|
|
|
|
|
|
by bitbuilder
1328 days ago
|
|
|
>layoffs don’t consider individual peformance This is not true. The way layoffs almost always work is the CEO tells their VPs they need to cut, say, 10% of their staff. The VPs tell their Directors they need to cut 10% of their staff. And so on, and so forth. And everyone managing people at every step of the way has an unofficial stack ranking in the back of their mind, and they just cut the names at the bottom of that ranking. The person turning in half assed work while being obviously overemployed will be the first to go. |
|
|
Then whoever is up for a promotion gets fired. Because, well I'm not sure. Somewhere between threatening the boss' job and jealousy. This causes a number of not-layed-off people to also leave (just read the comments in this thread to see a few people that will do that). Whatever hope your company ever had of good morale is gone and will never return. Everyone hates each other from this point forward, and hierarchy is determined purely on ability to fire and pay.
Then the consultants get rehired for 20% higher pay, the worst workers first. Then the temps for 10% less, because work isn't getting done, and management finds out once again they never knew what the company is actually doing, that everyone used layoffs for their personal gain, and it's created an accelerating disaster. None of this fixes the problems, whether it's customer service or team morale, that the layoffs created, at best they slow the downward slide.
And I guarantee that it'll turn out to be a lot more expensive than never doing the layoff in the first place.