5 ms·

>>Garg told Fortune that a month earlier, the company began to review employee productivity data, including missed telephone call rates, number of inbound and o

>>Garg told Fortune that a month earlier, the company began to review employee productivity data, including missed telephone call rates, number of inbound and outbound calls, employees showing up late to meetings with a customer, and other metrics. >>“You guys know that at least 250 of the people terminated were working an average of 2 hours a day while clocking 8 hours+ a day in the payroll system? They were stealing from you and stealing from our customers who pay the bills that pay our bills. Get educated,” Garg told Fortune.

SkittyDog 5y ago
Wait, they only started reviewong employee data ONE MONTH ago?? Thats some serious management incompetence. What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems, and they're just trying to blame their workers to avoid admitting to management problems.
- the-pigeon 5y ago
  Obviously this is "hey HR we need to layoff 900 people, what can we do to make it their fault?" Maybe it's a reasonable cover your ass move but comes off very slimy.
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's in the context of having just gone on a massive hiring spree in the last year+, and the market starting to cool off. I had the same initial thought, but it sounds more like this was about measurement of the recent hirings, not overall. Still not great.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  250 were 2 hours per day. This leaves a lot of room for workers <8 hours.
  - 2fast4you 5y ago
    Can you find one employee that truly works 8 hours a day?
    - ripper1138 5y ago
      Lmao underrated comment
    - tucnak 5y ago
      You found me.
      - 2fast4you 5y ago
        You are 100% productive for 8 hours a day?
        rvba 5y ago
        "The consulting way" is to spend 12-14 hours at work to be productive for 9-10. Similar to crunch, but crunch can be more brutal. Also probably you arent as effective if you just worked for 8 hours, you are still productive though.
        kapp_in_life 5y ago
        Not who you're replying to, but even if I'm not 100% productive I'm also not ignoring phone calls, and showing up late for meetings. All while billing my company for OT
    - beerandt 5y ago
      It's performance based (not entirely timeclock based), so it's more useful as a relative metric. (Although, missed calls, etc, suggests actual availability problems separate from productivity.) Which doesn't necessarily mean anybody was truly working 8 hours per day, but it does suggest that the top/satisfactory tier of employees averaged 4x the productivity for the same number of hours on the timesheet. A 4x multiplier like that isn't explained by a normal distribution curve.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems No- it just suggests/implies the remainder had an average productivity of greater than (2hrs-value/8hrs-pay). That doesn't mean they were or weren't still performing below expectations. The fact that they were selected for layoffs over the retained employees suggests they were the lowest performing segment, regardless of whether that relatively low performance was satisfactory in an absolute sense or not. >What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. And using this logic, if those 650 employees were collectively productive enough to generate a net-positive value, they wouldn't have been fired.
H8crilA 5y ago
So relatable, I myself slacked off at least a few weeks total since the pandemic started. And some of the people I work with have very ... odd response times, even when I ask about things they're very engaged in.

SkittyDog 5y ago

Wait, they only started reviewong employee data ONE MONTH ago?? Thats some serious management incompetence. What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems, and they're just trying to blame their workers to avoid admitting to management problems.

the-pigeon 5y ago
Obviously this is "hey HR we need to layoff 900 people, what can we do to make it their fault?" Maybe it's a reasonable cover your ass move but comes off very slimy.
beerandt 5y ago
It's in the context of having just gone on a massive hiring spree in the last year+, and the market starting to cool off. I had the same initial thought, but it sounds more like this was about measurement of the recent hirings, not overall. Still not great.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
250 were 2 hours per day. This leaves a lot of room for workers <8 hours.
- 2fast4you 5y ago
  Can you find one employee that truly works 8 hours a day?
  - ripper1138 5y ago
    Lmao underrated comment
  - tucnak 5y ago
    You found me.
    - 2fast4you 5y ago
      You are 100% productive for 8 hours a day?
      - rvba 5y ago
        "The consulting way" is to spend 12-14 hours at work to be productive for 9-10. Similar to crunch, but crunch can be more brutal. Also probably you arent as effective if you just worked for 8 hours, you are still productive though.
      - kapp_in_life 5y ago
        Not who you're replying to, but even if I'm not 100% productive I'm also not ignoring phone calls, and showing up late for meetings. All while billing my company for OT
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It's performance based (not entirely timeclock based), so it's more useful as a relative metric. (Although, missed calls, etc, suggests actual availability problems separate from productivity.) Which doesn't necessarily mean anybody was truly working 8 hours per day, but it does suggest that the top/satisfactory tier of employees averaged 4x the productivity for the same number of hours on the timesheet. A 4x multiplier like that isn't explained by a normal distribution curve.
beerandt 5y ago
>Which means the other 650 employees they fired did not have productivity problems No- it just suggests/implies the remainder had an average productivity of greater than (2hrs-value/8hrs-pay). That doesn't mean they were or weren't still performing below expectations. The fact that they were selected for layoffs over the retained employees suggests they were the lowest performing segment, regardless of whether that relatively low performance was satisfactory in an absolute sense or not. >What's with this weaselly language, too... "At least 250 employees" also means "No more than 250 employees". If it was more, they would have just said the bigger number to prove their point. And using this logic, if those 650 employees were collectively productive enough to generate a net-positive value, they wouldn't have been fired.

H8crilA 5y ago

So relatable, I myself slacked off at least a few weeks total since the pandemic started. And some of the people I work with have very ... odd response times, even when I ask about things they're very engaged in.