4 ms·

assuming they did a 20 minute meeting for each employee thats 233 hours or 29 business days to fire all 700 of them...

nulbyte 5y ago
Just over 233 person-hours of work isn't 233 hours of work. Assuming team sizes average 20, that work can be spread across 35 managers, requiring less than a business day to complete. Even assuming 900 people as mentioned in the headline, that's still less than a day's work. Larger-than-average teams may require more time, but this could still be easily accomplished over two business days.
6510 5y ago
he would have to fire 1000 people to cover the cost
GrinningFool 5y ago
This reads like a solution to a twisted elementary school math problem, but: Assuming 1 manager for 10 employees, that's 90 managers each doing a 3h20 minute block of 20 minute meetings, allowing all to be fired in one morning.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  What if the manager is also getting fired?
VRay 5y ago
That's the cost of doing business, you keep the profits and in exchange you don't treat your employees like fucking garbage. He didn't even need to lay them off, according to the article. He just wanted "a fortress balance sheet going into the holidays"
- missedthecue 5y ago
  From the employees' perspective, who wants to sit around in angst for a month while your friends and colleagues are dropping like flies, wondering if you're next? One and done is the way to do it in my opinion. Dragging out bad news seldom works out well.
  - VRay 5y ago
    You can pass out layoffs across the whole company in a couple of hours through the same infrastructure you use to pass out work items, KPIs, and paychecks
hannasanarion 5y ago
Your unspoken assumption: A company of 6000 employees only has 1 manager/HR rep capable of talking to pink slip recipients.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  Exactly. Hire 20 extra HR people to make that firing faster. Then fire the 20 HR people. It's simple.
PascLeRasc 5y ago
Now do the math on all the less important meetings that you have every day.

Just over 233 person-hours of work isn't 233 hours of work. Assuming team sizes average 20, that work can be spread across 35 managers, requiring less than a business day to complete. Even assuming 900 people as mentioned in the headline, that's still less than a day's work. Larger-than-average teams may require more time, but this could still be easily accomplished over two business days.

6510 5y ago

he would have to fire 1000 people to cover the cost

GrinningFool 5y ago

This reads like a solution to a twisted elementary school math problem, but: Assuming 1 manager for 10 employees, that's 90 managers each doing a 3h20 minute block of 20 minute meetings, allowing all to be fired in one morning.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
What if the manager is also getting fired?

VRay 5y ago

That's the cost of doing business, you keep the profits and in exchange you don't treat your employees like fucking garbage. He didn't even need to lay them off, according to the article. He just wanted "a fortress balance sheet going into the holidays"

missedthecue 5y ago
From the employees' perspective, who wants to sit around in angst for a month while your friends and colleagues are dropping like flies, wondering if you're next? One and done is the way to do it in my opinion. Dragging out bad news seldom works out well.
- VRay 5y ago
  You can pass out layoffs across the whole company in a couple of hours through the same infrastructure you use to pass out work items, KPIs, and paychecks

hannasanarion 5y ago

Your unspoken assumption: A company of 6000 employees only has 1 manager/HR rep capable of talking to pink slip recipients.

Viliam1234 5y ago
Exactly. Hire 20 extra HR people to make that firing faster. Then fire the 20 HR people. It's simple.

PascLeRasc 5y ago

Now do the math on all the less important meetings that you have every day.