If you crash a company against the wall resulting in such a disaster and having to cut so much staff, resigning isn't enough. CEO's should have to pay back big parts of their compensation.
executives should be compensated for the performance of the company in the future, not the current quarter or year. this is the board's fault for failing to set effective incentives.
Exactly, there should be a multi-year lockout period where the CEOs cannot sell their stock. If the potential hires don't like it, well, cry me a river. Plenty of people would still take the job, especially if they are interested in building a long-term company.
people talk about ESG... imagine what the world would look like if energy company executives were compensated based on the health of the company (and by proxy the health of the economy) ten years in the future...
also maybe more tax rules along the lines of long/short cap gains that reduce the short term time value of money.
If the CEO picks the board, and packs it full of his other CEO friends, who all have him sit on their boards too, and everyone rubber stamps each others compensation packages; isn't this circular blame game awfully beneficial to all of the CEOs at the expense of all the non-CEOs?
Do you want it to be very hard to fire people? If you make it that way, then companies become much more reluctant to hire people, and tend to start hiring on contracts instead of full time. My understanding is that that's been the effect in France, at least. And if you think about it, it's a completely rational response to essentially making it riskier to hire.
