I'm not defending Patagonia's decision - it's pretty sad and I don't understand how Patagonia thinks this is sensible (though the article I read did report a new director who has been pushing for people to be more corporate... there's that.). That said, I am impressed with the severance benefits, pay and support they're giving through this process. I wish more companies would do this when they had to lay people off.
Patagonia definitely really screwed up their handling of this given the cognitive dissonance with the culture they’ve tried to establish. However, I also think some of these we’ve seen lately are also driven by government policy. Many of these companies have tax incentives for office buildings under the guise of “creating jobs” for that community that politicians can tout come election time. I think state and municipal governments are starting to apply the heat on meeting commitments for their tax break eligibility or pay up!
I'm not defending Patagonia's decision - it's pretty sad and I don't understand how Patagonia thinks this is sensible (though the article I read did report a new director who has been pushing for people to be more corporate... there's that.). That said, I am impressed with the severance benefits, pay and support they're giving through this process. I wish more companies would do this when they had to lay people off.
Patagonia definitely really screwed up their handling of this given the cognitive dissonance with the culture they’ve tried to establish. However, I also think some of these we’ve seen lately are also driven by government policy. Many of these companies have tax incentives for office buildings under the guise of “creating jobs” for that community that politicians can tout come election time. I think state and municipal governments are starting to apply the heat on meeting commitments for their tax break eligibility or pay up!
@JETurp, great insight! What an even messier situation.