#culture

Don't do them any favors. Please. Don't do the work left behind by those who were kicked out. The leadership wants you to do it. They want to see all the work getting done with fewer people so they can say, see, we were right to cut those employees. Even if those left are breaking their backs to keep this place running. Don't give them the satisfaction.

Here's what I've gleaned so far and I'm certainly hoping the new year will shed some.real light on things. Please feel free to add anything I may have forgotten or missed.

So Dan comes in and touts himself many things, including an authority on AI, even so much as smackin coffee lips about it at the white house.

He's uber excited for this "new Verizon" that will be scappy and non-bureaucratic, with inital claims that no other carrier will be able to easily replicate what we're going to do.

To accomplish this mastery of his mind, we obviously must have massive cuts to fund the multi-billion dollar mystery venture.

And so far, this has consisted of a mega layoff, a declaration laden in hypocrisy that our culture must shift to starting meetings on time so we are no longer sloppy, and a story about a cancer patient who was allowed to break contract, implying that delighting our customers mean we will now be more giving to all who want/need special cost-related provisions.

I fail to see the connection. In fact, as I typed it out, I felt an overwhelming sense of nausea come over one me. Something doesn't feel right.

They don't care about performance. It's you get eaten no matter what situation.

Know two people with multiple write ups with written documention in insights who are still on here, their teammates on the other hand got laid off..

Beloved company is long gone. If you notice, they took away soda again.

Exactly what @a3+1kc55g9pz said.

Is anyone else tired of only being motivated by the threat of losing their job? It is absolutely draining to work this way. There is nothing positive left, just constant pressure and anxiety. We deserve better than this.

The company needs to leave block schedules for long term associates. We have earned it with all the mess we have done over the years. Long term associates are the back bone and have earned the company a lot of money. Leave it a line we have a life out side of work

Why is it that every Teams meeting with the mothership has 9 people in Dallas who weren't on the original invite? I mean there are 4 on the invite and 13 show up.

They have no idea what's going on, they don't need to be there, and they ki-l the meeting result by asking ridiculously stupid questions. It's like the kid on the PeeWee football or Little League team that never got into the game jumping into a mud puddle to look like they played.

And yes, there ARE stupid questions.

it is very much a fiserv pattern over the years to cycle in leaders for a couple of years. they create havoc, fire loyal employees and then they are gone. you get some stability and then the next one shows up. this more than anything destroyed fiserv

The culture and new management in this company have become so toxic that I cannot stand it anymore, and I am planning my exit. I know some employees have left to non-competitors and they were still put on garden leave, but does that happen to everyone? Have there been situations where the whole notice period needs to be served?

Netflix and the Hollywood End Game
Monday, December 8, 2025

Warner Bros. started with distribution. Just after the turn of the twentieth century, Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner bought a second hand projector and began showing short films in mining towns across Ohio and Pennsylvania. In 1907 they purchased their first permanent theater in New Castle, Pennsylvania. Around the same time, they began distributing films to other theaters, and by 1908 they were producing their own movies in California. In 1923 the brothers formally incorporated as Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., becoming one of the five major Hollywood studios.

What the brothers realized early on was that distribution was not a particularly good business. You had to maintain the theater, source films to show, and your profit was capped by seating capacity, which you had to work constantly to fill. Every empty seat represented revenue lost forever. Producing films, on the other hand, was far more lucrative. A movie could be made once and monetized repeatedly.

In this sense, Hollywood was the tech industry before there was a tech industry. Studios invested heavily upfront in assets that could be leveraged again and again. While Warner Bros. and its peers did at times own large theater chains as part of vertically integrated businesses, the 1948 Paramount decrees forced a breakup. The theaters were spun out because content creation was simply the better business.

That business improved over time. Television created expansive new licensing opportunities for films and later TV shows. Homes had more televisions than cities had theaters, and access was constant. Home video added another window, allowing movies to generate revenue through rentals and sales. The largest windfall came from the cable bundle, where roughly 90 percent of households paid increasing monthly fees for access to vast amounts of content they mostly did not watch. Hollywood revenue became a de facto annuity.

Internet Distribution and Aggregation

Netflix, founded in 1997, also began with distribution, specifically DVDs by mail. Its streaming service launched in 2007, exactly 100 years after the Warner brothers bought their first theater. The differences were fundamental. Internet distribution meant Netflix was available everywhere, with no physical infrastructure to maintain. Every additional customer carried near zero marginal cost, and the potential market was theoretically the entire world.

Over time, Netflix, like Warner Bros. before it, backward integrated into content production. Unlike traditional studios, however, Netflix’s content production has always existed solely to serve its distribution. Netflix understood something Hollywood was slow to grasp. On the Internet, distribution is even more scalable than content.

This is not immediately obvious. Content is scarce and exclusive, while Internet access is universal. Yet universal access creates an abundance of content far beyond what anyone can consume. This shifts power to Aggregators that organize content on behalf of users, delivering a satisfying experience. Consumers flock to the Aggregator, suppliers follow, content increases, and the cycle reinforces itself. Over time, the largest Aggregators gain overwhelming advantages in customer acquisition and churn reduction. That is the true source of their economic power.

Hollywood studios learned this lesson painfully over the past decade. As Netflix grew and commanded a superior stock multiple despite producing what many considered inferior content, studios believed they could win by leveraging their content libraries. Content was king in a world constrained by physical distribution. On the Internet, customer acquisition and retention in a world of infinite alternatives matter more. That was Netflix’s advantage, and it has only grown.

## Netflix Buys Warner Bros.

On Friday, Netflix announced it would acquire Warner Bros. for $72 billion. The deal follows Warner Bros. Discovery’s plan to split its studios and HBO Max from its cable networks. The transaction values Warner Discovery shares at $27.75, with an enterprise value of approximately $82.7 billion.

Paramount had submitted a $30 per share all cash bid for the entire Warner Bros. Discovery business, including cable networks. Netflix, by contrast, is acquiring only the Warner Bros. studio assets. Reports suggest the remaining business is being valued at roughly $5 per share, implying Netflix effectively outbid Paramount.

It is also worth noting the asymmetry in resources. Paramount’s bid would not have been supported by its operating business, which is valued around $14 billion, but by the personal wealth of David Ellison’s family. Netflix, meanwhile, is valued at approximately $425 billion and generated $9 billion in cash flow over the past year. This was not a fair fight.

This outcome aligns with a scenario outlined in 2016, where Netflix was positioned not as another cable channel, but as a dominant Aggregator with power over suppliers. Netflix’s superior viewing experience drove user acquisition. Its user base attracted suppliers, which improved its offerings, which attracted more users. In the most optimistic outcome, Netflix would become the only TV service consumers need.

One obvious path would have been Netflix becoming the primary buyer for Hollywood suppliers, as seen in its relationship with Sony. However, several developments may have pushed Netflix toward outright ownership.

In 2019, Netflix launched Formula 1: Drive to Survive. The show dramatically increased the value of Formula 1 media rights, yet Netflix captured none of that upside. In 2023, NBCUniversal licensed Suits to Netflix, turning a dormant library show into a streaming phenomenon and revealing Netflix’s ability to dramatically increase IP value. In 2025, KPop Demon Hunters became a global hit, largely enabled by Netflix’s algorithmic distribution.

Great content still needs distribution and effortless access to prove its worth. KPop Demon Hunters succeeded on merit, but only because those merits were accessible on the world’s largest streaming service.

Netflix executives appear to have concluded that licensing leaves money on the table. If Netflix can uniquely increase IP value, owning that IP becomes the logical step. Forcing consolidation in Hollywood and removing a rival streamer in the process only strengthens the case, despite the risks and high price.

## Netflix’s Market and Threat

The removal of a rival streamer raises regulatory scrutiny. Media mergers receive intense oversight, and this deal will be no exception. President Trump publicly noted concerns about market share, signaling a lengthy Justice Department review.

This deal differs from past cases. It is partly vertical, with a distributor acquiring a supplier, which is typically approved. However, Netflix is likely to make Warner Bros. content exclusive over time, sacrificing short term licensing revenue for long term pricing power.

It is also partly horizontal, as Netflix is effectively acquiring and shutting down a competing streaming service. Horizontal mergers receive greater scrutiny because they reduce competition. Netflix may argue that HBO Max customers largely overlap with Netflix subscribers, and that consumers benefit by paying for fewer services in the short term.

Ultimately, the case hinges on market definition. If defined narrowly as subscription streaming, Netflix faces challenges. If defined as TV viewing broadly, including linear TV and YouTube, Netflix’s share is far smaller, and its primary threat becomes clear.

That threat is YouTube. YouTube dominates consumer time spent, including on TVs, and does so with content acquired for free. It will always have more new content than any professional studio.

Professionally produced content’s advantage lies in longevity and rewatchability. Libraries matter. Netflix’s ability to make library content more valuable explains why it may be initiating Hollywood’s end game now. The true threat to Hollywood is not just free distribution, but the fact that anyone can now create content, and that reality is already winning in the market.

Happy Holidays! Hope you like my holiday video. I hope it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Please don't ask me how many FTE's were sacrificed for my video. Love, RO

Confirmed for Digital come January. They've stripped this organization down to nothing, and are so incompetent they can't put any meaningful roadmap or plans into place. This place is truly disgusting and leadership are cowards.

I've been watching all of Dan's interviews, and attended his online Webex updates. Based on RIF execution and the substance of everything I've seen. My comment for our pretend cowboy/mixed martial arts master/Self proclaimed overachiever and coffee aficionado is: ALL HAT NO CATTLE!

Brandt is once again asking for toys for tots meanwhile we’re all struggling with penny's for raises. Also new people in the same division are being given bonuses when veterans of this place are not? Something’s gotta change. Management has taken a downward turn in the last 10 years. We have greedy clowns running this place. No longer a good place to work. More responsibilities and no compensation. This is bull sh……

Watch the link below titled "Why Companies Are LYING About Mass Layoffs":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEA7vQKJ8aQ

Squad leader here in ET. Good shares (>1000), Bonus (~100%) but zero raise. I was told "Abby mandated no base raise for agile roles in ET" but I'm not buying it.

Any squad leads, scrum masters and chapter leads in ET can attest to the contrary?

Even all agiles roles in ET got no raise, we know it's not the case in other BU. So it's most likely from the bean counter Bill.

Folks, We all knew it was a farce from the beginning. 95% of those selected to join LCS were known to be unproductive, unoriginal yes men backstabbers.

It is time the leadership say that all from top (ex-VP to lowly minds from rando tech people with fake strategic titles) who have been an energetic part of theLow Carbon Solutions fraud be laid off.

The emperor's new clothes? Nope. The emperor's new car. Enough with the hype already when it comes to EVs amongst other things. Needs and wants. And fools. A fool and his money are soon parted? Nope. They are "always" parted. Depreciation for the sake of newness is a wonderful investment? I have a dime to sell you for a dollar. Why the weird look? It's a very special dime. It is a new dime. Now where did I put that 5 dollar bill. It's a special one. I will sell it to you for a thousand dollars. Not everyone can afford that. That makes you special. Oh look! I have a one hundred dollar bill. It's a very special one!

I find it almost comical that companies still wrap RTO in “collaboration and efficiency” fluff, when we all know it’s really about pushing people out cheaply. Add in micromanagement and a pathological need for total control, and it becomes truly demeaning and ridiculous. Utterly unnecessary for efficiency, performance, or teamwork. But then again, the substance has clearly never been the priority.

Town hall became “all about me” CFO spends 30 minutes talking about himself and his wife instead of the growth, health of the company. While he was patting himself on the back for taking the job, I got 35 emails and 2 phone calls I then had to deal with so he can get paid.
OP: @a5+1kc6wprqe

Meanwhile, they are looking for ways to pay us less or push us out. Also, offshoring galore.

When someone has no idea how to manage and cannot work with people, they default to barking orders and scaring everyone into compliance. It is the classic bully move, and somehow it is exactly the behavior that keeps getting praised and rewarded here. The ones who build people up get ignored, and the ones who tear people down keep climbing. Completely illogical.

I’m not going to disclosure company confidential information but that was a lot of good things shown and discussed at the town hall.

So much for all your past x% growth on a small amount is still a small amount commentaries related to Viya.

Ok now discount everything that was said and tear into the demos as subpar engineers. Go.

I just read the article in the post gazette regarding PNC. I’m not going to discuss any particular company, but what I will chime in on is that it is not ANY company‘s fault that downtown Pittsburgh has fallen apart and no one comes downtown anymore. They have continued to build more housing instead of investing in stores for people to shop. The crime is worse downtown. People have been as--ulted and shot in broad daylight. The whole downtown smells like mari--ana and ur--e. It is an embarrassment of a city and I can’t believe that the NFL draft is coming here next year.

And my final comment… regardless of what company you work for, forcing employees to come downtown is not going to help the economy or boost our city because people are struggling with the money that they are making, and can’t afford to go out and eat every day or park every day. A lot more people are probably using public transportation. I know I couldn’t afford to pay $25 a day to park. In the summer when I would come into work, I used to walk downtown on my lunch but now I’m afraid to. I stay in the building during my lunch. Just off the top of my head I recall a man walking around downtown with a machete, and also a different man was as--ulting women and exposing himself. As a woman, men in leadership positions need to understand the fear that women have of getting as--ulted. Thankfully, this has not happened to me, but I know someone that this happened to downtown. She is traumatized.

If the mayor of the city is going to put pressure on local companies to bring their employees into work to boost the downtown economy, it is not going to work. We are not all millionaires that can afford to go out and eat every day and shop at Larimer‘s. They have removed all of the cheaper, eating places like McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Arby’s and others. To eat lunch at one of the restaurants downtown plan on dishing out at least $30 for a meal. We in the middle class do not make enough money to do that.

Please note these views are of my own opinion, and I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else, trying to represent a company or speaking on behalf of any particular company.

Yes

Who’s bringing the popcorn?! Any thoughts on what will be announced / shared?

Anyone feel that unmarried and childless are ranked lower as compared to stay at home spouse? I’ve always suspected this to be a subconscious bias … “he doesn’t need it as much as him, he’s got a family”. Weirds me out that Career Connect has marital status.

With all these leadership announcements, do we think these senior leaders (Manmohan Mahajan (Finance), Lanesha Minnix (legal), Beth Leonard (Corporate Affairs), Erick Rudiak (CISO), etc., to name a few of the most recent ones) all "decided to leave Walgreens" on their own or, do you think Sycamore laid them off?

I’m hearing some people got moved from exempt to non-exempt (ie hourly pay instead of salary) Is this true? I can’t imagine people being happy about it?

Nowhere is safe in this economy but in over 7 years with PepsiCo my conclusion is this company is one of the most unstable I’ve ever been associated with. And unlike some that made cuts for somewhat plausible reasons - like industry downturns, natural disasters etc, with PepsiCo it’s their approach to prosperity: cover up for blatant mismanagement by senior leadership by slashing rank and file workers. Horrible business model.

An on point post by @a7+1kc2hcctd.

My team got hit, and we ended up losing two of our strongest people. In all honesty, if I was laid off instead of them, I'd understand. They've been here longer, they know their jobs, and they have so much institutional knowledge, and yet they're gone. We also have some low performers, and all of them are still here. Can somebody please explain the logic behind this?

I have been at this company for 5 months and it’s nothing like it was sold to be in my interviews….. the promise of hybrid work just to be forced back into office. The promise of an upbeat environment just for it to be dull most days. I’ve heard through the grapevine that so many people aren’t happy….. Granted it’s better than Wells in more ways than not lol, but Man!? Am I the only person hired in the least year that feels like I was lied to?

Oh, the irony.....

https://www.crn.com/news/running-your-business/2025/crn-women-of-the-year-2025-the-winners?page=14

But from her perspective, that all pales in comparison to her ability to always put people first, elevate rising leaders, empower countless women and leave every organization stronger than she found it.

I fired a bunch of people, I have no heart, no harmony and zero hunger... I just drove a company right off the cliff, so sure, give me a lifetime award! I even dug out my amazing expensive ugly dress that just screams Fuchsia!! I am hoping to get an invite to the Met Gala next year!

Hertz will enthusiastically fork over a six-figure salary for the prestigious privilege of “leading” people on Teams—usually squeezed somewhere between your mid-morning nap, your daily Starbucks pilgrimage, your hair appointment, a quick load of laundry, a light workout, a heart-to-heart with your work-from-home spouse, and—naturally—your semi-professional pickleball training.

All while the company is basically on fire. Why visit a location when you can watch the flames from the comfort of your couch? Besides, going onsite requires effort, pants, and possibly arranging a babysitter. Absolutely not.

And here’s the best part: you too can snag one of these do-nothing, add-no-value positions. The secret formula? Olympic-level a-s-kissing, a PhD in micromanagement, and the uncanny ability to write “notes” like you’re transcribing a Supreme Court hearing.

Wondering how to land one of these cushy roles? Easy. Hertz will invent a work-from-home, zero-deliverables, six-figure job just for you—as long as they like you. So warm up that nose, dust off those “Excel skills,” and practice looking extremely busy while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Dreams really do come true.

When looking for a job, let the technology work for you. Set up job alerts on LinkedIn. When you see a job, post immediately because sometimes postings get pulled quickly. Bring your laptop with you to the office. Take a lunch and use that time to look for jobs. Know you will go on interviews and get ghosted. You will take various personality tests and get ghosted. If someone tells you they are interested, know they might ghost you. Know if you work with a placement firm and they find you a role that is not a good match, they will ghost you. Rejection is part of the process. I was not prepared for that.

It took me 7 months of rejection to find a new role. I applied for 3 to 7 jobs every week on average. In all types of industries. And in the end, I found a job that is remote (but with 2 offices within driving distance) that is paying me 35% more for less responsibility. The culture is far better. We like our employees here. I should have done this years ago.

Reposted from @aw+1kc48va7v to make sure more people read it. ALl credit goes to the OP.

I’m a TDP who’s been with AT&T for two years. I’m proud of the work I do, I enjoy my team, and I came into this program excited to grow here. But after two years of watching wave after wave of TDPs walk away, I’m convinced leadership needs to hear this whether they want to or not.

Here’s the reality from inside the program:

Most TDPs enjoy the work. Most enjoy their teams. And most came in valuing the opportunities AT&T could offer.

But the 5 day RTO mandate is the single biggest deal breaker, by a mile.
Not culture. Not pay. Not opportunities.
RTO. Five days. Every week.

The average commute for TDPs is 30–60+ minutes each way, often longer for those assigned to Dallas or Atlanta rotations. That’s 10–15 hours a week spent commuting just to sit on Teams calls we could’ve taken from home, using the same AT&T network we sell to customers for remote productivity.

And us TDPs see what leadership refuses to acknowledge:
Almost every competing employer offers hybrid or remote flexibility with higher pay. Once people finish the program, they leave. Not because they want to, but because staying means burning out.

Culture is not slogans or emails, you can’t speak it into existence. It’s what people feel every day.
And right now, we feel exhausted, unheard, and disillusioned.

That August CEO email laid out “values” that many of us don’t recognize in the company’s actions. The takeaway among TDPs wasn’t alignment, it was the sinking realization that leadership has no intention of returning to hybrid work. Morale tanked after that message and any remaining hope went with it.

If leadership wants to retain talent, real talent, the next generation of engineers, analysts, PMs, and leaders then you need to fix what’s actually broken.

TDPs aren’t leaving because the work is hard.
They’re leaving because the system is broken.

A rigid 5 day RTO policy in 2026, at a telecommunications company that literally sells the ability to work from anywhere, is not just outdated it’s self inflicted brain drain.

You don’t have a recruiting problem.
You have a retention crisis… one that’s absolutely solvable. And if you decide not to change then eventually you'll have no one under 40 working here.

Return to hybrid.
Respect people’s time.
Align actions with the culture you claim to value.

Because here’s the part leadership should really pay attention to:

If you keep the 5 day mandate, you will lose the majority of your young talent.
Not gradually, but all at once.

And I say this as someone who wants to stay. But I, like many others, will be exploring other options next year if nothing changes.

I know this forum may not be the “official” place to say this, but it is the only place where employees feel safe being honest. So I hope someone high enough up reads this and does something before this program and the talent pipeline it feeds collapses under the weight of decisions that never needed to be this rigid.

There is no business case for 5 day RTO.
There is no cultural case.
There is only the cost, and you’re already paying it.

Good luck with that. My manager is just writing people up to fire them with cause - and then replacing them with offshore labor.

Is this really happening?

Dan, this message is for you.

Restructuring is a strategic necessity, but the way it was executed has exposed a serious problem inside the organization. Many leaders protected low performers simply because they were friends or favorites, while top talent — the people who carried teams, drove results, and supported customers — were the ones eliminated.

We saw the same pattern during the last VSP: some of the strongest minds and most committed employees walked out the door. It’s happening again, and the impact is real. When the people who actually make the company successful are gone, the company doesn’t get stronger — it gets weaker.

Verizon cannot grow if it keeps losing its best people while keeping those who contribute the least. Our customers feel it, our teams feel it, and the culture feels it. Favoritism is not leadership, and it’s not how you build a high-performance organization.

If we want to restore trust, retain talent, and win in the market, we need accountability for how these decisions were made. And we need to start investing in and protecting the hardworking employees who truly move this company forward.

Congratulations Canon, every business school in America will be teaching the “Google Disaster of 2026” case study for generations to come. You will join the likes of Enron, the “New Coke” disaster of the 1980’s, and “Rank & Yank” at General Electric as classic stories of failure and controversy.

The essence of the problem is that the decision-makers do not know, or care, what goes on within the organization. They do not know the tools or use the tools. All they see is the price tag. Need a PP presentation? Secretary will do it. Need a report? Let the bottom feeders pull it. All they say is “collaboration this, collaboration that”. Dude, you can’t even send your own effing emails under your own name. Collaboration doesn’t mean let others do everything for me.

I respect the leaders of small businesses who are in the trenches everyday, hands-on with the daily operations, knowledge of all the systems and processes. Yes, these honorable, hard-working executives do exist, I’ve witnessed it firsthand during my career.

I am absolutely disgusted with how out of touch the decision-makers are at Canon. They don’t care, so neither should you. That’s the way I see it. When employees become apathetic, that’s when the business ceases to exist.

Directly from Google Gemini:

“While Google Workspace is a strong choice for small to medium-sized businesses and those prioritizing real-time collaboration, it may not be appropriate for all large corporations, particularly those with specific needs for deep, complex features, high-level compliance, or existing Microsoft infrastructure.

Potential Shortcomings for Large Corporations:

Feature Depth: Google Workspace applications, such as Google Sheets and Docs, may not be as fully-featured or powerful as traditional desktop applications like Microsoft Excel for complex calculations and specialized functions used by power users.

Existing Infrastructure & Compatibility: Many large enterprises are already deeply integrated into the Microsoft ecosystem (Active Directory, SharePoint, etc.). The cost and disruption of migrating to Google Workspace can outweigh the benefits.

Advanced Administration & Security Controls: While Google Workspace offers robust security and admin tools, Microsoft 365 is often perceived as providing more advanced, granular administrative controls and a long history of enterprise-level security built for highly regulated industries (e.g., finance, healthcare).

Industry-Specific Compliance: For industries that require strict regulatory compliance, the perception is that Microsoft 365 offers more comprehensive and established features, though Google does provide contractual commitments and capabilities to help address requirements like EU data protection laws.

User Inertia: Resistance to change from employees accustomed to the Microsoft suite (Outlook, Word, Excel) can be a significant hurdle to adoption, leading to potential training issues and reduced productivity during a transition.”