3 ms·
It is mentioned that employees have not been helped to find new jobs. But there may be reason for that. It is sometimes the case that for a particularly high-
by mises 8y ago
It is mentioned that employees have not been helped to find new jobs. But there may be reason for that.
It is sometimes the case that for a particularly high-performing, excellent employee, a manager or senior exec might call around to a few friends and see if they have openings. And of course, provide a reference for others. But that is not true of laying off a whole division. No team is comprised of 100%, or even 25%, top performers (usually). A manager shouldn't be expected to put his professional reputation on the line for every person in his division, even if they aren't the best (but good enough to keep on), just because of a lay-off.
- pwinnski 8y agoIt is very common for a company of any reasonable size to provide third-party outplacement services to laid-off employees. Companies like RiseSmart (no association) exist for this. I don't know what the cost is, but it seems like the least a company should do if they want to be considered humane.
- mises 8y agoRiseSmart costs $1,900 for three months for a single employee (their most popular "Ignite" plan). https://www.risesmart.com/talent-mobility-solutions/smb https://www.risesmart.com/talent-mobility-solutions/smb The question may become whether how the company is seen behaving toward its workers vs. how it actually behaves is more important. If layoffs are occurring due to financial struggles, it is very possible that purchasing such a service could force them to lay off more employees due to the unforeseen cost. $1,900 x 50 employees = $95,000, which is the salary of between one and three employees, depending on the industry and level. Should they lose their jobs to fund such a program? If they're actually just doing it for restructuring (not just as a euphemism for financial struggles), you're right that it could be worth doing.