how bankruptcy laws work in France, but in the U.S. secured creditors get paid before priority unsecured creditors, which include employee claims for wages. So employees get paid last, since any corporate debt is sure to be secured. This is a company with only $600k per year in revenue that has already filed for bankruptcy once, so I doubt it is standing on a pile of cash.
If the company had the money to pay these severance payments, they wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy as soon
Re: (Score:2)
Secured creditors are actually pretty rarely the majority or even a large portion of corporate debt. That's a debt that's secured against a specific asset. Most corporate debt, particularly for a company like Mandriva is against future earnings which is unsecured. Now the company might have a debt or two that's secured against some asset, say a debt for the copiers that's secured by the copiers themselves or some such but the amount of secured debt is generally going to be very low for a services company li
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means that this wasn't the first time they'd been in this mess, and the shareholders were more willing to cut their losses than double down on losing even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Having been in the situation where my employer stiffed me out of thousands of dollars in pay (let's call it for what it is: "theft of services"), I've adopted the wisdom of Paulie Cicero: "Fuck you, pay me." Next time an employer can't make payroll, I'm out, with a small claims suit to follow if necessary. Not that I'll actually recover anything, but the time sp
Re:Labour laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Mandriva marketed their "Frenchness" pretty heavily. For the CEO to get up and lambast the same political system he was using as marketing to win business just means he's a dick and I hope some of the money those employee's got comes out of his own pocket.
Re:Labour laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, we have the right not to have our employer's dick be firmly planted in our ass.
Re:Labour laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing is funnier than someone who is actually mad that other countries might *gasp* not just allow employers to fuck over their employees at will.
I don't really buy it (Score:3)
If that was it, they didn't have much left to live. Sure, if you ignore laws and costs, you can make a business profitable that otherwise wouldn't be, but you don't get to ignore what you owe.
Now I'm not familiar with the laws in France, but in general I expect this was something like not paying a severance package, or not giving adequate advance notice. Those things are part of doing business and any employer should know about them. You can't just pretend they don't apply to your company.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The company was having trouble in 2013 so it laid off some employees
In 2014 the company started doing better
The employees who were laid off in 2013 sued and won
The cost of dealing with the lawsuit caused the company to again experience hardship. This time they closed there doors.
So it had nothing to do with a severance package. When the company started doing better they were forced to compensate employees that were fired when the company was doing badly.
Re: (Score:3)
"So it had nothing to do with a severance package. When the company started doing better they were forced to compensate employees that were fired when the company was doing badly."
Where does that come from? This claim(That they had to pay, because they did better) is not in the story. Or did I just miss it?
FTFY (Score:5, Informative)
The company was having trouble in 2013 so it laid off some employees without compensating them as required by French law
Had they compensated the employees correctly there would have been no lawsuits and no judgement to pay.
The employees who were laid off in 2013 sued and won
Where is the evidence that the lawsuits were filed after 2014. If they were filed before 2014 the fact that the company did better in 2014 is irrelevant.
Had the company had compensated the employees according to law it would not have had to pay lawyers and probably court costs and may have survived.
Re: (Score:2)
Had the company had compensated the employees according to law it would not have had to pay lawyers and probably court costs and may have survived.
It's not that simple. The "law" in this instance is very much subject to interpretation. It's like a divorce. There are parameters but who the fuck gets the kenny rogers record collection is not something that is clearly stated in the law, there are arguments to be heard and if the two parties can't get to a compromise a judge will decide. Doesn't mean that the losing party broke the law - there's always at least one losing party in every lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
The employees who were laid off in 2013 sued and won
I don't get it. what did they sue for? why did they win?
Re:I don't really buy it (Score:5, Informative)
the company was by law required to provide a severance package when laying off employees, which they did not. the employees sued for the severance package, and won.
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely reason why they got sued and lost is because they screwed up something related to the layoffs.
My impression is that in Europe people are generally less litigious than in America, but the employment laws have big, sharp teeth and it's very unwise for employers to try to ignore them.
Re: I don't really buy it (Score:3)
The article says that employees were let go due to falling revenue in 2013. In 2014 revenue rose and the former employees sued and won. The judgement forced the company into bankruptcy. The article says nothing about the laid off employees not getting paid.
Re: (Score:2)
If they had been paid, I don't think they could have won a lawsuit asking to be paid.
Re: I don't really buy it (Score:3)
Well, the details of the lawsuit aren't public, but there are other grounds besides not being paid; for example, "abusive layoff". It's France.
Re: (Score:3)
So it had nothing to do with a severance package.
and ..... why did they sue the company? it was because they were due severance by law and the company did not provide it. so yeah, it had everything to do with the severance package.
When the company started doing better they were forced to compensate employees that were fired when the company was doing badly.
yes, they were forced to adhere to the law. crazy huh?
Re: (Score:2)
. This time they closed there doors.
Where doors?
Wow, you Republicans are so stupid. Really? Does you kind not know how to spell their? You are so stupid. You are too stupid to live. Too bad your kind has enslaved us and made the smart people your slaves. I know you hate us and want us to die like the rest of your kind. You are so stupid.
Thank you for including the obligatory grammar error in your grammar flame. Oh, and you misspelled Democrats.
Fuck 'em (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't treat your workers right, you deserve to be driven out of business.
that's a super awesome point of view, except that when a company goes out of business then all the employees lose their jobs and have to compete for scarce jobs with other unemployed people. Is that a net win for the laid off employees or for society?
Re: (Score:2)
that's super cool. what about all the other employees that weren't laid off earlier, and now that the original laid off employees have gotten their pound of flesh, the new laid off employees get nothing cuz the company is bankrupt. and everybody is on the market chasing scarce jobs.
but the important thing is that the laid off employees got their 6 months of continued pay and benefits!! maybe they should be nice peeps and share that with everybody else who get nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how things are in France since I can't read French, but I checked the Spanish regulations for that.
In Spain if the company is insolvent there is a public organization that will pay the severance you're owed.
So no, there really isn't a problem. Neat, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it comes from the tax paid by the company, actually.
At any rate, I have no problem with part of my tax money being used to ensure people aren't screwed over. Of all the things tax money goes into, this one seems very reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so the mandriva taxes that would have gone to other programs are redirected to mandriva laid off workers, so other taxes need to be diverted to these programs, which comes out of people's pockets. Do you really not understand how everything is connected? this is how greece became greece.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you somehow suggesting that in a failing corporation, the people who were laid off without proper severance should fall on their swords to protect other people? Why? Some noble sacrifice for the company?
Honestly, pick one .. greedy capitalism, or altruism.
But some countries, even though they allow greedy capitalism, they also have laws to protect employees. Which is a good thing -- sure, run a business, be profitable. Awesome!! Everybody wins, life is good.
But don't think that entitles you to trea
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's a net win. The assets will be sold, and the employees will be paid their severance package. They also get paid for unused vacation days, and after the vacation days are over they also get paid unemployment benefits.
You seem to be suggesting that failing to pay what is owed to some (and maybe more than the initially laid off people if they would have run out of money later anyway) would somehow have been better.
That's a really nice fantasy you have there. The employees will likely get absolutely nothing now, because the actual creditors will have priority over any liquidated assets. If they had the money to pay off the workers, they wouldn't being going bankrupt in the first place.
This is the scenario where everyone loses. That is why Mandriva was hoping the courts would allow them to pay in installments.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't lose. France isn't the US. The AGS [google.com] guarantees the employees will get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, what assets does Mandriva have? The name? Not worth anything.
CEO shirks responsibility for negative outcomes? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a shocker! Here I thought he was going to blame his lack of foresight and his inability to appropriate and prioritize resources in the correct proportions to the respective aspects of his business representing "revenues" and "liabilities".
I can picture it now: "Due to my inexperience with the legal environment of France, and as a consequence of lacking both humility, and respect/concern for the emotions/financial future of my employees: my mismanagement of Mandriva lead to betrayed expectations and violated commitments to such a grave extent that the company I was tasked with steering through troubled waters found itself embroiled in courtrooms, racked by legal expenses, and profoundly under-capitalized to endure or weather the extent of litigation that was invited by my perceived immunity to repercussions when using/abusing people and then throwing them away.
If I could do things differently, I would have been less patronizing and smug and found a way to make these tough financial decisions less offensive and antagonizing to their victims. I would have used resources more conservatively, and planned for the future contingencies better such that I did not find myself belabored to achieve the necessary market penetration and corporate vision/monetization-strategy to support my ambitious hiring decisions in accumulating headcount. Further, I would have utilized contractors and temps to a greater extent during periods of extreme demand, and avoided salaried employees so I could reduce hours worked when times were slow."
I know nothing about this guy or Mandriva, but based on his decision to blame-shift it sounds like a classic case of lack of planning coupled with big promises in exchange for sacrifice, followed by a hiring binge and subsequent layoffs/broken promises when the "ad hoc"/"make it up as I go" flying by the seat of the pants management style eventually came to a head. I say this having observed more than my share of shit heal executives building fiefdoms through nepotism, only to watch their house of cards collapse under it's own weight when profitability can no longer be delayed(I.E. change in the business cycle).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the company had record profits I bet he would be a lot more willing to claim responsability!
Better Headline (Score:4, Funny)
Mandriva Driven from Market after Losing Lawsuits from Men Driven from Mandriva
This is why France doesn't do startups (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is why France doesn't do startups (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just startups. Trying to do business in France is insane. The bureaucracy is nightmarish and I really suspect bidding processes are rigged. The labour laws are far too skewed towards workers and away from companies. I certainly don't believe in exploitation, but you need balance.
I run a small software company with customers all over the world, including North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. We do very well in Europe except in France; that's a desert for us. We've basically given up because it's just too difficult to do business there, and we're happy enough to work with more business-friendly countries like the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The fear of this sort of fiasco makes establishing the company in London instead far more attractive. So the French are ever more stripped of talent. As a Brit I am grateful to the French for sending us so many talented people, but for the folk in France this is BAD NEWS. And this sort of story will discourage risk taking there even more.
London! Ha! Open it in the U.S. Tell all your employees that you are paying them low now and can't pay them overtime but very soon now they will have ownership and bonuses and raises. Oh, and we need you to work every evening and weekend forever. Then, when you finally reach profitability due to the efforts of your employees, get rid of the ones that put the most work in.
That's what my company did to me. They also made me sign a contract not to tell anybody about that in exchange for two months severance.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
basically slavery for engineers
Considering how many people, like Bill Gates and Mark Suckerberg, think that engineers are subhuman, you are correct. I worked at Microsoft for nearly a decade, and other than a couple of days off at Christmas, I wasn't allowed a single day off. Not a single day. My health went downhill during that time. Working 90+ hours a week for nearly ten years will do that. Working there almost killed me
I now work as a physics teacher in the city of Seattle. It's awesome. I teach less than half of the days a ye
Re: (Score:2)
The only fair way to do things? You mean the only way to run your economy into the ground. That attitude will turn France into another Greece and I'm not sure that's what you really want.
This CEO now wishes his company was in the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
This always ends badly for employees in the US.
Companies in the US typically fold and stiff their employees because there are no strong laws which protect employees in this situation which have any teeth.
In the US:
1. There is employment at will. The CEO can dismiss staff with no recourse, provided all back pay is paid in a short time.
2. Most states don't require vacation accruals be paid out. California is an exception here.
3. Senior debt and taxes take precedence over paying employees, and there is a limit to how much back pay can be paid out (180 days or around $12,000 whichever is lower).
4. Most employees are covered by predispute arbitration contracts preventing them from going to a jury trial. California may change this with AB 465
5. State departments of labor are toothless and or afraid of going after businesses.
6. There is no legal mandate to pay severance pay.
French law is much more employee friendly. If a company is on its last legs, the employees should get the wages they worked for/
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately, there is now the ACA to address the health insurance issue. Much better than Cobra from a cost standpoint.
Fortunately? No, I don't think so. The cost of insurance under the ACA is at least as high as Cobra used to be. If there is a plus side it is that at least when you lose your job you can now budget for paying the same amount in insurance afterwards. Don't forget to include the 20% per year rate hike! And don't bother checking if you qualify for any assistance just because you lost your job and don't have any income. I have no income and still don't qualify for assistance with my government mandated insuran
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Bad faith (Score:2)
His bad faith is obvious. Many companies manage to do profitable business in France. Labor laws indeed protect workers, but this is just something you can live with and still succeed.
Moreover, I could argue that protective labor laws can help increase workers productivity. When you do not have to wonder about securing your income for the next year, month or week, you may start focus on your job.
Something's missing here (Score:2)
As Barbie would say.. Startups are hard. (Score:3)
cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm beginning to feel disgusted by these cry-baby CEOs and investors.
Look, it's very simple: There are laws of physics. If your product cannot work with the set of laws of physics we have on this planet, then your product doesn't work, end of discussion. You can't cry over not being able to make the flying car of your dreams because gravity is so mean to you.
There are also man-made laws. If your company cannot work with the set of laws valid in your country, then your company doesn't work, period. You can't cry over not being able to make a profit because they are so mean to you.
It's really selfish, stupid and ignorant to enjoy the nice things that laws and regulations give you, like having a civilized country, safety, clean streets, heck streets at all, the ability to make contracts and enforce them (absolutely essential for every business!) and a thousand other things, and then cry that the evil laws make your business impossible. Quite the opposite, you imbecile! The laws make your business possible in the first place. Without them, you wouldn't have a business, and if you tried the first guy with a bigger club would take it away from you.
Sigh (Score:3)
If you employ people, pay them. They are your biggest expense, your biggest burden, the most important part of your business AND the source of ALL your income.
That said, if you employ people, you know that the cost of employing them goes FAR beyond anything to do with their salary. That's half of it, if you're lucky. You have legal, financial, and other obligations that all cost to have taken care of when you have employees. Anything from severance pay, health-and-safety training, pensions, paperwork, legal work on their contract, compliance work, etc.
That you didn't budget for that correctly, or failed to employ properly, is your own problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And they never claimed they were doing well at the point they broke whatever rules they broke, so what is your point?