??? 但是,，上面說的那些首席執(zhí)行官并不關(guān)心員工的死活,，董事會的成員同樣如此，他們對裁員也不以為意,。（事實(shí)上,，有些董事會成員還是裁員的積極倡導(dǎo)者。）他們并沒有意識到,，裁員往往意味著公司的高管經(jīng)營不善,，未能準(zhǔn)確地預(yù)測用工需求——而董事會成員也未能確保公司得到有效的管理。

????然而,，實(shí)際問題比管理層缺乏責(zé)任感更嚴(yán)重,，因?yàn)槎聲堑珱]有因?yàn)楣芾韺拥氖毝枰詰徒洌炊o予豐厚的獎勵,。

????以最近摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）爆出的案子為例,。據(jù)《紐約時報》（J.P. Morgan）報道，一宗抵押貸款支持證券欺詐案的文件顯示,，“摩根大通及……華盛頓互惠銀行（Washington Mutual）,、貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）為了追求利潤，藐視質(zhì)量控制并忽略問題,，有時候甚至完全掩蓋問題,。為了提高利潤,，華盛頓互惠銀行實(shí)施了‘斯嘉麗計劃’（Project Scarlett），將盡職調(diào)查職員裁汰了25%,?！?/p>

????摩根大通董事會是怎么處理這件事的呢？盡管CEO杰米?戴蒙裁減了人員——或者說沒能招募到銀行需要的人才,，但在去年“倫敦鯨事件”發(fā)生之前,，董事會給了他創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的高額獎金，因?yàn)楣镜睦麧檮?chuàng)下了新高

????摩根大通的做法遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不是個例,。大多數(shù)董事會在公司大規(guī)模裁員的情況下依然給高管支付高額獎金,。

????據(jù)《福布斯》雜志（Forbes ，2012年9月）的報道,，惠普的梅格?惠特曼凈身價17億美元,。惠普當(dāng)前的經(jīng)營狀況太差,，仿佛只有裁員將近3萬人才能扭轉(zhuǎn)頹勢,。于是董事會以“根據(jù)績效支付工資”為由，2012年支付了惠特曼超過1,500萬美元的高額年薪,。盡管這一年她的辦公室很?。c(diǎn)擊此處查看圖片），但財會數(shù)據(jù)顯示,，她在這一年的出游可以用奢華來形容,。她的工資當(dāng)中有20萬美元是私人飛機(jī)使用費(fèi)。（單單是這筆錢就足以創(chuàng)造一,、兩個工作崗位了,。）

????同甘共苦的精神到哪里去了？有些公司的辦公室上貼著這樣的標(biāo)語：“團(tuán)結(jié)一心,，眾志成城”（"TEAM – together everyone achieves more."）,，這是我見過的最虛偽的團(tuán)隊標(biāo)語之一。董事會應(yīng)該踐行它——如果做不到,，就應(yīng)該把它從墻上撕掉,。

????據(jù)加拿大媒體《紀(jì)事先驅(qū)報》（Chronicle Herald）報道，在RIM（Research in Motion）,，即現(xiàn)在的黑莓（Blackberry）,，哈利法克斯的員工抱怨去年公司的裁員行動慘無人道，但很多人都敢怒不敢言,。

????烏奇捷利稱：“要想解決這個問題,，并不需要什么奇招。真正重要的是樹立起維權(quán)意識,。員工應(yīng)該意識到……他們可以說不,。他們并不一定非得妥協(xié),。”

????裁員并非不可避免,。他說：“上世紀(jì)70年代末，裁員的現(xiàn)象開始出現(xiàn)時,，連天主教會都發(fā)出牧函,，反對裁員，從而阻止了這一現(xiàn)象的蔓延,。我們每個人都應(yīng)該對裁員說不,。”

????摩根大通計劃裁員17,000人,，惠普計劃裁員29,000人,，像這些公司的股東應(yīng)該對高管領(lǐng)獎金的做法予以譴責(zé)。只有這樣,，才能重新激發(fā)有價值的對話,，讓人們意識到就業(yè)保障的重要性。對高管們的天價薪酬說“不”可以傳遞出一個清晰的信號,，那就是,，一旦高管認(rèn)定公司需要裁員，董事會也會扣減他們的獎金,。

????本文作者埃莉諾?布洛斯?jié)h姆是董事會咨詢公司價值聯(lián)盟和公司治理聯(lián)盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的首席執(zhí)行官,。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Nasca

??? But just as the CEOs who spoke with the investment manager weren't concerned with employee hardship, layoffs don't bother board members much either. (In fact, some are happy advocates of the process.) They don't recognize layoffs for what they too often are: a failure by top executives to properly manage the business and forecast needs -- and a failure of the board to ensure the right management is in place.

????But it's actually worse than just a lack of accountability, because rather than ding management for these failures, boards reward management for these missteps.

????Take the recently reported case of J.P. Morgan (JPM). Documents in a mortgage backed security fraud case "reveal that J.P. Morgan, as well as … Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns, flouted quality controls and ignored problems, sometimes hiding them entirely, in a quest for profit," theNew York Times reported. "In an initiative called Project Scarlett, Washington Mutual slashed its due diligence staff by 25% as part of an effort to bolster profit."

????And yet what is the J.P. Morgan board's response? CEO Jamie Dimon lays off staff -- or fails to hire those his bank needs -- and the board, until the London Whale trading disaster last year, paid him record bonuses for record profits.

????J.P. Morgan is in good company. Most boards continue to give huge bonuses to execs while they lay off workers.

????HP's Meg Whitman has a net worth of $1.7 billion, according to Forbes (as of September 2012). And the company is in such bad shape, it seems, that it needs to cut nearly 30,000 employees. So the HP board used its own "pay for performance philosophy" to justify annual compensation of over $15 million for Whitman for 2012. While her 2012 office may have been small (you can see it here), the accounting showed she traveled in grand style last year. Her paycheck included $200,000 for personal aircraft use. (That alone is the equivalent of a job or two.)

????What happened to the idea of shared pain? One of the most insincere signs I see hanging in some corporate offices is the poster that says, "TEAM – together everyone achieves more." Boards should make sure they live up to that sign -- or take it off the wall.

????At Research in Motion, now Blackberry (BBRY), employees in Halifax complained last year that the company's layoffs were inhumane, according to the Chronicle Herald in Canada. But many workers don't speak out.

????According to Uchitelle, "the real solution isn't some silver bullet. It's a realization among workers, people, that … they can push back. They don't have to surrender."

????Layoffs aren't inevitable. "When we started the layoffs in the late '70s, even the Catholic Church was putting out pastoral letters against layoffs and stopped doing so. We, all of us, have pulled back," he said.

????To reignite a valuable dialogue on the benefits of job security, shareholders need to rebuke bonus pay for corporate executives at companies like J.P. Morgan, which plans 17,000 in staff cuts and HP, which is chopping 29,000. No votes on pay would send a clear message that when executives determine they need to cut staff, boards should slash their bonuses too.

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance, a board advisory firm.