3 ms·
My fantasy response would be to invert the company's 80/20 hours and let everyone who wants to stay on for 25% of their former hours and 40% of their former pay
by SuoDuanDao 7y ago
My fantasy response would be to invert the company's 80/20 hours and let everyone who wants to stay on for 25% of their former hours and 40% of their former pay. Then only lay off people who didn't take that offer to make up the difference.
But having to actually lay hundreds of people off? TBH I'd probably outsource it to a group of specialists. I could see myself delivering bad news to a handful of people but that many... I'd be useless a few hours into the first day.
- thinkingkong 7y agoYou cant do that without immediately opening yourself up to being sued for “constructive dismissal”. Theres no good way to do them. It always sucks.
- JumpCrisscross 7y agoYou’d also be more likely to lose your top performers.
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoYou wouldn't have to let go everyone who doesn't take the deal if some people did. But everyone who doesn't would be taking the risk that they're not as valuable as they thought. I'm sure some of the 40% who were let go would have been valuable to keep around for their talent, even if their actual job disappeared with the customers.
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoIt's so weird to me that you can dismiss people 'at will' but not offer them reduced responsibilities and pay to stay on. I get that we don't want people doing the professional equivalent of being an awful partner until your S.O. initiates the breakup, but surely it would be useful to let firms get creative when drastic measures are genuinely needed.