If by poorly ran you mean from a more socialist worker's rights perspective - work to live vs live to work then yes, but from a pure capitalist standpoint, it's an excellently run company. workers are just cogs in the machine - live to work vs work to live.
I think moreso what he is referring to is companies that have an inability to understand and see indirect costs.
Let me give you an example: Where my wife works in government, they don't even provide coffee. Instead, they have some kind of standard pot coffee machine with a workers rule of paying 10 cents for grabbing a cup. So again, let me clarify that: The company will not even provide coffee for their employees. Now anyone with half a brain in Business 101 can tell you that worker happiness has a shitload to do with work performance. If someone can't even get coffee that day because they don't have 10 cents because their company is too much of a cheapass to pay for it, whose fault is it ultimately? I blame the employer because if you can't see that plopping down a few hundred for some coffee + machines for better work performance then you're just fucking retarded.
Same goes for pay raises in relation to company turnover. A good chunk of employers just give their employees a mere 2-3% raise - which barely even keeps up with inflation. I mean I guess I can understand for low-skill based jobs, but the costs of employee turnover is fucking huge. I just don't understand why it's such a hard concept to keep an employee happy and avoid that high-turnover cost of having to find new employees, training new employees, etc..