• @helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    15 months ago

    which lowers profits for the original company forcing managers to try to extract more from workers to maintain profits and prevent closures.

    That makes no sense. Why would you fabricate running costs of a business that the employees or managers will never see or care about?

    If they sold these properties and these costs suddenly disappeared, are managers going to suddenly allow their employees to slack off because they “don’t need” that much money? No. There’s no such thing as “enough money” in a corporate environment.

    This sounds a whole lot like a made-up conspiracy theory.

    • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      05 months ago

      So explain why this is one of the many things Cerberus did after it bought albertsons-safeway and one of the resulting actions taken was to axe the pension program?

                • @Fedizen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  25 months ago

                  My understanding: In the case of Cerberus they wanted the original company to look less profitable’ Afaik this is one of many accounting trick to make the portion of the business with the most negotiable costs (such as labor) as unprofitable as possible on paper so they can justify things like pension cuts. By splitting it up it obfuscates the finances to the unions and gives a negotiating advantage without really damaging investor profits and they can then sell the now more risky corporation off while keeping the real estate as part of their portfolio.

                  Like its not always this blatant and there’s also some tax incentives and other things mixed in there but overall the goal of most businesses since the 80s is to move more money from wages —> profits. If they can consolidate the market a little as well, that’s bonus. “Competition is sin” after all.