4 ms·

I just think it's the wrong way to look at things. It's better to cut 30,000 to save the company, than to keep everyone hired and wait for every employee to be

• reuven 11y ago
  Maybe. And I fully admit that given those two choices, it's better to save the company and lay of 30k people. But I do have to wonder how the company grew to be so bloated and large. Perhaps it was unfair for HP to hire them to begin with. I fully recognize that at the end of a day, an unprofitable company doesn't do anyone any good. It's just sad for me to think that the only way to make the company profitable is to lay off such a huge number of employees. I also know how big-company layoffs often work; they often don't take someone's quality of work into consideration, but rather the project or division in which they worked. Thus, I'm sure some great people will be looking for jobs, through no fault of their own.
  • scottkduncan 11y ago
    A lot goes back to the EDS acquisition, which seemed doomed almost from the start. A poorly planned acquisition + longstanding internal issues will almost inevitably get you to this kind of outcome.
• Angostura 11y ago
  It depends. If you are pretty sure that this is temporary revenue issue, with identified reasons, and know that you will need all your employees in 12 months time, it may be worth to ask for salary cuts.
• s73v3r 11y ago
  Is it? I mean, even the people who survive the layoffs are going to know that the company doesn't give a shit about them, and as such, they're not gonna care about the company. People who don't care about the company aren't going to work as hard.