As regular readers (if that's not an oxymoron) of Ad Aged know, I am no fan of holding companies. Having worked for various ones for the better part of twenty years, I've yet to see what value they add to clients or to those who work for them. Further, their size exerts an oligarchic control over workers in the industry which is anti-competitive and impels wages downward while decreasing worker security.
Here's one example I've recently heard from two different people. Each, at the age of over 50, was fired from senior positions at one holding company agency and then hired back some months later at a different agency at the same holding company but at a lower wage.
So, imagine what would happen if you were making $20/hr. working to build Chevrolets, fired and hired back for $15/hr to build Buicks?
Does that seem fair?
2 comments:
yes because since the 1960's, the buick has been a vastly inferior motorcar. obviously.
Holding companies are only in the business of keeping themselves in business. They have no idea what the worker cogs do other than how much everything costs. I often wonder how much it costs to have a "chief risk officer" and that isn't a billable position.
Post a Comment