3 ms·

> if those 5000 people are doing work that is not valuable That’s a big “if.” When under pressure, managers and consultants will always claim they are cutting

> if those 5000 people are doing work that is not valuable That’s a big “if.” When under pressure, managers and consultants will always claim they are cutting unproductive people, but time after time it turns out that they also cut things that were vital to the company’s long-term future. This is especially true when the spotlight glare of a possible sale or IPO is on them, they will do anything to make its seem as if the company is more profitable/less unprofitable NOW, at the expense of the future. I have no visibility into WeWork and these people, but I don’t automatically grant that the company will be better off without the work of these people. (Ok, maybe the wave pool folks can go. And everyone in finance, WeWork’s finance and corporate governance people sound like “they’re so crooked they could hide behind a spiral staircase.”)

throwaway66920 7y ago
> That’s a big “if.” When under pressure, managers and consultants will always claim they are cutting unproductive people, but time after time it turns out that they also cut things that were vital to the company’s long-term future. Source?
- braythwayt 7y ago
  Anecdata from following business and public sector news since the 1980s. Consider all the companies that would lay people off, claiming a headcount reduction, and give them a one-time package. So there is an immediate hit, to be made up for in the long run by lower ongoing operating costs, right? Only nope, the eliminated functions were still necessary, so many of the laid-off employees come back as consultants, and charge more than their fully loaded costs as former employees. Companies doing that gained a certain amount of flexibility, it’s always easier to get rid of a consultant than an employee, but all-too-often the company would trumpet the reduction in headcount and savings in salaries, while saying nothing about the need to increase operating costs on consultants, &c. Again, I have no visibility into WeWork. Anything could be going on there. I simply don’t automatically grant that companies can perform big layoffs and magically only get rid of people who were producing less than they cost. And I don’t automatically grant that companies will perform the layoffs, and then actually realize the gains they promised.

throwaway66920 7y ago

> That’s a big “if.” When under pressure, managers and consultants will always claim they are cutting unproductive people, but time after time it turns out that they also cut things that were vital to the company’s long-term future. Source?

braythwayt 7y ago
Anecdata from following business and public sector news since the 1980s. Consider all the companies that would lay people off, claiming a headcount reduction, and give them a one-time package. So there is an immediate hit, to be made up for in the long run by lower ongoing operating costs, right? Only nope, the eliminated functions were still necessary, so many of the laid-off employees come back as consultants, and charge more than their fully loaded costs as former employees. Companies doing that gained a certain amount of flexibility, it’s always easier to get rid of a consultant than an employee, but all-too-often the company would trumpet the reduction in headcount and savings in salaries, while saying nothing about the need to increase operating costs on consultants, &c. Again, I have no visibility into WeWork. Anything could be going on there. I simply don’t automatically grant that companies can perform big layoffs and magically only get rid of people who were producing less than they cost. And I don’t automatically grant that companies will perform the layoffs, and then actually realize the gains they promised.