backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by MeTaedet.. on Oct 9 at 3:42 AM

  (Source: LiewCF.com)
eBay hacks jobs to become nimbler company

Long gone are the days when eBay was a site loved by virtually all who used it. Things started to go south when eBay purchased PayPal and since that point eBay has sought to move all sales made to PayPal. A series of policy changes also angered sellers and made PayPal the only truly viable payment option for eBay auctions for most sellers.

Policy changes at the auction giant have seen the rights and abilities of seller erode to the point that many have fled eBay to sell on smaller sites.

EBay today is making news over its decision to cut 10% of its workforce in an effort to save money and make itself into a "nimbler and more efficient organization."

The 10% workforce reduction equates to 1,000 jobs across eBay. EBay President John Donahoe said in a statement, "While never an easy decision to make, these reductions will help improve our operations and strengthen our ability to continue investing in growth. We are streamlining and simplifying our company to invest in growth and become more competitive"

The workforce reductions are expected to save eBay $150 million annually starting in January 2009. In stark contrast to the workforce reductions, eBay also announced that it purchased the online billing company Bill Me Later for $820 million in cash and $125 million in outstanding options. Donahoe said, "Bill Me Later is a company that belongs with PayPal." EBay also purchased Danish classified website dba.dk and vehicle site bilbasen.dk for $390 million.

EBay’s move into the online classified ad section four years ago is what led to the eventual legal war between Craigslist and eBay. EBay owns a minority stake in Craigslist and when it moved into the classified market, its shares were reduced and it lost its seat on the Craigslist Board which led to a lawsuit.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/6/2008 4:05:12 PM , Rating: 5
eBay is continuing it's trend of screwing people. First it was customers, now it's employees. Worse, they're going to buy another company. Watch THEM get laid off, too. And all for company, ahem, EXECUTIVE growth.




RE: WHAT?!?
By Ordr on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/6/2008 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
Anti-business? I've owned a business for 12 years, you dink! I don't plan on going public because I don't want to take it up the @$$ from my investors, and I'm not going to stick it to my employees, either.


RE: WHAT?!?
By MeTaedet on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By MeTaedet on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/6/2008 7:29:14 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I DO believe that there is something wrong with being anti-business, whatever that means to you. There are numerous businesses that are have earned my respect, e.g. Newegg (excellent prices, selection and delivery,) Western Digital (damn good hard drives, IMHO,) and SAS Institute, a private company that was named the best U.S. employer several times because of great salaries, low stress, and amenities like in-office masseurs/masseuses.

On the other hand, we have companies like Enron and Washington Mutual. Business is like a knife; it can hurt or it can help. It all depends on how it's used.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Etsp on 10/6/2008 9:24:45 PM , Rating: 1
Well, Newegg has been slipping a bit, but I think they'll recognize their mistakes soon enough. I was just recently charged $9 shipping for a $10 mousepad... I thought it was ridiculous at the time until I saw what they shipped it in. I could have literally fit 16 of these 2"x2"x(not sure how long...) mousepads into the box they shipped it in. UPS charges based on a combination of container volume, weight, and declared value. They were clearly wasteful in this case and pushed that added cost onto me, the consumer. Luckily, when I complained, they gave me a break on shipping. Which is why I have faith in them fixing this situation...


RE: WHAT?!?
By Etsp on 10/6/2008 9:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Note... the box that the vendor put the mousepad into was 2"x2"xLength...not the mousepad itself. Newegg's box could easily fit 16 of these smaller boxes.


RE: WHAT?!?
By MeTaedet on 10/7/2008 4:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, but when I say - or imply rather - that I am anti-business, I do not mean to say that I believe that business should be abolished nor do I mean to say that I think that all businesses are evil. What I believe - and I know that this wasn't clear from my post - is that even though the individuals who work for a particular company may be by and large good and responsible people, the business for which they work is apt to act in rather sociopathic ways; the most important thing for any business is the bottom line and this can lead to quite a bit of trouble and suffering for the consumer (think heavy metal contamination and so forth).

Again, I am not so naive as to think that all businesses are necessarily bad, but there is a very large number of them that are, and what I propose as the solution is extremely rigorous and unforgiving regulation. I know that won't go over well with the entrepreneurial as*hats on this site who balk and summon up affected outrage at the suggestion of government regulation because they want the freedom to engage in shady unscrupulous business practices that maximize revenues, citing such half-baked and idiotic conceits as "government regulation always creates inefficiency!" or "that's socialism/fascism! OH noes! Go worship your picture of chairman Mao" or "Yeah! Teh freemarkets! Weeeeee. Laissez faire capitalism will put out of business those businesses that act in social irresponsible ways!".


RE: WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/7/2008 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
I believe in government regulation of business, as well. Like anything, however, it has to be done in moderation. If governments get too deep two things happen: 1) taxes go up to support the necessary government bloat and 2) businesses raise prices because they spend less time doing business and more time attempting to be compliant (or paying someone off to look the other way.) There is no perfect solution, whether it's an anything-goes capitalist market or an ultra-restrictive dictatorship.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Ringold on 10/7/2008 8:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
citing such half-baked and idiotic conceits as "government regulation always creates inefficiency!"


Half-baked?

So, what business school did you hear that from? Or did a liberal-arts 'professor' tell you that?


RE: WHAT?!?
By MeTaedet on 10/9/2008 3:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
Back at you.

While I am not trying to suggest that government regulation and oversight never create operating inefficiency - and indeed I admit that this frequently happens - one can certainly envision circumstances under which it could actual decrease it. These are very hypothetical, but nevertheless they belie and refute your implicit argument that government regulation must always and necessarily increase inefficiency. E.G.:

Let's say a supplement manufacturer is adding some agent to a particular supplement - or using the agent in some way to produce the supplement - which be toxic. Let's say also that there is a non-toxic substitute that is no more expensive or difficult to obtain - or, indeed, we can carry the argument further and say that it is cheaper and easier to obtain in addition to being non-toxic - that the manufacturer isn't using simply for a lack of awareness of existence of this substance that can be used vicariously. The substance, we'll say, is just toxic enough that it creates very large medical bills for those whom the misfortune of having consumed it betide, but not so toxic that it kills them. Let's say now that a bill passes the service of which results in regulation of this manufacturer that should ensure compliance with standards of safety and purity propounded and prescribed by and within the bill. So, agents of the government in pursuance of the mandates of this bill are hired who then inform this manufacturer of the necessity of removing this agent or ceasing to make use of it in their manufacturing; the manufacturer complies lest penalties be exacted. The result is that, not having lost any time whatever in the course of making changes to the ingredients of their supplements since all that was wanted was mere substitution, the manufacturer is able to sell their supplements at the former volume at the same price, or perhaps even at a higher volume with a greater mark-up, and the consumer, who is no longer ingesting hazardous materials, no longer faces the burden of astronomical medical bills; and the cost in taxes of all of this benefit which falls upon the manufacturer as well as the consumer does not exceed the amount that would have been expended by private entities otherwise (i.e. if the regulation had not been instituted).

Contrived as this scenario may be, I think this is quite well deserved:

FAIL!

And, no, I do not have a degree in business nor in economics, you elitist (trademark of the McCain campaign.)

The question of whether or not it creates inefficiency or costs money is irrelevant, anyways, when the health or freedom of the people is at stake, don't you agree? Oh, no, you don't because you're a republican; they seem all to be missing the part of the brain that neurotypical people posses that disposes them to behave in ethical ways and see the bigger picture.

/As an aside, behold the wonders and marvels of your much beloved free market capitalism:

High costs of prescription medication!

Inability of the consumer to know that the supplements they take are free from heavy-metal contamination or that they contain what the label says they do since the FDA regards supplements as food items and not drugs and thus takes no part in ensuring their purity and safety! Yay!

The housing market crisis and all that credit default swap bullshiat and the resulting fascist (not socialistic) $800 billion + bailout!

And the list goes on, but please don't let reality change your way of perceiving the world, because then you wouldn't be "staying the course".

//You know what, f*ck you McCain fellating sh*tbags. I am done with Dailytech and tech sites in general since they're occupied largely by nerds who, although they are intelligent enough to know better - in terms of ethics - than to support the republican party, support it anyways out of their egregiously overdeveloped and disgusting sense of acquisitiveness.


RE: WHAT?!?
By jskirwin on 10/6/2008 10:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You could do a lot worse than be anti-business, you know, since business owns this country and is in the process of bringing it to utter ruin?


Business is neutral just like other forms of human cooperative activity are.

Take Science. Is Science bringing about the utter ruin of this country? How about this planet? There is no doubt that some scientific endeavors are damaging the planet, but is all of science to blame for the work of a few evil geniuses?


RE: WHAT?!?
By spread on 10/6/2008 6:01:15 PM , Rating: 1
He is commenting on their business practices. Which are not going to be good for the company in the long term.

Well run businesses which find a balance between profit, customer & employee satisfaction, will end up existing for a long time.

If anything, he is FOR business.


RE: WHAT?!?
By InvertMe on 10/7/2008 10:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Ordr on October 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Typical anti-business attitude.


That's your comment when someone is upset about 1000 people being laid off?

You sir need a swift kick in the nuts.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By kondor999 on 10/7/2008 3:44:19 PM , Rating: 1
If you don't think that the people who mismanage these companies should be held accountable (in some way other than paying them millions in severance), then you're the one who needs to get a clue.

Wait until you get laid off due to the piss-poor decisions made by some idiot whose only true concern is their bail-out package.


RE: WHAT?!?
By BansheeX on 10/6/2008 6:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
eBay is continuing it's trend of screwing people. First it was customers, now it's employees. Worse, they're going to buy another company. Watch THEM get laid off, too. And all for company, ahem, EXECUTIVE growth.


If the employees were more productive than their wages, it will be financially detrimental to have gotten rid of them. Not the opposite. This is basic stuff here, I'm a little surprised you're delusional enough to believe that executives can fire everyone else and maintain the same level of productivity while they go play golf. That's not how it works. They could TRY to do that, and you'll be mad at losing your job, but basic economic principles prevent such strategies from being successful.


By IcePickFreak on 10/6/2008 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
"The workforce reductions are expected to save eBay $150 million annually"

So the average annual salary & benefits for these 1,000 people totaled $150,000 per person?? What the hell did they do?