In a bid to claw back $2.15 billion, the struggling pharmaceutical giant Bayer CEO is doing away with middle managers and 99% of the company’s 1,362-page corporate handbook, allowing nearly 100,000 employees to self-manage.

the company is going boss-less, or as he calls it, moving to “dynamic shared ownership.”

  • PKMKII [none/use name]
    ·
    2 months ago

    So workers are going to get more duties and responsibilities but without an increase in pay. Cool.

    • MattsAlt [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah but no firewall between management who actually make the decisions that materially impact their lives.

      Much easier to know whose house to go to now if things get bad

      porky-scared-flipped

    • whatup
      ·
      2 months ago

      But surely they’ll be paid more for all the extra labor. I’m positive that the generous pharmaceutical CEO will share all the gains with his workers whom he loves very dearly. He’ll give them all hugs and kisses too ❤️ 💋

  • Beaver [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wait till the workers figure out that they can just get rid of the owners

  • iByteABit [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I'm sure this will turn out great for the capitalists if it ends up becoming a trend

    p.s. please socialize the means of production too just for the memes, a redditor told me it's profitable for big businesses

    • solarvector@lemmy.zip
      ·
      2 months ago

      This isn't ownership of capital. Creating value for someone else is unchanged.

      This is all corporate speak, the words don't actually mean what he's saying. "Dynamic" is corporate speak for "undefined shit", and "shared" means "it's your problem," and "ownership" means "your responsibility." So, "dynamic shared ownership" is "undefined shit is your problem and responsibility."

    • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]
      ·
      2 months ago

      i'm seriously confused by the framing here. Bayer is a publicly traded company. removing some levels of the hierarchy isn't worker-management. unless the workers can, for example, vote to remove Anderson, this is just power consolidation by the top execs and the board of directors.

      • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
        ·
        2 months ago

        It's the typical 'Privatization and concentration of profits, socialization of costs and responsibilities.'

      • ryepunk [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah but corpo speak doesn't need to concern itself with actual meanings of words. So long as they confuse you enough to let them slide their hand in your pocket they are happy to be scolded on using language incorrectly.

        I hope this means we get like entire divisions that the company forgets it has and so people can do nothing and get paid their salary because nobody higher up remembers they exist and the bookkeeper who would notice the pay going somewhere was also let go.

  • Owl [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hope it makes them a ton of money, so other companies adopt the idea too, before they find out what else workers do when they're self-organizing.

  • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Reminds of what T-Mobile started doing; are they going to improve the service, make it cheaper for customers, pay their workers better, etc? No.

    Will they be adding stupid shit like T-Mobile Tuesdays, and have a "cool" and "hip" ceo to basically talk down to anyone that asks for the aforementioned things while simultaneously insisting that the company is "going in a direction"? Absolutely.

  • stigsbandit34z [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    hint

    You don’t need the CEO 🥰

    Shame that the CEO in question inherently has the army of the state on his side

  • Sons_of_Ferrix
    ·
    2 months ago

    This sounds like PR speak for "we're laying off a bunch of middle managers cuz we wanna re-proletarianize our workforce"

  • Tunnelvision [they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    If the post war boom is what created the middle manager as we know them today, it kinda makes sense that they’d be up on the chopping block in capitalism’s decline.

  • ImmortanStalin@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    2 months ago

    On the flip side this can better entrench and defend capital in the long term. You create organized labor aristocrats that will fight and die against burgeoning socialist movements as they sprout up. This was a tactic used against the Sandinistas, and why you get sound bites of Reagan sounding pro labor.

  • plinky [he/him]
    ·
    2 months ago

    based, can't find money to finance disciplining force on the labor porky-happy

  • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    that will teach a german chemical company to acquire an american chemical company. the US is the dumpster market where the countries with even the most mild environmental protections can still sell their banned chemistries, claim they are safe, and direct them to be sprayed all over the faces of infants.

    buying monsanto and its liabilities was an all time boner move.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      I've seen more than one non-American company buy a US company from the inside. My firm opinion is that you should only ever do this if you're willing to gut the entire upper leadership of the US subsidiary at the first hint of bullshit. Nothing combines ignorance and arrogance like the American managerial class.