4 ms·

There are two sides to this -- layoffs are acts of desperation, and layoffs can be good for a company's health. Here's what I mean. The corporate world seems

by sabat 17y ago

There are two sides to this -- layoffs are acts of desperation, and layoffs can be good for a company's health. Here's what I mean. The corporate world seems to have Layoff Fever. So many of the 2009 layoffs seemed as though they were inspired solely by herd mentality, and perhaps by a desperate attempt to please investors. Layoffs cost a lot of money in severance packages, decreased ability to execute, and probably more. A layoff is a bet against the future. Conversely, though, if you've ever worked at a larger company, you may have noticed people who don't actually seem to do anything except play political games and collect paychecks. It's corporate welfare; they take more away from a company than they contribute. Those people should be laid off in any economy. Unfortunately, because of their political savvy, they usually survive at least the first rounds.

j_baker 17y ago
Those people shouldn't be laid off. They should be fired. There's a big difference.
- sabat 17y ago
  They should be fired, but in practice they rarely are. There's not really a big difference between a firing and a layoff, except in terms of scale. Rarely are whole groups of employees fired, but layoffs are -- well, precisely that. When planning layoffs, managers are usually told to identify the "dead wood" in their organizations -- unproductive, wasteful souls. That'd include our corporate politicians, and in some cases, they are actually included.
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    Because the "identify your deadwood" request is often only used when planning layoffs, managers who don't want to appear uncooperative may warehouse deadwood in good times to have something to sacrifice in bad times. "Why does so-and-so still work here?" can sometimes truthfully be answered "So we'll have someone to lay off when the company calls for 10% cuts."
aminuit 17y ago
FYI the term 'corporate welfare' typically refers to governments giving special treatment to corporations, not corporations tolerating unproductive hangers-on.
- sabat 17y ago
  I'm aware of that usage, but I think it's still OK to use it in a different way. :-)
lmkg 17y ago
I'll flip that on its head: if a company will benefit from layoffs, those people should have already been fired. The fact that they weren't is probably contributing to the dire straits forcing the layoffs. I think the only other time that layoffs are a good idea is if you're closing an entire business unit/department to retreat from a market and focus on your strengths.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "if a company will benefit from layoffs, those people should have already been fired." Or even better, never hired in the first place. Frequent layoffs are evidence of incompetent management, as they keep hiring people they don't actually need and then must let them go again. Better to just go slow on hiring, adding people only when absolutely necessary. Then layoffs are unnecessary.
  - sabat 17y ago
    Good philosophy; I wish companies operated this way. Most don't. I'm talking about big ones here, not the smaller, can-do companies who can't afford "dead wood" at all. The politicos want to build empires, and they hire people who are pliant and will bend to their will, and are not usually competent.

by sabat 17y ago

j_baker 17y ago

Those people shouldn't be laid off. They should be fired. There's a big difference.

sabat 17y ago
They should be fired, but in practice they rarely are. There's not really a big difference between a firing and a layoff, except in terms of scale. Rarely are whole groups of employees fired, but layoffs are -- well, precisely that. When planning layoffs, managers are usually told to identify the "dead wood" in their organizations -- unproductive, wasteful souls. That'd include our corporate politicians, and in some cases, they are actually included.
- sokoloff 17y ago
  Because the "identify your deadwood" request is often only used when planning layoffs, managers who don't want to appear uncooperative may warehouse deadwood in good times to have something to sacrifice in bad times. "Why does so-and-so still work here?" can sometimes truthfully be answered "So we'll have someone to lay off when the company calls for 10% cuts."

aminuit 17y ago

FYI the term 'corporate welfare' typically refers to governments giving special treatment to corporations, not corporations tolerating unproductive hangers-on.

sabat 17y ago
I'm aware of that usage, but I think it's still OK to use it in a different way. :-)

lmkg 17y ago

I'll flip that on its head: if a company will benefit from layoffs, those people should have already been fired. The fact that they weren't is probably contributing to the dire straits forcing the layoffs. I think the only other time that layoffs are a good idea is if you're closing an entire business unit/department to retreat from a market and focus on your strengths.

jimbokun 17y ago
"if a company will benefit from layoffs, those people should have already been fired." Or even better, never hired in the first place. Frequent layoffs are evidence of incompetent management, as they keep hiring people they don't actually need and then must let them go again. Better to just go slow on hiring, adding people only when absolutely necessary. Then layoffs are unnecessary.
- sabat 17y ago
  Good philosophy; I wish companies operated this way. Most don't. I'm talking about big ones here, not the smaller, can-do companies who can't afford "dead wood" at all. The politicos want to build empires, and they hire people who are pliant and will bend to their will, and are not usually competent.